Bahasa yang absah (legitimate language), Pierre Bourdieu

Leave a comment

Dari manakah kekuatan kata-kata yang orang ucapkan? Apakah dari ucapan itu sendiri yang tersusun baik menurut kaedah berbahasa yang baik dan benar? Ataukah dari isi kata-kata yang diucapkan tersebut? J.L. Austin, filsof bahasa, memandang bahwa prinsip-prinsip umum keampuhan kata-kata bisa ditemukan di dalam wacana atau ungkapan Bahasa itu sendiri. Dia mengajukan teori “performative speech” atau “performative utterance”, yakni bahwa mengucapkan sesuatu itu tidak hanya sekadar menggambarkan kenyataan (descriptive). Pada kondisi tertentu, mengucapkan juga berarti melalukan (performative). Kekuatan teori Austin terletak pada keinginan kuat untuk tidak hanya berkutat pada ujaran tetapi pada tindakan. Dia juga memandang bahwa kekuatan kata-kata adalah kekuatan yang didelegasikan kepada orang yang mengucapkan, dan hal itu tercermin pada ucapannya. Ucapan itu menjadi semacam garansi kekuatannya.

Namun demikian, teorinya memiliki kelemahan justru karena dia mencari kekuatan (power) ujaran atau ucapan itu pada batas-batas linguistik. Di sinilah, Pierre Bourdieu mengarahkan kritiknya atas pemikiran Austin tersebut. Menurut Boudieu, Austin lupa bahwa “autoritas datang kepada bahasa dari luar” (authority comes to language from outside). Dengan kata lain, otoritas bukan berasal dari bahasa, dengan berbagai perniknya, itu sendiri. Bagi Bourdieu, otoritas bahasa tergantung pada posisi social pengguna yang diberi otoritas. Ini bukan berarti Bourdieu memandang bahwa kemampuan Bahasa dan pernak-perniknya tidak penting untuk dipahami. Baginya, wacana yang diujarkan dengan berbagai perniknya, posisi orang yang mengucapkan, dan institusi yang memberinya otoritas merupakan sumber dari keampuhan atau efektivitas suatu Bahasa. Lebih tegas lagi, keampuhan Bahasa bekerja jika: 1) dilakukan oleh orang yang diberi hak untuk mengujarkan; 2) dilakukan dalam situasi yang diabsahkan; 3) diujarkan menurut bentuk-bentuk yang juga diakui sebagai absah (legitimate).

Itu otoritas Bahasa. Bagaimana dengan Bahasa otoritas (language of authority)? Atau dengan kata lain, bagaimana wacana tentang otoritas itu memiliki kekuatan? Menurut Bourdieu, Bahasa otoritas tidak pernah terjadi tanpa ada kolaborasi dengan orang-orang yang ia atur dan tanpa bantuan mekanisme sosial. Bahasa otoritas, kata Bourdieu, hanya melandaskan otoritasnya pada “kondisi-kondisi produksi dan reproduksi distribusi antara kelas pengetahuan dan pengakuan Bahasa yang absah”. Bourdieu menyimpulkan bahwa keampuhan simbolik dari kata-kata hanya terjadi sejauh orang yang (dipaksa?) tunduk terhadapnya mengakui orang (lain) yang menggunakannya sebagai orang yang berhak melakukannya.

Rangkuman chapter “Authorized Language: the social conditions for the effectiveness of ritual discourse,” dalam Pierre Bourdie, Language and Symbolic Power, pp. 107-116.

Konsep Kuasa dalam Al-Quran

Leave a comment

Apakah kuasa (authority) menurut Islam?

Berikut ini rangkuman dari lema “authority” yang ditulis Wadad Kadi (al-Qadi). Authority berarti hak untuk bertindak atau memerintah. Dalam bahasa Arab kontemporer, istilah yang dipakai untuk authority adalah sulthah, tetapi justru kata ini tidak dijumpai dalam al-Quran. Yang ada adalah kata sultan dalam bentuk verbal noun atau mashdar, yang menurut para mufasir klasik, menunjukkan arti “bukti” atau “alasan” (argument), dan kadang berarti kuasa. Istilah-istilah Quran lainnya untuk kuasa adalah amr (perintah), quwwah (kekuatan, power), hukm (penilaian atau keputusan), dan mulk (kedaulatan, kekuasaan, dan kekuatan).

Dalam Islam kuasa hanya milik Allah. Namun berbagai ayat al-Quran menunjukkan bahwa Allah memberikan kuasa kepada manusia. Misalnya, Allah menjadikan manusia khalifah di muka bumi. Dia mengangkat nabi dan rasul. Kuasa yang dimiliki nabi dan rasul sifatnya tidak diperoleh sendiri tetapi diberikan oleh Allah. Oleh karena itu, ketaatan pada nabi dan rasul lahir karena ketaatan kepada Allah, bukan karena rasul sebagai pribadi. Q. 4: 64, menyebutkan wa ma arsalna min rasulin illa li yuta’a bi-idzni llah (tidaklah Kami utus seorang rasul kecuali hanya untuk ditaati dengan izin Allah.

Al-Quran membicarakan kuasa dalam berbagai konteks. Para mufassir pun berbeda satu sama lain dalam menafsirkan ayat al-Quran menurut ragam konteks tersebut. Q. 4: 59 yang menyebutkan perintah taat terhadap ulul amr, misalnya, memiliki tafsiran yang berbeda antara Sunni dan Syii. Mufasir Sunni memahami ulul amr sebagai umara’, ulama, dan fuqaha’, para sahabat nabi, terutama Khalifah Abu Bakar dan Umar. Dalam hal ini, ulul amr bermakna al-umara’ wa al-wulat, para penguasa yang sesungguhnya dari umat Islam.

Sedangkan mufasir Syii menafsirkannya sebagai imam yang ma‘shum. Kaum sufi cenderung memaknai sebagai para wali Sufi.

 

Di dalam al-Quran, tidak semua kuasa diakui oleh Allah. Tujuh dari 37 ayat yang mengandung kata sultan, menegaskan kepalsuan tuhan-tuhan palsu. Dalam Q. 7: 71, misalnya, menunjukkan Allahlah yang membatalkan orang-orang kafir. Ayat ini berbicara tentang orang-orang yang berbantahbantah atas nama-nama berhala, dan Allah tidak memberikan kuasa (sultan) dalam arti hujah untuk penamaan tersebut.

 

Dirangkum dari Wadi Kadi (al-Qadi), “Authotity,” dalam Jane Dammen McAuliffe (ed.), The Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an (Leiden, Boston & Cologne: Brill, 2001), pp. 188-190.

Santrinization

Leave a comment

Santrinization comes from santri, meaning student of pesantren (Islamic schools) or person commited to Islamic piety. Santrinization is a process through which a person becomes santri in the second meaning: a pious, practicing Muslim. It is often equated with Islamisation or re-Islamisation. In academic discourses, it refers to a state political process involving practicing Muslims. Nurcholis Madjid, for instance, says that : (a further Islamisation)—a process through which political elites in the New Order era coming from the abangan/ priyayi culture became closer to the santri culture. This process which started in 1977 was marked by the recruitment of local Muslim leaders by Golkar Party. Nurcholis Madjid, “Islam in Indonesia: Challenges and Opportunities,” in Cyriac K. Pullapy (ed.), Islam in the Contemporary World (Notre Dame, Indiana: Cross Roads Books, 1980), p. 354.

Santrinization also resulted from education process. Azyumardi Azra uses the term santrinization to refer to a phenomenon in which Islamic consciousness increased among middle class Muslims as a result of the development of Islamic education, especially madrasah and pesantren.

In the Reformasi era, and after the 9/11 tragedy, there has been an attempt to “blur” the definition of santrinization by linking it to radicalism. As an example,  Bilveer Singh identifies santrinization with radicalism. He, for instance, states, “… the rise of Islamic radicalism is clearly discernible, a process that is referred to in Indonesia as ‘santrinization’.”Bilveer Singh, The Talibalization of Southeast Asia: Losing the War on Terror to Islamist Extremists (Westport, CT: Praegar Security International, 2007), p. 145.

I think, he is wrong in making this overgeneralizing statement. He is talking about the involvement of Islamic leaders such as Abu Bakar Baasyir in radical movements. Yes, Baasyir is the leader of a pesantren, called Pondok Al-Mukmin Ngruki. However, this does not represent the whole character of pesantren. To identify santrinization with radicalism is a new invention by those observers like Singh who do not understand the history of pesantren and depend only on the media misrepresentation.

Irshad al-Ikhwan of Ihsan Jampes

Leave a comment

Book-Review:

Irsha>d Al-Ikhwa>n of Ihsan Jampes;

Kediri: Pesantren Jampes, n.d; Surabaya: Aneka Usaha, n.d.

 

Sunarwoto

Alumnus of Islamic Studies of the Faculty of Arts at Leiden University

Ihsan Jampes (d. 1952) is a typically Javanese Muslim teacher who lucratively gained a world-wide recognition for his seminal book, Sira>j al-T{a>libi>n, a commentary on Minha>j al-‘A<bidi>n by al-Ghazali (d. 1111). Published by Dar al-Fikr, Lebanon (no date indication can be found), the book deals with al-Ghazali’s teachings on Sufism. Jampes also wrote other books dealing with different topics. Some are still manuscripts. Another book he wrote is Irsha>d al-Ikhwa>n fi> baya>n Ah}ka>m Shurb al-Qahwa wa al-Dukha>n. As its title indicates, the book is on tobacco-smoking and drinking coffee. In 1930 he composed Tasrih al-‘Iba>ra>t, a commentary on Nati>jat al-Mi>qa>t by Kiai Dahlan Semarang. The book is about astronomy (‘ilm al-falak). In 1942, he authored Minha>j al-Imda>d, a commentary on Irsha>d al-‘Iba>d of Shaykh Zayn al-‘Abidin b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Malibari (d. 982 A.H).

The present review deals with the book Irsha>d al-Ikhwa>n. Here we have two editions of the book, the Surabaya and Jampes editions. They bear slightly different names, Irsha>d al-Ikhwa>n ila> Baya>n Ah}ka>m Shurb al-Qahwa wa al-Dukha>n and Sharh} Manz}u>mat Irsha>d al-Ikhwa>n li Baya>n Shurb al-Qahwa wa al-Dukha>n respectively. As can be seen, both publishers are different in writing down the title in terms of using the word ila> baya>n (Surabaya edition) and li-baya>n (Jampes edition). The Jampes edition sub-entitled the book correctly and added to the title the word Sharh (meaning: a commentary) which is absent in the Surabaya edition. This Jampes edition, I think, is the correct since the book under review is in fact a commentary on the naz}m (poetic version) entitled Irsha>d al-Ikhwa>n li Baya>n Shurb al-Qahwa wa al-Dukha>n by the same author.  Unfortunately, both have no indication of publication date. No colophone or an additional preface can be found which informs us when the original manuscript was made.

In his introduction, Jampes said that he was inspired by a small book entitled Tadhkirat al-Ikhwa>n fi> Baya>n al-Qahwa wa al-Dukha>n by Ahmad Dahlan Semarang, his teacher. He rewrote it down in a poem (naz}m) which was hope to be easily memorised by the beginners, and then he gave commentary notes to it. As common in classical works (kitab kuning), the author is preoccupied with linguistic explanation and pays less attention to historical settings of the subject-matter. For instance, he delineates the word qarn in the verse fi> awwal al-qarn al-‘a>shir (in the beginning of the tenth century), explaining the earliest use of qahwa (coffee) in the Muslim world. He clarifies that the verse means awwal alf sanna (beginning of a thousand years) because, he adds, one qarn is a hundred years.

The book consists of four chapters. Chapter one deals with the brief explanation of the origin of tobacco and coffee. Jampes’ illustration on the subject is completely based on Dahlan’s. No other sources are added. It is stated that tobacco came from Tabago, a small area in Mexico, South America and was brought home by European travellers to their home countries in 935/1560. It, however, became widely known in the world only after 977/1560. Meanwhile, coffee became popular in the Arab world in 1017/1600.

In the beginning of the tenth century, debates over the lawsuit of coffee drinking turned out to appear. In his al-Ashba>h, al-Ramli stated that al-Najm al-Ghazzi stated that it was Abu Bakr b. ‘Abd Allah al-Shadhili al-Aydrus who was the first to drink coffee. When he walked in his home yard he found a plant called bunn, name a tree which was later called coffee or qahwa in Arabic. Having consumed its seeds, he felt it helped release his brain and stay away from sleep. In addition, it was considered aiding to aid devotional exercises.

A number of ‘ulama declared the interdiction of coffee for the health (medical) reasons. They were ‘Abtawi al-Karim of Syria, Ibn al-Sultan al-‘Azhim al-Hanafi, and Ahmad b. Ahmad and his father, ‘Abd al-Haqq al-Sunbati. Unfortunately, no mention in the Ikhwa>n is made to explain the reasons of the outlawing of coffee.

Although this book is intended to cope with the lawsuit of both tobacco-smoking and drinking coffee, most portion of the book is centred on smoking. The main argument of both advocates and opponents of smoking legal status runs around the question whether or not smoking is detrimental to human body and brain.

Chapter two discusses on the opponents of tobacco-smoking. A number of ulama declared that smoking was religiously forbidden (h}aram). They are Shihab al-Din al-Qalyubi, Ibrahim al-Laqqani, ‘Atiyah al-Ajhuri and Tarabishi. They agreed on the reason of the banning of tobacco-smoking, that is, that tobacco is dangerous to body health and deteriorate brain function. Shihab al-Din al-Qalyubi said that although religiously pure (t}a>hir), tobacco is h}aram for its danger. In harmony with this, in his Iqna>‘ al-Khatib al-Sharbini stated that whatever exacerbates human body as well as brain is h}aram. Based on this, al-Bujayrimi asserted that tobacco-smoking (al-dukha>n) is h}aram. Furthermore, Tarabishi affirmed that the basis of interdiction of smoking tobacco and selling it also means outlaw of it. In other words, he said, banning in this case means h}aram as well. In line with this reason, buying tobacco also becomes h}aram. Tarabishi’s opinion was affirmed by Ibrahim al-Laqqani al-Maliki in his Nas}i>h}at al-Ikhwa>n bi-l-Ijtina>b li-Shurb al-Dukha>n. Opposing this opinion, ‘Ali b. Muhammad al-Ajhuri proclaimed that unless smoking tobacco is detrimental, it is permissible instead.

The interdiction of smoking was also declared by a number of Sufis. Sayyid Husayn b. Abi Bakr strongly denounced smoking by stating: “Whosoever [of smoker] does not repent forty days before he/she dies would probably be died in su’ al-kha>tima (unhappy ending).” In response to the lawsuit of smoking, another Sufi, ‘Abd Allah b. Ahmad Baswedan said, “everything of hashish is filthy.”

Chapter three concerns the lawfulness of smoking. A number of ulama from the Shafi‘ite, Hanafite, Malikite and Hanbalite Schools agreed on the lawfulness of smoking. ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulisi of the Hanafite School wrote Al-Sulh} bayn al-Ikhwa>n fi> H}ukm Iba>h}a>t Shurb al-Dukha>n. In this book, as Jampes said, al-Nabulisi considered smoking as muba>h} (permissible). This view was upheld by Shaykh ‘Ali al-Shabramallisi, Shaykh al-Sultan al-Halabi al-Fahhama, and al-Barmawi. In this regard, they only warned the danger of smoking and suggested that unless smoking makes danger, it is permitted. Al-Sultan al-Halabi and Shaykh ‘Ali al-Shabramallisi was of the opinion that it is not h}aram but makru>h (despicable). Al-Rushdi in his ha>shiya of Ramli’s al-Niha>ya puts forward that the permissibility of smoking is because of the absence of any textual corroborator which proclaims its interdiction. Shaykh ‘Ali al-Ajhuri explicitly states that smoking is h}ala>l (lawful) except for those who could get suffered from it. This view is in accord with Shaykh Ibn al-Hanafi, Ahmad al-Maliki, ‘Ali al-Ziyadi and al-Munawi Shams al-Milla. Al-‘Allamah al-Shaburi said that smoking is not h}aram in itself (li dha>tih). And that it is declared by some ulama as h}aram is of no religious basis.

Reviewing diverse opinions above, Jampes proposes the most reliable one (al-mu‘tamad) which is that of al-Bajuri (d. 1277), the author of Mukhtas}ar. According to this latter, smoking is makru>h. Jampes also quoted the opinion of other ulama such as Shaykh al-Kurdi, Shaykh Sa‘id Babasil, Ibn Musa al-Nisawi al-Ma‘arri. Babasil and Ibn Musa regarded smoking as permissible (jawa>z) but makru>h.

Further discussion in the last chapter is about various problems pertaining to smoking. One of them is that of putting cigars into a bag (mih}fazha) upon which holy words are written. The problem comes out when Shaykh Ahmad Nahrawi said that anything looking down the glorified words is forbidden (mah}ru>m). In this respect, Jampes interpreted Nahrawi’s opinion by stating that it is forbidden if glorified words are upon it and otherwise it is not, but only makru>h. This is also an analogical understanding of what Ibn al-Hajar al-Haytami in his Fata>wa> al-H{adi>thiya in which he dealt with the problem of putting something upon a paper on which Quranic verses as well as other glorified words are written. According to him, it is makru>h to put something like paper money (naqd) in a paper upon which religious knowledge except Quranic verses are written. If Quranic verses are written upon it, it is h}aram, he said.

Another problem discussed in the book is related to smoking while reading the Quran. In this regard Jampes is of the opinion that it is makru>h. The main problem, he adds, is whether it is intended to play down the Quran. If not, it is none of problem. Another discussion is related to the legal status of smoking for the fasters. Ibn Hajar’s description on the reasons of invalidity of fasting was quoted by some scholars to justify the permissibility of smoking for fasters. In his Sharh al-Minha>j, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami dealt with the coming of substance into fasters’ belly (jawf). He made exception of the vestige of food and smoke and smell. Including into this category is the coming of smoke into belly. In this regard, al-Ziyadi considered smoking not to break the fast. In contrast to al-Ziyadi, al-Bajuri, Bujayrimi and al-Mudabaghi agreed to declare that it breaks the fast. For them, the substance (‘ayn) Ibn Hajar meant is substance in the customary sense (‘ayn ‘urf), not concrete one. Furthermore, ‘Abd Allah b. Muhammad Hijazi al-Sharqawi clarified that al-Ziyadi’s opinion concerning the permissibility of smoking for fasters was proposed when the latter had not known about the real case. Later on after he had understood the case, he issued a fatwa> different from the previous opinion.

The banning of smoking in mosques is also dealt with in the book. The issue was raised by Shaykh Muhammad Babasil who referred to a fatwa> given by Shaykh Ahmad b. Zayni Dahlan (d. 1886). Fuqaha>’ (Muslim jurists) declared such smoking as h}aram provided that it will cause inconvenience and makes the mosque dirty. When dealing with i‘tika>f, Muhammad b. Ahmad ‘Abd al-Bari suggested not to smoke in mosques for it might lead to humiliation.

The last issue raised in the book is the advantage and disadvantage of smoking. For the opponents, smoking is regarded as wasteful (tabdhi>r). Jampes did not elaborate the issue further. Instead, he just referred to al-Bajuri who, agreeing with Ibn Qasim, stated that the original rule of smoking is makru>h. Included in this issue is that of cigars and coffee served by wives to their husbands. It is common especially in Java as well as other parts of Indonesia that cigars and coffee are served by wives to their husbands. This practice, according to Jampes, is not of waste. This is what Muhammad al-Halabi said as well.

The way Jampes dealt with the subject, as seen above, is representative of traditional points of view in Muslim scholarship. He relied mainly upon fiqh sources and ulama of four Islamic legal madhhabs. No Quranic prescriptions on the subject are quoted. However, his comparative analysis is the proof that he was open-minded and moderate. As stated earlier, no mention is made to explain historical settings of the subject-matter. As a consequence, we do not really know why the book was written. It is not clear whether it is related to, for instance, the Wahhabi movement which began to influence in Indonesia at that time, or it is connected to a custom common among the pesantren community in which he lived. A further research on Jampes is needed, I think.[]

Irshad al-Ikhwan of Ihsan Jampes” (book-review), International Journal of Pesantren Studies, vol. 3, No. 1 (2009), pp. 79-84.

Antara Tafsir dan Ideologi Telaah Awal atas Tafsir Al-Qur’an MTA (Majelis Tafsir Al-Qur’an)

Leave a comment

Sunarwoto

Refleksi, Vol. XII, No. 2, Oktober 2011

Abstract: This article deals with the Qur’a>nic interpretation offered by Majelis Tafsir
Al-Qur’an (MTA). It tries to answer several questions: to what extent MTA has interpreted
the Qur’a>n, how it fits (or does not fit) with its ambitious claim that it does not
offer any kind of Qur’a>nic interpretation, and how this interpretation demonstrates
the development of MTA’s thought in understanding the Qur’a>n. This article reaches
the conclusion that, although MTA claims not to interpret the Qur’a>n, in fact it has
made such a certain degree of interpretation of the Qur’a>n. Its puritan ideology seems
to have played a considerable role in colouring its Qur’a>nic understanding.

 

Ketemu kitab Durrat al-Faridah al-Saghirah

Leave a comment

Pulang kampung, selalu ketemu kitab yang sudah lama tidak disentuh. Kali ini kitab itu adalah kitab Durrat al-Faridah al-Saghirah karya Kiyai Muhammad Irsyad al-Qudusi al-Jawi al-Syafi’i. Kitab ini berisi tentang prinsip-prinsip akidah Islam menurut versi Imam al-Asy’ari. Berisi penjelasan tentang sifat-sifat Allah dan sifat-sifat Rasul yang dikenal di Jawa Tengah sebagai MUKTAQAD SEKET (Keyakinan yang lima puluh). Kitab ini seingat saya dibaca oleh orang-orang tua di kampung saya. Ditulis dalam bahasa Jawa dan dengan gaya bahasa makna kitab gandul atau kuning.

Catatan tentang Orientalisme: 1

Leave a comment

Orientalisme adalah cara untuk menangani “Timur” (the Orient) berdasarkan pada kedudukan istimewa Timur dalam pengalaman Barat-Eropa. Edward Said menunjuk tiga makna orientalisme. Pertama, orientalisme dalam pengertian akademis, yakni siapa pun yang mengajar, menulis tentang, dan meneliti Timur dalam aspek tertentu atau seluruh aspeknya adalah orientalis, dan yang dilakukan olehnya adalah orientalisme. Kedua, orientalisme sebagai cara berpikir (a style of thought) yang didasarkan pada pembedaan ontologis dan epistemologis antara “Timur” dan “Barat” (the Occident). Dan, ketiga, orientalisme sebagai “lembaga korporasi” (corporate institution) yang menangani “Timur”. Said mengatakan bahwa Orientalisme harus dikaji sebagai suatu wacana (discourse) dalam pengertian Michel Foucault.

 

Older Entries