Abu
Bakar Bashir:
"We should not be ashamed
to be labelled ‘radical’"
The radical Indonesian cleric is interviewed by Malaysian
academic.
Aug 19, 2006
Interview
with Ustaz Abu Bakar Bashir
By Farish A. Noor
Malaysian Today.
Ustaz
Abu Bakar Bashir, founder and head of the Pesantren al-Mukmin
of Ngruki, Surakarta, is perhaps the most well-known Muslim
scholar in Southeast Asia today.
Following the bombing in Bali in 2002, he was accused of
being involved in the attack and subsequently brought to
trial and sent to prison.
After his release last month, he has once again appeared
on the political scene of Indonesia and ASEAN as a major
figure in the contemporary development of popular Islam.
Despite the accusations that were levelled against him,
many Indonesians we met expressed support for the man and
skepticism over the trial, arguing instead that the Indonesian
government was forced to act against Bashir due to pressure
from Western governments including the US and Australia.
Malaysian academic Farish A. Noor recently visited the Pesantren
al-Mukmin in Solo and met with Ustaz Bashir himself.
The following is a transcript of the interview (done in
Bahasa Indonesia) with Bashir where he talks about:
* The current state of ASEAN,
* The political conflict in the Arab world,
* American influence in Southeast Asia and
* The struggle of Muslims in Indonesia.
Farish.
We have just returned from a demonstration where you
and the students of Ngruki were present along with members
of the Majlis Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI), Front Pembela Islam
(FPI), Front Pemuda Islam Solo (FPIS), Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia
(HTI), Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) and others.
When you spoke to the crowd you focused mainly on the current
conflict in Lebanon and the aggression of the Israelis.
You also criticised the weakness of the Muslim leaders of
the world. Why has it come to this? Recently there was the
OIC meeting in Kuala Lumpur and the statement they came
up with was lame and non-conclusive; why are Muslim governments
so scared to speak up and call for united action?
Bashir:
This is to be expected from them (Muslim leaders). What
else can they do? What else can they say? There is not a
single Muslim leader today who has the courage and commitment
to defend Islam and Muslims, they are all in awe of the
US and other Western powers, and are indebted to them.
This is what we call ‘Wahn’; "penyakit
cinta dunia, takut mati". Our Prophet warned that this
would be the case in the future, that the Muslim ummat would
be great in numbers, but weak in spirit - until they are
trampled upon again and again.
The
Arab leaders and other Muslim leaders in Asia all suffer
from this disease called ‘wahn’, this weakness
brought about by wealth and privilege, and thus they have
become soft.
That
is why they cannot stand up to the kafirs and they cannot
be firm in their statements and policies. Their love for
the world and all things wordly (duniawi) means that they
only think of themselves.
Arab
leaders worry more about making money from the profits they
get from oil and gas that they turn the other way when Lebanon
is being destroyed right next to them. Their neighbours
are being murdered, but they only make calculations for
their own benefit.
This
is why I have always said that it would be better if Muslims
were poor. Oil wealth has been a curse on us, made us weak
and docile. Look at the Afghans, during the time of the
Soviet invasion. They were among the poorest Muslims in
the world, yet they were sustained by their faith in God,
and God alone.
Muslims
must believe that all power, success and victory comes from
God alone.("Hanya Allah Maha Esa yang menentukannya".)
If God
wills it, they will win - no matter what the odds may be.
The Prophet defeated the enemies of Islam even when he and
his followers were small in number. Why? Because they had
the ultimate power, God, on their side.
This is the real superpower. The Afghans did not have sophisticated
weapons like the Soviets did, but with their faith they
defeated a superpower. That is when the kafirs feared us
Muslims, when we had discipline and faith, when we were
strong in our hearts and not weak in our stomachs.
This
jihad spirit (semangat berjihad) is not in the OIC now.
Show me an OIC leader who can talk about jihad. Not even
the leaders of Malaysia or Indonesia have this, so how can
we do anything? Your leader Badawi is weak (Badawi itu luwes,
lemah orangnya.)
The
only Muslim leader who has some spirit left is your former
leader Mahathir Mohamad, who called for a boycott of US
and other Western currencies. He was right, when he said
that Muslim countries should abandon the US Dollar and trade
with their own currencies instead. Why should we use the
Dollar even when we trade among ourselves? Even though Mahathir
did not openly call for jihad, at least he said something.
This was the least we could have done. ("Sekurang-kurangnya
kita bisa lakukan begitu, memboikotkan matawang Amerika
itu".)
But
the leaders of the OIC could not even accept Mahathir's
proposal, yet they talk about respect and honour. What honour
have we got left, when nobody is listening to us?
Farish:
Some would argue that this weakness stems from the fear
of being seen as being 'too radical'. I have problems with
this concept, for I believe that being a radical is not
necessarily a bad thing. After all Nelson Mandela, Kwame
Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyata, Ghandhi, Nehru, were all radicals
in their time; and they did not compromise in their opposition
to colonialism, imperialism, racism and apartheid. So why
cant we be radicals now?
Bashir:
You are right, but the weakness does not come from
the millions of Muslims in the world. They do not mind being
radical, they have no fear to speak out and to protest and
to jihad. But the weakness comes from these Westernised
co-opted Muslim leaders who just want to look good in the
eyes of the West and Western media. They are scared that
the BBC or CNN may call them radicals, so they remain soft
instead.
The
problem lies there, with the Muslim leaders, not the Muslim
masses. The Muslim leaders swallow the advice of the Western
powers and bodies like the IMF and World Bank, even when
it is bad for their countries and they know this. They are
the real hypocrites (munafikin) and traitors to Islam and
Muslims. Yet as you say we should not accept the idea that
being a radical is a bad thing.
Any
movement for change will be radical. Our Prophet was a radical
too- he fought against the injustices of his community and
challenged the feudal order of his society, so they called
him a radical. So what? We should be proud of that! ("Kita
harus bangga dengan 'radikal' itu!".)
We should
be proud that our Prophet came into the world with the message
of Islam to change it for the better, and not for the worse,
or to keep things as they are. What use is revelation or
religion if it doesnt change anything?
Today
the Western powers and media want to domesticate us like
sheep, to keep us tame and domesticated. But why are animals
domesticated? So that they can be slaughtered in the end!
(Binatang itu dijinak-jinaki supaya disembelihkan nanti!)
That
is why they use the label 'radical' in the way they do,
to keep us scared and to keep us under control. This is
true for our leaders, who have all been domesticated and
trained to speak the way their Western bosses want them
to.
Farish:
So where do we get our role models then?
Bashir:
The only model to follow is pure Islam ("Islam
yang murni"). Because Islam in its original form was
tough and hard ("tegas dan keras"), not weak and
pliable. Islam is fixed, stable, ordered and disciplined,
and so are Muslims.
If we
return to the real practice of true Islam we would be much
stronger and that is when the kafirs will fear us. That
is why we need to uphold the Shariah and return to real
Islam. But the West is trying to weaken Islam from outside
and inside. They attack our people and invade our countries
from outside, and they weaken us from within with ideas
like secularism, liberalism and democracy. This is all designed
to contaminate our pure Islam.
Why
do we Muslims have to learn from them? Islam is perfect,
there is nothing to be added or changed. We have shown that
Islam can rule the world perfectly for fourteen centuries,
and during this time of Muslim power we did not borrow ideas
like democracy from others, so why do we need to learn democracy
from them now? As long as Muslims were confident (in the
past) they could not be defeated, but now we are just puppets
("boneka semuanya").
This
is why we are calling for the upholding of the Shariah here
in Indonesia. We demand an Islamic state, and not some form
of Islamisation of society. We want the state to be Islamic,
with Islamic leaders who have the courage and will to implement
the Shariah in total. There is no other way. ("Nggak
ada jalanan yang lain".)
Farish.
Can you elaborate a little more on that? What do you
mean by ‘enforcing Shariah with determination?’
Bashir.
Islam’s laws are fixed and that is why Islam is stable.
Laws are to be enforced justly (“dengan adil”)
but firmly, with an iron hand (“dengan tangan besi”).
This is the case anywhere, even in a family.
Look
at my own case: I am the father in my family. It is my duty
to enforce the Shariah in my family and I do so with an
iron hand. If my children do not behave according to Islam,
if they do not pray for instance, I will punish them.
Likewise
the leader of any state has to do the same, he has to enforce
Shariah firmly, for he will be held in account later in
the after-life if he fails. If his society breaks Islamic
law, who is responsible? Is it not the leader, who has failed
to enforce the laws of God? Here in Indonesia we have such
laws but they are never enforced, that makes a mockery of
Islam and Shariah.
So we
want an Islamic state where Islamic law is not just in the
books but enforced, and enforced with determination. There
is no space and no room for democratic consultation. The
Shariah is set and fixed, so why do we need to discuss it
anymore? Just implement it! ("Shariat itu bukankah
sudah lengkap dan komplit? Ngapa mahu berdiskusi lagi? Implimentasikan
saja!")
Right
now we are drafting our own constitutional ammendents for
Indonesia, the framework for an Indonesian Islamic state
where Islamic laws are enforced. Indonesians must understand
that there is no Islamic state without the enforcement of
Islamic laws. Otherwise it is just talk and nothing else.
Farish.
What about the Muslim leadership here in Southeast
Asia? Earlier you criticised the leaders of Indonesia and
Malaysia. How have they failed in your eyes?
Bashir.
Indonesia is in a mess as you can see. We are a very rich
country, with plenty of resources and good people who want
to live decent lives, but look at how corruption has destroyed
our country. We should be a rich country but successive
Indonesian leaders have left us weak and dependent on external
aid. We are busy paying off loans when we should be giving
loans instead! And our leaders during the Orde Baru (of
Suharto) were secular, pro-American and entirely corrupted
by global capitalist forces.
As for
Malaysia, you may be economically better off but your leaders
are weak. Badawi may come from a family of ulama but his
faith is weak and so is his spirit. ("Imannya nggak
kuat, walaupun dari keluarga ulama tapi jiwanya kerdil.")
How
can Malaysia sign a free trade agreement with America and
Japan? Are these not kafir countries? And America today
is an enemy of Muslim states and the supporter of Israel.
In Islam that makes America a kafir harbi (enemy) state,
and we Muslims are obliged to cut off all ties, diplomatic
and economic with such an enemy state.
Anwar
(Ibrahim) is also someone who does not understand Islam
well. ("Dia kurang mengerti agama"). How can he
talk about dialogue with America and the West? What dialogue?
With murderers of Muslims? Anwar is mistaken ("salah
pendapat") about his views on Westerners and Jews.
The Jews are cunning and cannot be trusted, as it states
in the Qur'an. At the moment the United States is just being
the donkey for Israel, who is riding the USA.
How
can we dialogue for peace in the Arab world as long as Israel
exists? Israel cannot dream of having peaceful borders because
Israel has no right to exist, no right to be there. That
is the land of Palestine, for the Palestinians. How can
any Muslim leader say that Israel has the right to safe
borders? It should not be there in the first place!
Farish.
Is there no way to engage in dialogue then?
Bashir.
In Islam there is only one way, the Islamic way. Dialogue
with the kafirs is useless unless we Muslims are already
living in Islamic states and not secular democracies. When
you want dialogue with Muslims, Muslims need to be in power
in their own countries first, on their terms.
If the (Muslim) government does not impose Shariah, it has
to be replaced. As long as the government does not go against
Islam, we can still tolerate it. But once it goes against
Shariah, we must oppose it.
When
our governments engage with enemy kafir states, is that
not going against Islamic principles? When you dialogue
with countries that are anti-Islam and kill Muslims, how
can you call yourself an Islamic state?
It is
the duty ("harus dan wajib") for Muslims to oppose
their governments when their leaders dialogue with our enemies.
It says so in the Quran (Surah 60:9), that those who oppose
Islam are our enemies and we must fight against them.
So before
we dialogue with kafirs, we need to go on jihad against
our own hypocrite governments first that are apostates (murtad)
and against Islamic principles.
Farish.
So what kind of Muslim leadership are you talking about?
What kind of Muslim leader do you want to see?
Bashir:
All the answers are in Islam. As the scholar Ibn Taymiyyah
has argued in his work Kitab Fatawa, Islam is in two parts:
the Quran and the Sword. ("Ibnu Taimiyyah sudah bilangkan
Islam itu asasnya dua: Quran dan Pedang").
The
Quran has all the guidelines, rules, norms, laws and punishments
we need. The enforcement of the Shariah is the sword (pedang)
we are talking about. Without enforcement of the Shariah
the Quran is just words in a book. It is a text with no
practical meaning. That is why the message has to be implemented
and realised with determination.
Look
at the sunnah (practice) of the Prophet. When he gave his
speeches and surmons he had a spear (tombak) in his hand.
Why? This was the symbol of power. His followers knew he
was serious, and not simply giving empty talk. He meant
what he said and he did what he said he would do.
Sadly
over the centuries Islam grew weak and we forgot that the
Prophet carried a spear when he spoke. The spear was replaced
with a staff (tongkat) instead, as if Muslims were weak
and needed a walking-stick to stand up! We need to go back
to this original, strong, robust Islam. Like the Prophet
we need to carry the spear (tombak) again. If the Prophet
carried a spear, then for us today we can carry an M-16!
Farish.
Or even a Kalashnikov?
Bashir.
"Kalau nggak adanya M-16, maka Kalashnikov pun bisa
dipakei..." Muslim leaders today have fallen short
of the Prophet's example. They mouth empty pious phrases
about how they yearn for an Islamic state, but they dont
have the guts or will to do it.
There
is not a single Islamic state in the world, not even in
Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are hypocrites and friends of the
United States; their leaders are all corrupt and worldly.
The
closest we ever got to an Islamic state was the Taliban
government in Afghanistan, but the Americans destroyed that,
with their Western allies.
Farish.
But the Saudis claim that they are the defenders of
the holy sites of Islam and Muslims. What is more they are
the promoters of Wahabism. How do you reconcile that?
Bashir.
Wahabism is just a school of thought. The Saudi
regime used the Wahabis for their own political ends, to
justify their rule and to control their people. Occasionally
they may implement one or two Wahabi ideas, but then again
only for cosmetic reasons. They impose laws on dress and
public behavior, but what about the moral obligation to
jihad against the enemies of Islam? How can you promote
Wahabism when you remain a close ally of the US, the supporter
of Israel?
The
Wahabis in turn are just conservatives with no agenda for
social transformation. Look at what they did to Islamist
movements like the Ikwan'ul Muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood)
of Egypt: They condemned the Ikwan as revolutionaries and
radicals, just like the Western media!
Farish.
This tendency of Muslim groups to condemn each other has
always been a problem since the beginning of the Muslim
community. Why is this? How come Muslims cannot stop attacking
each other?
Bashir.
They have left the path of true Islam, that is why they
are divided into so many sects and streams of thought. But
the hadith tells us of how a follower of the Prophet once
asked him: "What will be the future of the ummat?".
The Prophet predicted: "In the future you will be great
in numbers, but you will be small and weak, like froth,
bubbles, floating". The follower was shocked when he
heard this, but the Prophet insisted that that would be
so, because the Muslims will be divided and leaderless.
Muslims
need to realise what it means to be an Ummat. The Ummat
is one family. ("Ummat itu satu keluarga sebenarnya"),
and every Muslim is your brother. It doesnt matter what
the colour, race, or country the other Muslim is from, he
is still your brother, you must support him and help him
when he needs your help.
But
the opposite is also true. Those who are kafirs are not
your family (keluarga). Even if your own parents are not
Muslims, they are not your family (keluarga). They are kafirs,
outside Islam. You need not think of them as members of
the Ummat.
When
we forget our ummat, then we become weak and divided. All
our divisions come from the West, from Western ideas like
nationalism and from their ideologies like democracy and
secularism.
Farish.
If it is unity that you wish to see, then surely
someone has to lead this community. Who, then, has the right
to speak about Islam and on behalf of Muslims?
Bashir.
Those who speak for Islam and Muslims can only
be the ones whose ideas come solely from the Quran and Hadith.
Not the liberals, who try to use reason and rationality
to interpret the Quran. This has become fashionable now,
but it is against Islam and is not allowed.
How
can the Quran be interpreted rationally? These intellectuals
and liberals want to interpet the Quran according to circumstances,
whereas it is the circumstances that have to be adapted
to the Quran. ("Quran bukan diinterpretasikan mengikut
keadaan, walhal keadaannya yang mesti diadaptasikan kepada
Quran".)
It is
clear that the Quran is not to be discussed by those who
do not follow the rules that are set. There is no democracy
in Islam, so do not try to interpret the Quran and turn
Islam into a democracy to suit your needs. God's law comes
first ("Hukum Tuhan yang dahulu".) It is not up
to the will of the people to decide what is right and how
to live. Rather the will of the people have to be bent to
suit the will of God. It is not democracy that we want,
but Allah-cracy! ("Bukan demokrasi yang kita mahukan,
tapi hanya Allah-krasi yang kita mahu lihat!")
The
principles of Islam cannot be altered and and there is no
democracy in Islam or nonsense like 'democratic Islam'.
("Islam demokratis itu semua non-sense sahaja!")
Democracy
is shirik (unbelief) and haram. Here we do not compromise.
Those who claim to be Muslims and do not support Shariah
one hundred per cent are all munafik and kafirs, they are
out of Islam. No need to discuss with these people, they
are not part of the ummat anymore. ("Murtadnya semua".)
There is no need to listen to public opinion: kafirs, apostates,
liberals, atheists - they are all non-believers.
Farish.
But how can this attitude this lead to social and political
change? Here you and your followers in groups like the Majlis
Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI), Front Pemuda Islam Solo (FPIS),
etc are calling for an Islamic state, with a legal constitution
based on the Shariah. But how will you achieve this in the
context of Indonesia today which remains a constitutional
democracy?
Bashir.
Islam's victory can only come through dawah and jihad, not
elections. Thats why Islamic parties are on the wrong path,
even the better ones like the Partai Keadilan Sejahtera
(PKS) here (in Indonesia) and your PAS (in Malaysia). As
long as democracy is their chosen path, the end result is
haram. Nothing good can come from that which is haram, is
that not the case? So if democracy is haram, then what kind
of Islamic state can come from that? Certainly not a pure
Islamic state. Elections are quite useless.
The
struggle for Islam can only come through crisis and confrontation.
Islam is here to change the world, not to be changed by
the world. So there is bound to be resistance, that is why
the West fears us.
If we
accept Western norms like democracy then we can never reach
the Allah-cracy I mentioned earlier. Democracy must be replaced
by Allah-cracy and this cannot come from elections.
Those
who oppose us must be educated, that is why dawah is important,
to show them that Islam is the only way. But if they still
resist, and are wilfully stubborn, or if they create obstacles
for us, then they must be opposed. In particular all the
Muslims who oppose us are apostates (murtad) and they in
particular need to be dealt with firmly. We need not care
for them, or feel sorry for them. They were the ones who
chose to reject Shariah, to reject Islam, and so they chose
to become apostates.
Farish.
And you are convinced that this jihad for Shariah will solve
all our problems? Will it solve the economic and political
problems of Muslim countries like Indonesia for instance?
Bashir.
It is the first step and the right step. Economic problems,
political problems, all other problems - these can only
be solved when we have a firm and committed leadership that
is committed to upholding and enforcing the Shariah without
fear.
Look
at our region now: Muslims are being killed in Patani (Southern
Thailand) and Mindanao (Southern Philippines). But what
do the weak leaders of Malaysia and Indonesia do? Have they
actually done anything, apart from reading speeches and
singing documents of peace? Muslims are dying, not in Lebanon
but right here, right in front of us. These are our brothers,
our neighbours. But the governments (of Malaysia and Indonesia)
cannot do a single thing. This is what I mean by the disease
of corruption and wealth earlier. They are weak, cowardly
leaders.
That
is why we need to go back to original, pure Islam, and to
follow our Prophet's example. The kafirs never tried to
fool around with our Prophet, they knew he was serious and
determined. Yet he was fair and just, and even when he had
defeated the kafirs in battles and in Medinah and Mecca,
he forgave them. Forgiveness does not mean weakness, but
strength. But you need to be strong first, like our Prophet
was. He was strong but not arrogant. Muslim leaders today
need to be strong like that, and take a firm stand on issues.
Farish.
And this sums up your vision of Jihad today? Is this
the sum of your own approach to Islam and the problems affecting
Muslims?
Bashir.
This is the Islamic view of things. We must never compromise,
relent, give up, submit to our kafir enemies. We must always
keep to the Islamic path, jihad in the name of Shariah,
and never be apologetic.
So I
agree that we must never be apologetic about being called
'radicals' today. Even during the time of the Prophet his
enemies called him a madman! So being called a 'radical'
is not as bad! (laughs) ("Rasul kita dituduh gila orangnya,
jadi dipanggil 'radikal' itu ringan sahaja bukan?")
We should not apologise for this, or compromise in our jihad.
Today they call us ‘radicals’, tomorrow they
will call us something else. These obstacles will always
be there, because the kafirs fear us when we get stronger…
Remember
that jihad is what brought Islam to power and built our
community. There can be no Islam without jihad. Why, even
if you want to build a Capitalist or Communist state you
need to have a jihad; a jihad for capitalism or a jihad
for communism. So why cant Muslims engage in a jihad for
Islam and Shariah?
Comments
(Excerpts)
bumi-non-malay
said...
Radical racist terrorist this Ustaz...no wonder we must
deal with these people the Isreal way....not an inch more
and in fact learn to take territory....
Malaysia must seriously consider how to divide Malaysia
up with radical like these in Malaysia.. a mind set thing
that must match their Resolve to Total Sekularkan Malaysia
via Nepal Kan....Freedom to Muslim of like minded nature!!
monsterball said...
This Ustaz should be born in Irag or Afgansistan....even
better Yemen. He is at least century behind time to be an
Indonesian....if not more in his ways of thinking.
monsterball said...
If he is a Malaysian and as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow....he
will be a PAS member. Just like him..PAS IS OUT-DATED, OUT
OF SIGHT, AND OUT OF PROPORTION IN LOGICAL EXPLAINATIONS
FOR MODERN MALAYSIA. VISION 2020, REMEMBER?
fellow
said...
Dear Ustaz, You know why you are a labelled radical?
Read through your answers. It is all about war, conflict,
fighting... Does love, tolerance and being humane exist
in your heart?
You know why there's a war between Western and Islamic civilisation
today? That is because at BOTH sides, there are people who
think like you! And you know what? The radicals of the other
side FEED on your hate, just as you FEED on theirs.
Humility said...
What a load of crap this uztaz is talking. His views and
ideas of what Islamic leaders should be made up of, reeks
of pure fanaticism in Islam. Somebody correct me but I am
sure he definitely qualifies to be one of the deviationists
of the Islamic faith!
This bloody Indonesian comes here and talks about our "weak"
leaders and how one must speak in the OIC forum. What nonsense!
It is idiots like this who give a bad name to the religion
and also destroy the peace in a country with their warped
thinking. This so called uztaz must be sent to the forefront
of the palestine and Lebanon to defend the countries. Idiots
like can only preach nonsense! For malaysians, it should
be also a wake up call for the thousands who are supporting
the Indonesians in their plight for poverty and economic
stability. Once acheived, Indonesia will once again reign
supreme in this region and Malaysia will be the first to
bear the brunt of their aggression as it is obvious that
they are envious!
Kakirambu said...
Ammak! The uztaz is a holy man. He must keep on talking
about jihadis & radicals. We must litsen to his learned
ideas & views but don't influence, cause you might end
up at "Abu Godomo" prison. Can you still see vividly
how the nude prisoners at "Abu Gonomo" prison
were "Adipek"
stoNe said...
If he's here (Malaysia), SB dah sumbat ISA (detained under
Internal Security Act).
Gundohing said...
Uncompromisingly Muslim. Rarity indeed and not unsusal to
be labelled radical because very few people understand the
concepts of true Islam. It may not be democratic but it
is very fair and it works! Still, he can't do it alone.
Democracy is never fair and just. It is about the survival
of the fittest. In today's world fittest means the best
bullshitter with the most power and the best means of communication
to the masses.
The best example of the fruits of democracy is Khairy Jamaludin.
alancheong7 said...
Can't wait to see what the Cowboy (Bush) has to say to this.
Ladieeeees and gentleeeeeemen, heeeeeere's your geee-nu-wine
good ol' home-grown BULLY.
Blatant discrimination and advocate of violence - should
have been hung when convicted. If his followers were to
treat him as a martyr, they are more than welcome. Allowing
him to live = releasing a dangerously infectious virus.
alancheong7 said...
Radical historical leaders mentioned were not violent. Gandhi
was a radical because he practised and taught the people
NON-VIOLENT, NON-RETALIATORY solutions.
This? Definitely not radical but a TERRORIST.
LChuah said...
Absolute Bunkum and Balderdash says:
(We have shown that Islam can rule the world perfectly for
fourteen centuries)
Obviously failed his geography and history at high school,
for his "world", when the deserts are ignored
and only the human settlements are counted, was less than
the area between the North China Plains and the Yangtze
(and not a serious rival at all to the Chinese in terms
of science and technology).
And that "world" seems to have left out not only
Northern Europe, but also the great civilisations of the
American continents. Worse, less than halfway through that
1400 years, the Muslim states were already under attack
by Christian Europe (and then slammed by the Mongols). By
1571, in the Battle of Lepanto, Muslim control of the Mediterranean
was effectively ended, and thus begun the dismantling of
the Islamic empire.
The "perfection" of Islam need not mean a static
and unchangeable interpretation of its Holy Book. Rather,
it's the amenability to change that makes any religion progressive
or "perfect." But to understand the latter concept,
you need to be better educated.
Readers will note that he did not really know how an Islamic
State could develop science and technology in a way that
could stop the Western juggernaut.
If I'm of a conspiratoral nature, I'd have assumed that
Absolutely Bunkum and Balderdash (Bashir) is a CIA plant,
placed there to give Islam a bad name.
Friend from Texas said...
Ah, finally. Islamic Fascism has a face now!
yaktangtoi said...
I wholly support the Ustaz Bshir saying.
Quo
Vadis said...
[The only Muslim leader who has some spirit left is your
former leader Mahathir Mohamad]
Because MM made him PR when this scum fled from Suharto.
At his trial the Indon government said he was not Indonesian
as he had no record of being one for 20 years...
If this Bashir is STUPID enough to think he is accepted
by the Arabs as their 'brother' he's in delusion. Arabs
consider themselves as true followers - all others are relegated
to the 1/2, 1/4 category.
Who says there is no CASTE system in islam? Look at Dafur?
Any call by OIC to stop the collective massacre that has
been going on since 2004? Yet Malaysia goes into throes
of agony for Palestinians when there never ever was a Palestine.
Go look up old map and study for yourself. There was only
the Ottoman Empire. No Saudi Arabia, no Kuwait, etc.
bighuha said...
"This is why I have always said that it would be better
if Muslims were poor."
Islam’s laws are fixed and that is why Islam is stable.
Laws are to be enforced justly (“dengan adil”)
but firmly, with an iron hand (“dengan tangan besi”).
This is the case anywhere, even in a family.
If this ustaz is in power, he will undoubtedly form a Taliban
government in Indonesia.
By the way, when did Islam become stable? How long? War
within never stop.
This is the Islamic view of things. We must never compromise,
relent, give up, submit to our kafir enemies.
That's why Islam is making enemies all over the world with
non-Islam.
Don'tPlayGod
said...
From the interview, one can easily believe that this Bashir
guy must have been guilty of the carnage on Bali.
He is harping on Islamic militancy, death to the kafirs(even
though kafirs are God's creatures), and one must carry the
sword, rifle, etc. To me how can a man of peace or religion
carry weapons, unless his stance is always on wars and killings.
And he did mention that the closest to an Islamic state
was Taliban Afghanistan. Closest, mind you, and not there
yet.
In his eyes, and in the eyes of all Islamic fanatics, there
can only be one true religion, Islam. All others are kafirs.
period.
God, what are we in for if we have such guys as learned
and respected Islamic scholars!
thinkingaloud
said...
Mr.Bashir said"the hadith tells us of how a follower
of the Prophet once asked him: "What will be the future
of the ummat?". The Prophet predicted: "In the
future you will be great in numbers, but you will be small
and weak, like froth, bubbles, floating". The follower
was shocked when he heard this, but the Prophet insisted
that that would be so, because the Muslims will be divided
and leaderless."What a humiliating end for Islam as
predicted by the prophet himself.
nazree said...
Salam, I do not share the same thinking with ABB (Bashir).
He claimed to be Moslem. But he failed to understand the
encompassing nature of Islam.
To destroy, maim and kill other persons in the name of Islam
was never the teaching of Islam.
jaguhkampung said...
....speechless..
monsterball said...
LChuah.I can tell similar story to indirectly glorify Buddhism...and
so can the Muslims and the Hinddhus.
What we have and can see in our lifetime..was Mother Theresa
of India...helping the poor and the unwanted. That the stuff
we call true compassion.
Then Sia Baba...never doubt how much he has helped the indians
there.
Then we have great Buddhist leaders talk less and do more.
I will not glorify them to avoid showing favourtism.
In full:
http://malaysia-today.net/reports/2006/08/we-should-not-be-ashamed-to-be.htm