DAMAI TANPA PLEDOI

Ketika saya kecil dulu, saya sering kali berjingkrak-jingkrak sambil membawa pistol-pistolan yang terbuat dari bambu. Saat itulah saya sedang menyaksikan sebuah film dokumenter tentang peristiwa G 30 S/PKI.

Saya yang saat itu gemar sekali mendengar suara tembakan dan ledakan, akan berteriak-teriak senang kegirangan sambil mengepalkan tangan, kemudian secara drastis menangis ketika melihat adegan kuku kiai dan ulama dicopoti dengan sadis oleh orang-orang komunis. Ah, itu dulu sekali sewaktu saya masih suka sekali mendengar suara ledakan dan tembakan.

Setelah dewasa saya kemudian bertanya-tanya, apa sebenarnya yang terjadi pada masa itu, sehingga negara seakan-akan berada dalam ketegangan dan chaos yang sangat, kemudian Soeharto harus mengambil alih kepemimpinan dalam rangka pemulihan keamanan nasional.

Jika melihat kembali film yang diputar setiap bulan September pada masa Orde Baru itu, maka diketahui bahwa yang terjadi saat itu adalah didengarnya rencana perebutan pos kekuasaan oleh sekelompok Dewan Jenderal yang anti komunis, sehingga kemudian ditanggapi dengan penculikan jenderal-jenderal oleh pasukan kolonel Untung yang ingin membentuk kabinet NASAKOM. Endingnya, Soeharto menjadi pahlawan pengaman Negara. Tapi apakah semua hal itu benar adanya?

Saya tidak terlalu memusingkan hal itu, karena saya memang tidak begitu suka dengan sejarah semacam itu. Bagi saya sejarah Indonesia telah ditunggangi banyak kepentingan. Hingga suatu ketika, saya berbincang-bincang dengan seorang sastrawan dan budayawan, Taufik Ismail. Dia kemudian berkomentar tentang peristiwa itu, bahwa PKI memang penjahat besar, tetapi pendekarnya—mengambil kata dalam serial laga—bukanlah Soeharto.

Berbeda lagi jika saya membaca “Surat-Surat Politik” Iwan Simatupang yang sampulnya hampir pudar. Dalam buku itu, Iwan senada dengan film G 30 S/PKI, ia membangga-banggakan Soeharto. Tetapi kemudian saya tersenyum membaca tahun penerbitannya, 1986. Suatu tahun dimana saya belum lahir, dan kebebesan hanya bagi mereka yang pro Soeharto. Dari banyaknya rekaman sejarah yang berlainan tafsir itu, kemudian saya bingung menentukan sikap. Tapi apa boleh buat, beginilah sejarah Indonesia kita. Alur dan kebenarannya selalu bergantung kepentingan.

Kebingungan-kebingungan itu membuat saya semakin tidak ingin ambil pusing untuk mencari siapa yang benar dan siapa yang sedang melakukan pengkhianatan. Selebihnya, saya hanya ingin mengambil pelajaran, bahwa hidup secara mulia dan terpandang tidak perlu berpledoi dan menewaskan 3.000.000 orang manusia. Sebab, jika tiga juta orang manusia itu adalah orang-orang soleh, betapa mulianya negara kita.

Karenanya, saya kemudian tidak ingin berjingkrak-jingkrak lagi jika mendengar ledakan. Cukup sekali saja ledakan yang sangat merisaukan ini terjadi di Indonesia. Tetapi yang namanya anak muda, sering kali ingin mengetahui siapa yang benar, dan mentok-mentoknya akan berujung pada pertengkaran antar kawan diskusi.

Saya selalu merasa, bahwa memandang tragedi yang terjadi pada tahun 1965 itu tidak perlu lagi dilihat siapa sebenarnya yang pahlawan dan yang bukan. Sebab jika kita terus memperdebatkan kebenaran maka yang ada adalah kebuntuan Sejarah. Akan tetapi walau demikian, yang harus disimpan lekat-lekat dalam otak dan hati kita: komunis tidak lain dan tidak bukan adalah hantu sekaligus iblis.

PKI (Politik Kekuasaan Indonesia)

Saya memohon maaf, jika telah lancang membuat penjabaran akronim PKI jauh dari standar kebakuan bahasa Indonesia. Saya tidak bisa melepaskan diri dari pandangan subjektif saya, bahwa PKI sebenarnya berawal dari konflik kekuasaan. Saya selalu bertanya, siapakah Dewan Jenderal itu, dan apa saja program kerjanya jauh sebelum tragedi 30 September 1965, siapakah Untung yang sebenarnya, Kenapa Soekarno gencar mengkampanyekan nasakom, terakhir siapakah Soeharto itu?

Saya sedikit optimis dengan pernyataan saya itu, karena telinga saya selalu dibisikkan pernyataan Mikhail Tomsky, sang tokoh buruh Rusia “Tentu saja kami mengizinkan adanya partai-partai lain. Tetapi prinsip dasar yang membedakan kami dari negara-negara barat adalah satu partai berkuasa, yakni partai komunis. Sedang partai-partai lain berada dalam penjara!”

Kemudian di telinga saya yang lain, Josef Stalin juga menyatakan : “Negara kami adalah negara diktator protelariat, dan kediktatoran ini dikuasai oleh partai tunggal, partai komunis, yang tidak bisa dan tidak akan bisa berbagi kekuasaan dengan partai-partai lain.”

Nah, kedua pernyataan itulah yang kemudian membuat saya semakin yakin bahwa saya BENAR. Mungkin anda akan beranggapan bahwa saya adalah seorang yang tinggi rasa, sehingga melakukan pembenaran sepihak. Tetapi begitulah, saya meyakini tragedi 1965 berawal dari konflik kekuasaan.

Di sisi lain, bisa dibuktikan dengan realita bahwa Soeharto Cs sebagai panglima rendahan juga ingin merasakan kenyamanan berada dalam kekuasaan yang dimiliki Untung Cs, dan alangkah luar biasa—dengan segala kelicikannya—dia mampu menggantikan calon presiden seumur hidup. Inilah segetiga perebutan tampuk kepemimpinan.

Pertanyaannya sekarang, apabila di Indonesia sikap dan spirit ingin berkuasa untuk kepentingan pribadi dan spirit korupsi muncul, akankah komunisme di Indonesia juga kembali hidup? Maka saya akan menjawab dengan sangat lantang, bahwa jika demikian adanya, maka spirit KOMUNISME PASTI HIDUP LAGI. Bisa jadi simbol yang dipakai bukan lagi palu-arit. Sebab hal itu sudah maklum dikenal masyarakat. Bisa jadi simbolnya berubah menjadi cangkul-dayung. Karena masyarakat melarat dan marginal saat ini, adalah mereka yang bertani dan nelayan. Hal ini sangat mungkin, karena orang lapar sangat mudah terprofokasi.

Ah, saya jadi takut jika berjalan-jalan dan bertemu dengan nama perpolitikan Indonesia. Sebab, setiap kali saya mendengarkan nama itu dibicarakan, saya seakan mencium bau hantu komunisme melayang-layang dari mulut politik(us).

Kesenjangan Sosial, Agama, dan PKI

Pertanyaan saya kemudian, apa sebenarnya yang membuat kaum komunis memiliki banyak penganut. Kenapa sedemikian banyaknya kaum buruh yang menjadi pengikutnya. Maka saya akan menjawabnya lagi secara sepihak. Bahwa—menurut pikiran saya—kesenjanganlah persoalannya.

Saya rasa, tidak ada suatu paham yang memiliki massa yang banyak, kecuali dia memberikan pengaruh yang tinggi kepada masyarakat awam (miskin dan marginal). Atas dasar itulah termasuk kalangan komunis seakan berbaik hati kepada buruh tani, melalui perdana menteri Republik Rakyat Cina Chou En Lai, PKI meminta untuk mempersenjatai kaum buruh dan kaum tani.

Karenanya masing-masing kita perlu merenung bahwa komunisme akan segera menyusup ke dalam Negara yang rakyatnya miskin dan tidak mendapatkan keamanan secara baik. Saya semakin keder jika saya terus melihat banyak orang lapar di jalanan dan sawah-sawah yang rusak dimakan hama, jika melihat TKW semakin hari semakin tidak  terurus dan pulang dengan sangat mengenaskan. Jika tidak mati dan lebam, ya hilang keperawanan. Setidaknya yang gencar saat ini Sumiati dan Herlis. Sementara pajak yang seharusnya menjadi bagian mereka terutama dalam pembangunan sarana dan prasarana kemudian dilenyapkan dalam perut Gayus.

Namun yang lebih saya khawatirkan lagi adalah permasalahan agama. Jika agama semakin hari semakin tidak dipandang sebagai ajaran hidup, melainkan hanya sebatas identitas dalam kartu kewarganegaraan, maka saat itu juga spirit komunisme akan bermunculan. Intinya, keadaan chaos, kesenjangan, dan agama yang tidak dijalankan adalah sumber malapetaka. Sehingga muncullah semangat ingin memberontak. Jika itu terjadi, komunisme yang pada dasarnya ingin menguasai suatu kawasan tertentu dengan cara apapun, akan masuk dan merajalela.

Oh ya, rasanya saya perlu mencuplik kalimat Karl Marx bahwa “Agama dalah madat bagi masyarakat. Menghujat agama adalah syarat utama semua hujatan. Agama harus dihancurkan karena agama mengilusi rakyat dalam memperoleh kebahagiaan yang sejati. Agama hanyalah matahari palsu yang beredar di sekitar manusia apabila ia tidak mengamati sekelilingnya.”

Sebelum saya selesai menulis esai ini, saya curiga jangan-jangan komunisme memang sedang tumbuh dari akar-akar yang belum sepenuhnya mati di Indonesia.

THE INTEGRATION OF RELIGION AND CULTURE

The reality is religion and culture are related one each other. Religion and culture as the same as a system of values and symbolic systems. Religion is a symbol that represents the value of obedience to God. Culture also contains the values and symbols of man’s relationship with humans and the natural surroundings, where many people live in it. Religion requires a system of symbols, religion culture needs to be able to actualize and familiar.

However, Kuntowijoyo (2001:196), distinguished religion and culture. According to his opinion, religion is something that is final, universal, eternal and never change (absolute). While the culture tends to be particular, relative and temporary. Religion could grow without culture as a personal religion, but without culture, religion as a collectivity will not get a place.

Thus, religion and culture admitted the existence of a positive dialectic in order to create a harmonious relationship, so that people can move progressively.

The interaction between religion and culture that can occur with these factors, first religion affect the culture, its value is a religion, but the symbol is  a culture. The example is tanèyan lanjhâng, where its value is the Islamic concept, while the symbol is the culture. Secondly, culture can influence the religious symbol. In this case a culture of Sumenep influence of Islamic values with the architecture of the Grand Mosque which was founded by Natakusuma I it was full of Chinese architecture (Kuntowijoyo, 2001:195).

However, as described above although the relationship between religion and culture is very intense, the culture still can not change the principles of Islamic religion. It needs to be emphasized, that religion is not the product of evolution of beliefs (culture), but it is a belief that granted by God as a revelation, delivered by the Prophet and Rasul as the knowledge of God to mankind (Zaini, tt: 38). Here are described some of the concepts of religion and cultural relations:

Indigenization of Islam

In the context of the relation between religion and culture, some intellectual Muslim made some concepts about relationship in harmony. One of them is phenomenal intellectual moslem Abdurrahman Wahid. Around 1980, he threw the the concept of indigenization of Islam into some board discussion.

In the concept  indigenization of Islam, Abdurrahman Wahid describes that the normative values of Islam which is sourced from God accommodated into the culture come from human without losing their respective identities. Indigenization is not to avoid the resistance of local cultures power, but precisely for saving a culture itself. The most important point of Indigenization of Islam is not to avoid polarization between religion and culture, because this polarization is not inevitable (Wahid, 2001:111).

In this case, indigenization does not put culture and religion as two opposing camps to determine superiority, but to be a bridge between religions and culture in a harmonious and progressive.

The concept of Islamic indigenization which brought by Abdurrahman Wahid, trying to avoid religion from Arabization project that makes Islam so narrow, so cannot be able to go hand in hand with the local culture. The consequence is Islam could not see as a single, but various. No more belief that Islam in the Middle East as the most pure and true, because Islam as a religious experience has history which continues(Zada, 2003:9-10).

Thus, an opinion that Islam only relying on a formality is refused. Culturally, the inclusion of some elements of local culture into the Islamic culture, or the contrary, is strong evidence that the integrity and welfare of the people valued so highly by various Islamic movements. (Wahid, 2008:23). It can be seen from how society of Sumenep celebrate the birth of the Prophet with a culture Molodhan that is packed with the distribution of eggs or fruits as a sign of new hope.

Nevertheless, the indigenization of Islam is not without problems. Islamic puritan groups, for example, accused the natives as the embodiment of Islam heretical practice that has deviated from the teachings of Islamic purity.

Acculturation and Inculturation

In the study of local culture, inculturation tends a process of internalization of the new study in the context of accommodation or adaptation. inculturation Done in order to maintain its identity. (Muh. Satria, SH, M. Kn,).

Actually, this concept is not much different from the concept of Islamic indigenization of Abdurrahman Wahid. The process of inculturation- acculturation, also necessitates the adaptation of two values and teachings. It is clear, that Islam as a religion adapted by the culture to get that straight culture and in accordance with the provisions of God, while religion adapted the culture as a actualization of God’s teachings. Because the religion is for Human not for God.

Acculturation and inculturation can be based on Bakker opinion (1984:48), that religion as an objective system, which consists of teaching body (clauses-clauses of faith), regulation (moral) and ceremonies (worship) that respond to the demands of the period, many elements of culture. Culture, being the actual testimony, if animated by an actual culture. In the contrary, cultural achievements will not be achieved without a soul inspired by religion.

Dienul Islam

One kind of the dialectic religion and culture were also presented by Gazalba (1988:23) the concept of Islam religion. According to him, in this world there are two powers. First, the authority of God in creating cultural principles, and secondly, humans have the authority to create a culture based on the principle of God.

So, dienul Islam regulates two patterns of relationship. Any cases that concern both the relationship was included in the scope of this religion. The first system established the relationship of religion, then the second relations formed Islamic culture. Indeed, this religion provides principles among human and God, and the way of implementing that principle. Besides, this religion also determine the principles of human relationships. The relationship took place in this world, the natural material is concrete, given by the Khalik to His Khalifah. While managing world into the human authority.

The description above leads to the conclusion that religion and Islamic culture is the concept of dienul Islam. As a component, then they automatically can not be separated from one another. Because the component is part of what makes something complete, whole and perfect. Attachment and closeness between the two, in Indonesia term commonly called by dwitunggal. In that sense, both have integrated the two cases, so that they become one. That one can not be separated than the others, do the one related to the other.

The concepts of culture and religion, indirectly offend the opinion of some intellectuals who tried to separate the problems of religion with culture, as much promoted by the adherents of secularism. For secularism, culture is the work of human (man made). This is because the followers of secularism rely on humanism. Who adored not God, but humans (Gazalba, 1988:32).

A. Integration Patterns of Religion and Culture

It should be emphasized that in the process of integration, religion and culture establish very intense relationship, both complement each other. Therefore, in any way religious and cultural integration process to find patterns of assimilation and acculturation (http://www.scribd.com/doc/32353584/Bab-3-Konflik-Dan-Integrasi-Sosial) as follows:

1. Assimilation

Assimilation is a social process that occurs when there are human groups with different cultures background and interact directly with each other intensively for a long time, so that cultures, groups had changed the characteristic, and each elements transformed into a mixture of cultural elements.

Assimilation is gathering of two cultures with losing a characteristic to form a new culture. If it is formulated will be

[A + B = C].

Group which usually concerned a process of assimilation is the majority and several minorities. In this case, culture of minority changed typical of cultural elements, in order to adapt to the majority culture, so that the minority culture is slowly losing its culture and personality into the majority culture.

The process of assimilation occurs when there are human groups of different culture, the individual as citizen groups had been hanging out with each other directly and intensively a long time so that the cultures of these human groups each change and adapt to each other.

The process of assimilation is marked by the development of similar attitudes, though sometimes emotional nature in order to achieve unity, or at least achieve integration within the organization, thought and action.

2. Acculturation

Acculturation or culture contact is a social process that occurs when a group of people with a particular culture are confronted with foreign culture in such a way that foreign culture was gradually accepted and processed into the culture without causing loss of own cultural.

acculturation is the merging of  two or more cultures so as to form a new culture without losing the indigenous culture. If it is formulated will be [A + B = AB].

B. The role of Ulama in Culture

Religion as a way of life that revealed by God to man, of course admitted a mujahid in the context of spreading and the realization of the values and rules of life. In Islam, after the death of Prophet Muhammad as the last messenger, ultimate responsibility of ijtihad is held by religious Ulama. Ulama to be a replacement of the prophet Muhammad and his companions. Ulama is a good one in religion, and able to give explanations about things deeply specially about religion, which was not known by the general public.

Besides this, one of the reasons why the role of Ulama is important for society, is the dualism of social needs. They need physical and spiritual needs. The second requirement is expected that later could be done with the ulama. In this role, at least three roles of religion in public life (Kahmad, 2002:138).

1. Ulama as a Motivator

If a Nucholish Madjid (2008: 159) say that religion is a humans way to find meaning of life and the world into its environment. Of course religion is really important in human life.

However, religion can not be actualized by itself in human life without the generator working for the actualization of these. This is where the role of the ulama or clergy is required as a generator. They believed to have a charisma that can motivate people.

Impulses given by the leader of religious, gradually gave birth to change the view in society that are positive towards development activities. Besides encouragement, the Ulama also always encourage the people to dare to changes toward living a more advanced and prosperous, with a raised work ethic as the value of living life to achieve progress (Kahmad, 2002:139).

In this case, actually Ulama emphasized to still optimistic to the community by providing expectations for the future, so that gradually these expectations can encourage people to act.

2. Ulama as Supervising Moral

The second role played by Ulama in society, is the placement of ethical principles and moral society. Because in reality, the development activities in general are always demanding an active role in the foundation of the Ulama of moral, ethical, and spiritual and religious experiences an increase in both personal and social life.

In this regard, with the knowledge that is owned by Ulama, they provide guidance and benchmarks as sign in actualizing development activities, both originating from both the scriptures and the example of the prophets, and religious laws which are an elaboration of the word of God according to the ideas of elders, leaders, and religious thinkers in the past (Kahmad, 02:140).

Furthermore, Ulama as moral mentor, also must have a personality religus, such as fair, honest, faithful teaching, and always be resignation to God, who then taught and emulated by the community. From Ulama’ personality, then people imitate and apply in their life, because of their admiration to moral of Ulama.

In order to guide, people morals, Ulama has several methods, including the following:

• Da’wah bil Hikmah (preaching by philosophy)

Al-Qur’an repeated a word “al-Hikmah” (philosophy) as much as 20 times either in nakirah or ma’rifat, its masdar defined to hukman means generically as a brightness. In the context of the law it means to prevent from tyrannical, whereas in the context of mission to avoid the things that are less relevant in carrying out the missionary task.

al-hikmah is also meant as a way, the method of preaching that is needed in dealing with a variety of different society (Natsir, 2000:164). Muhammad ‘Abduh defined al-hikmah to know the secrets and know avail in every case. Hikmah is also used in a few words (lafadz) but many meanings. Al-hikmah often interpreted as al-’adl (justice), al-haq (truth), al-hilm (fortitude), al-’ilm (knowledge), and an-Nubuwwah (prophethood) (Suparta & Hefni, 2003 : 9).

Based on explanations above can be concluded that in the context of the mission, then al-hikmah related to the theoretical and practical capabilities of a preacher in conveying the Islamic doctrine according to the and objective condition of mad’u (people being subjected to proselytizing).

• Da’wah bil Mauidzatil Hasanah (Preaching by nice word)

In Al-Qur’an a word mauidzah repeated 25 times in various forms and derivations. The term above implies teaching, warning, advice. While the word hasanah (goodness) is the opposite of the word sayyi’ah (ugliness).

This method used to the mad’u who has low intellectual capacity and spiritual experiences. So in this context, da’i (preachers) acted as mentors, close friends and intimate, loving and giving all the useful and makes the mad’u happy.

Da’wah with al-mauidzatul hasanah approach need to consider the following factors: the words said that so will be impressed at the hearts of mad’u, avoiding cynicism and rude, and no mention of errors or judgment of people they are talking to (mukhatab).

• Da’wah bil Mujadalah bi-al-Lati Hiya Ahsan (Preaching by responding the best)

In the Al-Qur’an word al-mujadalah in its various forms is found as much as 29 times. 10 times of them means of the conversation or discussion which is based on different arguments with differ the use of the whole proposition. Al-mujadalah also means brainstorming  conducted by the two parties in synergy without quarrel of both (Suparta, 2006:19).

Based on understanding the verses above, then the improvement understanding of the five basic elements of preaching will be more comprehensively. The five pillars of preaching should be closely related from each other as the building. The five elements are: 1. Da’i (missionary interpreters), 2). Mad’u (the people being subjected to preaching), 3). Maudhu ‘(material of preaching, 4). Tariqah (preaching methods, 5) Washilah (media for preaching).

Transformative Preaching is an effort to develop a mission by comprehensive, approach and methods of preaching do not rely on verbal (conventional) to provide religious materials to the community, which positioned da’i as a source of religious messages, but also internalize religious messages into real life of community by doing assistance directly. Thus, preaching not only to strengthen the religious aspects but also strengthen the social basis for realizing social transformation (Zada, 2006:4).

With this method is expected da’i have dual role of distributing the Religious values and become assistance of community from social issues such as backbiting, adultery, gambling, environmental destruction, and become advocates for people’s rights violations by government such as the case of eviction, the right of women, inter-religious conflict, and other humanitarian problems. Therefore, da’i as well as Ulama of religion should also be able to become agents of social change.

3. Ulama as Mediator

The other role of Ulama who are not less important in of cultural and religious development, is as an introduction in establishing a harmonious cooperation among many parties in order to protect the interests of society and religious institutions they lead (Kahmad, 2002:141).

To defend these interests, Ulama usually position themselves as mediators (Kahmad, 2002: 141), which is trying to do community empowerment, awareness, as well as bridges to the many positive things, a mediator of community the religious and cultural systems . This among them there is a positive dialectic to build an understanding, after mediated by Ulama