From: "Purwanto Danusugondo" <p_danusugondo@bigpond.com>
To: <apakabar@radix.net>
Subject: Perihal HABIB
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 21:02:53 +0800

Akhir-akhir ini di tanah air tercinta nampaknya jumlah orang yang dikenal
sebagai Habib, yaitu keturunan langsung dari Nabi Muhammad SAW, semakin
meningkat. Setiap hari kita lihat di layar TV, di media cetak, di seminar,
di pesantren dan di tempat-tempat yang lainnya, bermunculanlah - Habib
ini, Habib itu dan Habib yang lainnya. Rasanya ratusan jumlah mereka ini.

Di APAKABAR juga sudah ada beberapa posting yang mempertanyakan hal
kebringasan dan ketidak-Indonesia-an beberapa penyandang julukan Habib
ini.

Menurut KAMUS BESAR B.I. terbitan Balai Pustaka (1997) HABIB adalah
panggilan atau honorific yang searti dengan kata Tuan dan biasanya dipakai
sebagai honorific oleh mereka yang bergelar Sayid. SAYID menurut kamus
yang sama adalah orang Arab keturunan Nab i Muhammad SAW.

Dari segi semantik dapat disimpulkan bahwa: (1) tidak semua HABIB adalah
keturunan Nabi Muhammad SAW. (2) Untuk dapat menyandang gelar SAYID
seseorang harus berdarah ARAB dan terah yaitu keturunan dari Nabi Muhammad
SAW. Seorang Sayid lazimnya dipanggil d engar honorific Habib.

Kamus tsb. tidak memberikan keterangan lebih lanjut, misalnya apakah
seseorang yang meskipun berdarah Arab (dan yang bisa menunjukkan garis
keturunan Nabi Muhammad SAW), tetapi sudah bercampur dengan darah suku
bangsa lain, katakan darah Jawa, apa masih b erhak mengklaim dirinya
sebagai seorang Sayid?

Seorang teman, dosen di salah satu IAIN, pernah berceramah mengenai ajaran
Islam yang demokratis, yang tidak mendukung kepemimpinan turun-temurun -
yaitu dari ayah ke anak ke cucu ke cicit dsb. dst. Beliau, seingat saya,
menyitir ayat Al Ahzab 33:40 : M uhammad itu bukanlah ayah dari laki-laki
manapun di antaramu (para pengkikut beliau). Dia adalah Rasul Allah dan
nabi terakhir. Jelaslah bahwa Allah mengetahui segala sesuatu.

Menurut Sira Nabi, beliau sama sekali tidak menurunkan seorang anak
lelaki. Putra-putra beliau meninggal sewaktu masih kecil. Bertalian dengan
ini, menurut sebagian pakar, beliau sengaja tidak menunjuk calon pengganti
beliau sebelum wafat. Hal ini, menuru t pakar-pakar tsb. sesuai dengan
prinsip demokratis dari Islam dan alasan lainnya ialah tidak mungkin
beliau mengangkat salah seorang putrinya menjadi penggantinya. Beliau
menyerahkan kepada segenap pengikutnya untuk memilih Khalifah yang mereka
dukung.

Kembali pada topik posting ini yaitu perihal HABIB. Mengingat bahwa Nabi
Muhammad SAW tidak menurunkan anak lelaki, maka semua Sayid di seluruh
jagad raya termasuk yang di Indonesia adalah keturunan Nabi Muhammad SAW
melalui jalur putri-putrinya. Yang san gat menarik ialah bahwa pada zaman
Nabi Muhammad SAW dan bahkan sampai sekarang menurut budaya Arab kaum
wanita, yang dilindungi dan dihormati, mempunyai martabat yang rendah
khususnya dalam kepemerintahan dan kepemimpinan agama!

Istimewanya para Sayid yang nota bene keturunan dari putri-putri Nabi
Muhammad SAW bisa begitu naik-daun. Dalam budaya raja-raja apakah di Eropa
ataupun di Jawa dan di mana-manapun, seseorang masih berhak memakai gelar
bangsawan kalau dia misalnya keturun an yang ke 7 dari seorang raja. Anak
dari orang yang ada hubungan darah dengan seorang raja tetapi sudah
keturunan ke 7 ini kembali menjadi rakyat biasa tanpa gelar apa-apa.

Apakah jalur keturunan Nabi Muhammad SAW ini mengenal batas? Ataukah
selama masih ada 0.0001 % darah Nabi dalam diri seseorang (sedang 99.9999%
dari darahnya sudah berupa campuran darah dari berbagai suku bangsa), dia
masih berhak menyebut dirinya seorang Habib, seorang Sayid? Kalau kita
anggap satu generasi itu kira-kira 30 tahun lamanya, maka Habib-Habib yang
hidup di dunia ini adalah keturunan yang ke-1400 : 30 = > 46!

Mungkin di antara penggemar APAKABAR ada yang mempunyai definitive ruling
mengenai kehabiban ini.

PD

----- End of forwarded message from Purwanto Danusugondo KA-----

Jika laskar artinya tentara,serdadu,hulu balang,warior,army yang diciptakan untuk berperang atau melindungi sebuah negara.kemudian ada juga tentara bayaran atau sewaan.
DiIndonesia ada laskar Jihad,Laskar mujahiddin,laskar Komando Islam dll.Orang-orang sipil bersikap dan bertindak seperti militer.Apakah mereka ini semacam tentara dalam tentara,dan dengan mudahnya menenteng label laskar dalam organisasinya.Entah karena ingin kelihatan gagah atau memang akan ada perang dinegeri ini.

Hanya ada satu laskar sipil yang paling disukai diIndonesia selain TNI tentunya.Laskar tersebut menamakan dirinya laskar pelangi dengan panglima perangnya Andrea hirata.Sebagai bahan bukti dapat terlihat dengan banyaknya para penggemar yang termotivasi untuk terus berjuang demi kebaikan tanpa harus pakai kekerasan.Laskar pelangi sangat mencintai guru,penuh kasih sayang dan selalu bersujud syukur kehadirat Allah SWT.banyak meng ilhami orang untuk hidup terus berjuang walau dengan daya seadanya dan usaha pantang menyerah.

Laskar Pelangi sangat dibutuhkan dibanding laskar -laskar yang lain.sebab membuat orang cemas dantakut jika harus berbeda pendapat atau berseberangan keyakinan.

FPI atau front pembela Islam,telah mempertontonkan kekerasan dan anarkisme dengan memukuli dengan brutal terhadap para anggota AKKBP dimonas jakarta,1 juni 2008. Dan insiden itu kemudian disaksikan jutaan pemirsa televisi diseluruh dunia. Banyak sekali yang sangat menyesalkan hingga mengutuk tindak kekerasan yang telah FPI lakukan kepada sesama anak bangsa.Hukum seperti ada pada mereka bukan lagi pada negara. Apakah itu semua ingin menunjukkan bahwa islam penuh kekerasan dan pemaksaan terhadap orang yang berbeda pendapat seperti yang dituduhkan banyak pihak yang non muslim diluar sana...?Niat FPI benar tapi cara yang diambilaau yang ditempuh dengan anarkis itulah yang salah.

Sikap dan tindak kekerasan serta anarkisme yang dipertontonkan oleh FPI mendapat tanggapan yang yang beragam dari bangsa Indonesia.Namun pada umumnya banyak yang mengutuk dan meminta pemerintah(polisi) menindak pelaku insiden monas tersebut sesuai hukum yang berlaku,hingga desakan pembubaran ormas FPI .mereka pada umumnya telah banyak mendengar,melihat sikap arogan/radikal FPI dalam berbagai kasus kekerasan.mereka tidak segan-segan melakukan swepping terhadap sesuatu yang mereka tidak suka.Gus Dur ,bahkan mendesak FPI segera dibubarkan oleh pemerintah atau ia sendiri yang akan membubarkannya.

Insiden monas tersebut menyebabkan aksi-aksi tandingan yang menuntut pembubaran FPI,seperti oleh garda bangsa ,banser,pagar nusa dan ormas-ormas lainnya.Bahkan telah terjadi swepping terhadap anggota dan kantor FPI sperti didaerah jember dan daerah lainnya di jawa timur.kondiosi ini makin memanaskan suasana ditengah masyarakat.namun kiranya hal tersbut tiadak sampai berlanjut kepada tindakan anarkis baru yang makin memperkeruh suasana.

Kalau semua pihak bisa bertindak hanya berdasarkan pada keinginan kelompok,golongan,dan tidak peduli pada hukum yang berlaku dinegara ini maka yang terjadi adalah hukum rimba ,siapa kuat dia yang berkuasa.Untuk itulah pentingnya penegakkan hukum disuatu negara.Jangan biarkan Kelompok mayoritas berlaku seenaknya memaksakan kehendak terhadap minoritas .Jangan biarkan kelompok -kelompok atau ormas-ormas militan dan radikal tumbuh dinegeri ini kmudian bertindak anarkis terhadap yang lain.

Perang saudara atau perang sipil(CIVIL WAR) bisa terjadi dinegeri ini apabila hukum tidak ditegakkan. Sebab masyarakat yang merasa tidak terlindungi oleh hukum akan berusaha melindungi dirinya atau kelompoknya dengan senjata agar tidak menjadi sasaran kelompok lain yang berbeda pendapat,atau digunakan untuk balas dendam terhadap kelompok yang pernah menggangu atau menkan mereka.Akibatnya suasana tidak aman dan perang terbuka antar sesama anak bangsa tidak terhindarkan . Jangan main hakim sendiri atau memaksakan kehendak terhadap orang lain. Jangan merasa pendapat kita saja yang paling benar................to be continued.......

Siapapun boleh hidup diIndonesia dengan segala keyakinan yang miliki.
Bagaimana agar kita hidup dapat rukun dan damai tanpa harus saling mengusik satu sama lain....?sehingga tidak ada sikap saling curiga dan menanam bibit kebencian yang akhirnya berujung pada tindakan saling bermusuhan dan memicu peranggggggggggggg antar sesama uma manusia ,anak cucu adam.

Banyak sekali perbedaan paham,agama ,budaya,ras, diantara umat manusia.Jangan jadikan perbedaan sebagai musuh atau ancaman,dan jangan pula ia dijadikan unjtuk saling memerangi agar terjadi hanya satu paham,agama atau budaya.Bahkan untuk ras yang berbeda akan dimusnahkan /genoside .Kita sangat meyakini hanya agama Islam yang benar.Namun keberadaan agama lain dimuka bumi ini adalah sebuah fakta yang harus kita akui.kemuliaan tidak bisa dibangun dengan kekerasan,pemaksaan.bahklan yang timbul adalah tirani,diktator.Kalau allah menghendaki sluruh uma manusia pasti jadi muslim.

Janganlah kita lakukan kekerasan/penghancuran atas nama Islam,karena itu mungkin hanya akan mendiskreditkan islam itu sendiri.....Ucapan saya, anda ,kalian atau mereka belum tentu benar,sebab hanya kalam ilahi-lah yang pasti benar.

Allah saja tidak pernah memaksakan apa yang harus hambanya lakukan,lalu kita ingin memaksakan......hebatnya kita....ya???????

Mengenai ajaran Ahmadiyah kita sangat yakin itu adalah aliaran yang sesat ,tapi jangan kita belokkan antara tindakan anarkis dan usaha kita untuk membubarkan aliran itu.Dinegeri yang menjunjung tinggi hukum tentu punya hukum positif yang akan dijalankan dalam mengatasi berbagai permasalahan.Tentu saja hukum Positif diIndonesia bukan hukum islam jadi hasilnya tidak sama alias berbeda.......cape dehhhhhhhhh

AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI Biography

Born: September 24, 1902
Khomein, Persia
Died: June 3, 1989
Tehran, Iran
Iranian head of state and religious leader

Ayatollah Khomeini was the founder and supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The only leader in the Muslim world who combined political and religious authority as a head of state, he took office in 1979.

Early life and education

Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini was born on September 24, 1902, according to most sources. The title Ayatollah (the Sign of God) reflected his scholarly religious standing in the Shia Islamic tradition. His first name, Ruhollah (the Spirit of God), is a common name in spite of its religious meaning, and his last name is taken from his birthplace, the town of Khomein, which is about 200 miles south of Tehran, Iran's capital city. His father, Mustapha Musavi, was the chief cleric (those with religious authority) of the town and was murdered only five months after the birth of Ruhollah. The child was raised by his mother (Hajar) and aunt (Sahebeh), both of whom died when Ruhollah was about fifteen years old.

Ayatollah Khomeini's life after childhood went through three different phases. The first phase, from 1908 to 1962, was marked mainly by training, teaching, and writing in the field of Islamic studies. At the age of six he began to study the Koran, Islam's holy book, and also elementary Persian, an ancient language of Iran. Later, he completed his studies in Islamic law, ethics, and spiritual philosophy under the supervision of Ayatollah Abdul Karim Haeri-ye Yazdi, in Qom, where he also got married and had two sons and three daughters. Although during this scholarly phase of his life Khomeini was not politically active, the nature of his studies, teachings, and writings revealed that he firmly believed in political activism by clerics (religious leaders).

Preparation for political leadership

The second phase of Khomeini's life, from 1962 to 1979, was marked by political activism which was greatly influenced by his strict, religious interpretation of Shia Islam. He practically launched his fight against the shah's regime (the king's rule) in 1962, which led to the eruption of a religious and political rebellion on June 5, 1963. This date (fifteenth of Khurdad in the Iranian solar calendar) is regarded by the revolutionists as the turning point in the history of the Islamic movement in Iran. The shah's bloody crushing of the uprising was followed by the exile (forced removal) of Khomeini in 1964, first to Iraq then to France.

Khomeini's religious and political ideas became more extreme and his entry into active political opposition reflected a combination of events in his life. First, the deaths of the two leading Iranian religious leaders left leadership open to Khomeini. Second, although ever since the rise of Reza Shah Pahlavi (1878–1944) to power in the 1920s, the clerical class had been on the defensive because of his movements away from certain

Ayatollah Khomeini.
Reproduced by permission of

Getty Images

.

religious policies. And third, the shah's granting of diplomatic privileges to the American military personnel in 1964 was viewed as insulting to the Iranian sense of national independence.

Founding the Islamic Republic of Iran

The third phase of Khomeini's life began with his return to Iran from exile on February 1, 1979, after Muhammad Reza Shah had been forced to step down two weeks earlier. On February 11 revolutionary forces loyal to Khomeini seized power in Iran, and Khomeini emerged as the founder and the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

From the perspective of Khomeini and his followers, the Iranian Revolution went through several "revolutionary" phases. The first phase began with Khomeini's appointment of Mehdi Bazargan as the head of the "provisional government" on February 5, 1979, and ended with his fall on November 6, two days after the capture of the U.S. embassy (the U.S. headquarters in Iran).

The second revolution was marked by the elimination of mainly nationalist forces, or forces devoted to the interests of a culture. As early as August 20, 1979, twenty-two newspapers that clashed with Khomeini's views were ordered closed. In terms of foreign policy, the landmarks of the second revolution were the destruction of U.S.-Iran relations and the admission of the shah to the United States on October 22, 1979. Two weeks later, Khomeini instructed Iranian students to "expand with all their might their attacks against the United States" in order to force the extradition (legal surrender) of the shah. The seizure of the American embassy on November 4 led to 444 days of agonizing dispute between the United States and Iran until the release of the hostages on January 21, 1981.

The so-called third revolution began with Khomeini's dismissal of President Abul Hassan Bani-Sadr on June 22, 1981. Bani-Sadr's fate was a result of Khomeini's determination to eliminate from power any individual or group that could stand in the way of the ideal Islamic Republic of Iran. This government, however, had yet to be molded thoroughly according to his interpretation of Islam. In terms of foreign policy, the main characteristics of the third revolution were the continuation of the Iraq-Iran war, expanded efforts to export the "Islamic revolution," and increasing relations with the Soviet Union, a once-powerful nation that was made up of Russia and several other smaller nations.

The revolution began going through yet a fourth phase in late 1982. Domestically, the clerical class had combined its control, prevented land distribution, and promoted the role of the private citizens. Internationally, Iran sought a means of ending its status as an outcast and tried to distance itself from terrorist groups. It expanded commercial relations with Western Europe, China, Japan, and Turkey and reduced interaction with the Soviet Union. Iran also claimed that the door was open for re-establishing relations with the United States.

After the revolution

In November of 1986 President Ronald Reagan (1911–) admitted that the United States had secretly supplied some arms to Iran for their war against Iraq. This controversy led to a lengthy governmental investigation to see if federal laws had been violated in what would become known as the Iran-Contra affair.

In 1988 Khomeini and Iran accepted a cease-fire with Iraq after being pressured by the United Nations, a multi-national, peace-keeping organization. On February 14, 1989, Khomeini sentenced writer Salman Rushdie (1947–) to death, without a trial, in a legal ruling called a fatwa. Khomeini deemed Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses" to be blasphemous, or insulting to God, because of its unflattering portrait of Islam.

Before his death from cancer in Iran on June 3, 1989, Khomeini designated President Ali Khamenei to succeed him. Khomeini is still a popular figure to Iranians. Each year on the anniversary of his death, hundreds of thousands of people attend a ceremony at his shrine at the Behesht-e-Zahra cemetery.

For More Information

Bakhash, Shaul. The Region of the Ayatollahs: Iran and the Islamic Revolution. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

Hiro, Dilip. Iran Under the Ayatollahs. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1985.

Moin, Baqer. Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2000.

Rajaee, Farhang. Islamic Values and World View: Khomeyni on Man, the State and International Politics. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1983.

Salman Rushdie Photo: © Penguin Biography Salman Rushdie was born in Bombay (now Mumbai) on 19 June 1947. He went to school in Bombay and at Rugby in England, and read History at King's College, Cambridge, where he joined the Cambridge Footlights theatre company. After graduating, he lived with his family who had moved to Pakistan in 1964, and worked briefly in television before returning to England, beginning work as a copywriter for an advertising agency. His first novel, Grimus, was published in 1975. His second novel, the acclaimed Midnight's Children, was published in 1981. It won the Booker Prize for Fiction, the James Tait Black Memorial Prize (for fiction), an Arts Council Writers' Award and the English-Speaking Union Award, and in 1993 was judged to have been the 'Booker of Bookers', the best novel to have won the Booker Prize for Fiction in the award's 25-year history. The novel narrates key events in the history of India through the story of pickle-factory worker Saleem Sinai, one of 1001 children born as India won independence from Britain in 1947. The critic Malcolm Bradbury acclaimed the novel's achievement in The Modern British Novel (Penguin, 1994): 'a new start for the late-twentieth-century novel.' Rushdie's third novel, Shame (1983), which many critics saw as an allegory of the political situation in Pakistan, won the Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger and was shortlisted for the Booker Prize for Fiction. The publication in 1988 of his fourth novel, The Satanic Verses, lead to accusations of blasphemy against Islam and demonstrations by Islamist groups in India and Pakistan. The orthodox Iranian leadership issued a fatwa against Rushdie on 14 February 1989 - effectively a sentence of death - and he was forced into hiding under the protection of the British government and police. The book itself centres on the adventures of two Indian actors, Gibreel and Saladin, who fall to earth in Britain when their Air India jet explodes. It won the Whitbread Novel Award in 1988. Salman Rushdie continued to write and publish books, including a children's book, Haroun and the Sea of Stories (1990), a warning about the dangers of story-telling that won the Writers' Guild Award (Best Children's Book), and which he adapted for the stage (with Tim Supple and David Tushingham. It was first staged at the Royal National Theatre, London.) There followed a book of essays entitled Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-1991 (1991); East, West (1994), a book of short stories; and a novel, The Moor's Last Sigh (1995), the history of the wealthy Zogoiby family told through the story of Moraes Zogoiby, a young man from Bombay descended from Sultan Muhammad XI, the last Muslim ruler of Andalucía. The Ground Beneath Her Feet, published in 1999, re-works the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice in the context of modern popular music. His most recent novel, Fury, set in New York at the beginning of the third millennium, was published in 2001. He is also the author of a travel narrative, The Jaguar Smile (1987), an account of a visit to Nicaragua in 1986. Salman Rushdie is Honorary Professor in the Humanities at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. He was made Distinguished Fellow in Literature at the University of East Anglia in 1995. He was awarded the Austrian State Prize for European Literature in 1993 and the Aristeion Literary Prize in 1996, and has received eight honorary doctorates. He was elected to the Board of American PEN in 2002. The subjects in his new book, Step Across This Line: Collected Non-fiction 1992-2002 (2002), range from popular culture and football to twentieth-century literature and politics. Salman Rushdie is also co-author (with Tim Supple and Simon Reade) of the stage adaptation of Midnight's Children, premiered by the Royal Shakespeare Company in 2002. Shalimar The Clown, the story of Max Ophuls, his killer and daughter, and a fourth character who links them all, was published in 2005. It was shortlisted for the 2005 Whitbread Novel Award. Salman Rushdie's latest novel is The Enchantress of Florence (2008). He became a KBE in 2007. Top of page Genres (in alphabetical order) Children, Criticism, Drama, Essays, Fiction, Non-fiction, Short stories, Travel Bibliography Grimus Gollancz, 1975 Midnight's Children Cape, 1981 Shame Cape, 1983 The Jaguar Smile Picador, 1987 The Satanic Verses Viking, 1988 Haroun and the Sea of Stories Granta, 1990 In Good Faith Granta, 1990 Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-1991 Granta, 1991 The Wizard of Oz British Film Institute, 1992 East, West Cape, 1994 The Moor's Last Sigh Cape, 1995 The Vintage Book of Indian Writing (co-editor with Elizabeth West) Vintage, 1997 The Ground Beneath Her Feet Cape, 1999 Fury Cape, 2001 Step Across This Line: Collected Non-fiction 1992-2002 Cape, 2002 Shalimar The Clown Cape, 2005 The Enchantress of Florence Cape, 2008 Read about books by Salman Rushdie at encompassculture.com - the British Council's book database and global online book club Buy books by Salman Rushdie at Amazon.co.uk Top of page Prizes and awards 1981 Arts Council Writers' Award 1981 Booker Prize for Fiction Midnight's Children 1981 English-Speaking Union Award Midnight's Children 1981 James Tait Black Memorial Prize (for fiction) (joint winner) Midnight's Children 1983 Booker Prize for Fiction (shortlist) Shame 1984 Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger (France) Shame 1988 Booker Prize for Fiction (shortlist) The Satanic Verses 1988 Whitbread Novel Award The Satanic Verses 1989 German Author of the Year The Satanic Verses 1992 Kurt Tucholsky Prize (Sweden) 1992 Writers' Guild Award (Best Children's Book) Haroun and the Sea of Stories 1993 Austrian State Prize for European Literature 1993 Booker of Bookers (special award made to celebrate 25 years of the Booker Prize for Fiction) Midnight's Children 1993 Prix Colette (Switzerland) 1995 Booker Prize for Fiction (shortlist) The Moor's Last Sigh 1995 British Book Awards Author of the Year The Moor's Last Sigh 1995 Whitbread Novel Award The Moor's Last Sigh 1996 Aristeion Literary Prize 1997 Mantova Literary Prize (Italy) 1998 Budapest Grand Prize for Literature (Hungary) 1999 Commandeur de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (France) 1999 Freedom of the City, Mexico City (Mexico) 2005 Whitbread Novel Award (shortlist) Shalimar The Clown 2006 Commonwealth Writers Prize (Eurasia Region, Best Book) (shortlist) Shalimar The Clown 2007 International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award (shortlist) Shalimar The Clown 2007 KBE 2007 Man Booker International Prize (shortlist) 2008 Best of the Booker (shortlist) Midnight's Children Top of page Critical Perspective Novelist, essayist, travel writer and screenwriter, martyr for free speech and purveyor of story as political statement, Rushdie has not only achieved the singular distinction of being recognised as an artist in his own lifetime but is also arguably the most prominent novelist of the late 20th century, both for his literary achievements and for the controversy surrounding them. Like Marquez in Spanish, Rushdie has taken history as his subject and fictionalised it, thus instituting a new genre. He has received almost every award in the course of a near 30-year career and has become the living image of the romantic writer; worldly, erudite and knowing, equally at ease with the purveyors of pop culture and the intellectual arbiters of literary taste, scabrous critic of colonialism, be it political, social or cultural, and, despite his deep connection to the events of his time he remains somehow removed from the ordinary sphere of existence; abstract, aloof, distant. In his novel Shame (1983), Rushdie writes, ‘is history to be considered the property of the participants solely?’ and in Imaginary Homelands (1991), a collection of essays on racism in Britain, he calls for ‘books that draw new and better maps of reality, and make new languages with which we can understand the world.’ Both of these quotes offer keys to an understanding of the author. Rushdie is renowned for taking symbols and figures from different myth systems and religions and interweaving them with different juxtapositions: themes from Islam and Hinduism are interwoven with figures from English literature and English literary references. His work advocates that the cultural exchange brought about by Empire has enriched rather than cheapened contemporary literature; in his fiction Rushdie has demanded the right, in a fractured and confused post-colonial climate, to be a part of the telling of one’s own history. Rushdie has challenged official historical truth, launched vituperative attacks on petty nationalism and the censorship of the state, all the while wrapping his readers in the magic realist swirl of dreamscape and fairytale in which the conventional is challenged with astonishing wit and intellectual daring. Rushdie’s narrators are unreliable and intrusive; the ‘I’ narrating is essentially an essayist, Rushdie’s literary default setting. These narrators cajole and harry, taunt and tease with a thunderous irreverence; what is the significance of fictions they ask, what purpose do they serve, what role do they play? Rushdie’s belief is in the transformative power of fiction; stories posit alternative realities, they reclaim the past and through the smashing of convention via the element of the fantastical, proffer a utopian vision of the future. Rushdie’s first novel, Grimus (1975), is often overlooked in any overview of the writer’s oeuvre, perhaps because it lacks the marked sense of geographical and historical context which characterises his later and more acclaimed work. Grimus, the tale of Flapping Eagle, the novel’s immortal hero, who travels to Calf Island after seven hundred years of sailing the seas with the hope of regaining his mortality, is a beautiful book; funny and often surprisingly touching. A science fiction based hybrid of religious myth and literary pastiche, Grimus has all the simplicity and sense of magic of folktale, and all the complexity of a deeply questioning philosophical novel. Grimus introduces in raw form many of the themes developed by Rushdie in his later writing, such as displacement, unstable identity and cultural hybridity. Rushdie followed Grimus with the Booker Prize for Fiction winner, Midnight’s Children (1981), which traces India’s development from independence and partition in 1947, through the secession of Bangladesh to the state of emergency under Indira Ghandi. The history of India is given phantasmagorical form by the novel’s protagonist and narrator Saleem Sinai, a Hindu child raised by wealthy Muslims, who comes to believe his own life is a metaphor for the state of his country. Saleem has decided to tell his life story and the story of India as he is, quite literally, falling apart, ‘I mean quite simply that I have begun to crack all over like an old jug.’ The children of the book’s title are all born at midnight on the day India’s independence is declared. There are 1,001 of them and all have a special ability. Saleem’s is telepathy and it is this gift which allows him to discover the truth about his own identity and those of the other children. Considered by many to be Rushdie’s masterpiece, Midnight’s Children is extraordinary for its vast historical sweep and the confidence of its archly modernist prose. It recalls Gunter Grass’s Tin Drum but distinguishes itself by its dazzling pyrotechnic display of style: the dizzying array of puns and alliteration, word play and rhyme is at times breathtaking for its exuberant bravery. Rushdie has stated that Joyce and Grass taught him that anything was possible in literature, that boundaries are arbitrary limits imposed by man, that art with belief in itself can rewrite any set of conventions, however firmly entrenched. With Midnight’s Children, Rushdie proved that he was more than capable of upsetting the literary apple cart. Following Midnight’s Children was Shame (1983). Set in the fictional country of Peccavistan, it is a thinly veiled satirical history of Pakistan and recalls historical events through the prism of a family drama involving a military dictator and his mentally retarded, ultimately murderous daughter. Less effusive and energetic than Midnight’s Children, it is a darker, subtler, work. As politically contentious as these books were, Rushdie is most famous, however, for the extraordinary furore surrounding the fatwa-inspiring The Satanic Verses (1988), which earned him international notoriety amongst Muslims for its unfavourable depiction of the prophet Mohammed, and its fictional reworking of an apocryphal episode from Islamic history. Coloured by the controversy surrounding the novel, the actual merits of it are, even now, often overlooked. Although it may not, stylistically speaking, be Rushdie’s most accomplished work, it is none the less an astoundingly ambitious novel: a cutting satire on the state of migration in the United Kingdom and a vivid and compelling exploration of good and evil, religious faith and fanatical belief. It asks us to discern reality from the illusory and although Islam charged Rushdie with incorporating events depicted in the Koran, this is something that Rushdie vehemently denied. In recent years Rushdie has looked to the West for his inspiration. The Ground Beneath Her Feet (1999) retells the myth of Orpheus through the lives of two 20th century Indian-born rock stars as well as detailing the history of rock and roll in America, whilst Fury (2001) is the tale of a brilliant man, in decline and exiled in New York, groping for meaning as he stumbles through his increasingly tense liaisons with women half his age. Whatever Rushdie does next will be a literary event: it could not be anything else. Garan Holcombe, 2004 For an in-depth critical review see Salman Rushdie by Damian Grant (Northcote House, 1999: Writers and their Work Series). Top of page Author statement 'It seems to me, more and more, that the fictional project on which I've been involved ever since I began Midnight's Children back in 1975 is one of self-definition. That novel, Shame and The Satanic Verses strike me as an attempt to come to terms with the various component parts of myself - countries, memories, histories, families, gods. First the writer invents the books; then, perhaps, the books invent the writer. But whenever I say anything about my work I want to contradict myself at once. To say that beyond self-exploration lies a sense of writing as sacrament, and maybe that's closer to how I feel: that writing fills the hole left by the departure of God. But, again, I love story, and comedy, and dreams. And newness: the novel, as its name suggests, is about the making of the new. None of this is quite true; all of it is true enough.' Top of page Further reading on this site Vote for the Best of the Booker To celebrate the 40th anniversary of The Booker Prize: Pat Barker , Peter Carey , J. M. Coetzee , J. G. Farrell, Nadine Gordimer and Salman Rushdie are all in... more... (12/05/2008) Cambridge Seminar The Cambridge Seminar takes place every two years. It was last held from 7 - 13 July 2007 and will next place in July 2009. The British Council's Cambridge Seminar... more... (30/06/2003) Walberberg Seminar The Walberberg Seminar is the British Council's largest and longest running annual literature seminar overseas. The next seminar will be held in January 2009. The most recent Walberberg Seminar was... more... (15/12/2004) Top of page Contact information Publisher (General enquiries) Jonathan Cape Ltd Random House UK Ltd 20 Vauxhall Bridge Road London SW1V 2SA England Tel: +44 (0)20 7840 8539 Fax: +44 (0)20 7932 0077 http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/ Agent The Wylie Agency (UK) Ltd 17 Bedford Square London WC1B 3JA England Tel: +44 (0)20 7908 5900 Fax: +44 (0)20 7908 5901 E-mail: mail@wylieagency.co.uk http://www.wylieagency.co.uk Top of page

NASIONALISME PERLU RASIONALISME ?



Melalui momentum 100 tahun kebangkitan Nasional yang jatuh pada tanggal 20 Mei,marilah kita pupuk kembali rasa Nasionalisme kita melalui apa yang kita sebut Rasionalisme.
Tentu sangat rasional jika kita punya rasa nasionalisme terhadap bangsa dan negara.Tetapi nasionalisme yang tertanam dihati itu bisa menjadi bertambah kuat(subur) atau melemah(kering) sebagai akibat buruknya kita dalam mengelola negara ini (bad governance).Dengan kata lain kesalahan itu berakibat menyengsarakan rakyat dan hanya menguntungkan segelintir orang atau kelompok tertentu saja.
Bagi rakyat yang merasa disengsarakan atau tidak mendapatkan rasa keadilan seperti yang diamanatkan oleh UUD 1945 ,tentu sangat mudah rasa nasionalisme mereka menjadi terkikis atau bahkan berubah menjadi sebaliknya. Mereka bisa mengganti kewarga negaraan,menjadi tentara/milisi untuk negara asing seperti isu laskar wataniah beberapa waktu lalu.Dan yang terparah, menuntut berpisah dari negara kesatuan Republik Indonesia dengan menjadi separatis atau pemberontak.
Sejauh mana pelayanan atau perlindungan yang diberikan negara sangat berpengaruh pada tingkat rasa nasionalisme rakyatnya terhadap negara.Rakyat yang merasa mendapat perhatian dan perlindungan dari negara akan memiliki rasa nasionalisme untuk negaranya,demikian juga sebaliknya.
Pemerintahan dinegara ini boleh silih berganti tapi negara ini tetap republik Indonesia.kecintaan kita terhadap negara ini,sangat berbeda dengan kecintaan kita terhadap pemerintah atau pemegang kendali kekuaaan.Sebab pemerintah bisa berbuat dan bertindak yang diktator , tirani,sewenang-wenang terhadap rakyatnya tapi negara tidak.tidak adalah euatu bagi mereka yang meraa
yang tinggi dan kuat.bela negara



akibat perlakuan pemerintah terhadap rakyatnya.Apakah pemerintah sudah berlaku adil sesuai yang diamanahkan oleh undang-undang dasar 1945 terhadap rakyat ?
Sikap tegas Iran menangkap 15 marinir Inggris karena memasuki wilayah lautnya tanpa ijin.Tindakan itu melambangkan rasa Nasionalisme dan ketegasan mereka terhadap siapapun /Negara manapun yang masuk wilayah hukumnya tanpa .
Rasa Nasionalisme yang tinggi membuat mereka berani menangkap para marinir inggris ,Padahal secara militer dan politik internasional Iran sangat jauh dibanding dengan inggris . Insiden tersebut tentu membuat pemerintah inggris marah namun Presiden Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad malah mendesak Inggris minta maaf kepada rakyat Iran.
Melalui berbagai perundingan dan diplomasi yang tertutup akhir para mariner inggris tersebut akhirnya dibebaskan. Tapi melalui peristiwa itu Iran makin disegani dan dihormati oleh bangsa lain didunia internasional karena ketegasannya.
Hal ini juga pernah terjadi pada bangsa /pejuang Indonesia ketika harus melawan penjajah.Pada waktu itu para pejuang tidak peduli dengan kalah dari segi persenjataan /militer dan politik tapi dengan rasa nasionalisme yang besar akhirnya dapat memenangkan pertempuran yang kemudian berbuah kemerdekaan.



Belajar dari Iran dalam memelihara wilayah hukumnya,ada baik kita juga tegas terhadap para pelanggar wilayah.Hal itu dapat kita wujudkan dengan menangkap atau menahan para pelanggarnya seperti kejadian diwilayah Ambalat.Sebab disana sering terjadi pelanggaran oleh pihak Malaysia, demikian yang sering kita dengar dan baca melaui berbagai media.
Tetapi sebelum kita dapat bertindak tegas,apakah memang wilayah tersebut betul wilayah hukum kita atau masih ada masalah dengan kepemilikannya.? Dalam hal ini Pemerintah sebaiknya lebih transparan kepada rakyat akan status wilayah tersebut.Sebab kita tidak ingin Kasus sipadan dan Ligitan yang kita klaim sebagai wilayah kita, namun pada akhirnya bukan milik kita lagi ketika diputuskan melalui persidangan internasional di Denhag.
Kita Berharap Kepada pemerintah agar segera menyelesaikan tentang masalah perbatasan Negara.Sebab sebagaimana kita ketahui masalah isu perbatasan sangat sensisif dengan rasa nasionalisme.