Sesungguhnya kesunyian di negara orang ini membuatkan diriku lebih mengingati akan Maha Kuasa. Bila difikirkan balik, aku tidak pernah betul-betul meletakkan Allah di takhta nombor satu hatiku, dan aku juga tidak ingin berpura-pura mengatakan bahawa sekarang Allah benar-benar berada di takhta nombor satu dalam hatiku.
Apabila ayah, emak, rakan-rakan, dan segala macam kesenangan yang biasa aku perolehi tiada lagi bersamaku, aku bagaikan seorang survivor yang terkapai-kapai di tengah lautan yang luas apabila kapal yang dinaikinya karam. Betapa aku sedar bahawa selama ini aku sangat bergantung kepada mereka dan mungkin terlalu bergantung terutamanya kepada kesenangan kehidupan aku selama ini (Belum mati lagi ini).
Apabila aku hilang akan semua tempat bergantung ini, barulah aku terhegeh-hegeh mencari tempat bergantung yang sentiasa berada disisiku cumanya aku tidak mempedulikannya selama ini. Bukan tidak pernah aku mendengar ayat “Allah (Alone) is Sufficient for us, and He is the Best Disposer of affairs (for us).” [3:173], cumanya ayat itu masuk telinga kiriku dan keluar telinga kananku tanpa meninggalkan apa-apa kesan. Allah is Sufficient for us. Ya, aku memang menerima ayat ini sejak dulu lagi, tetapi ayat ini berada dalam fikiranku hanya ketika aku membaca qolu hasbunallahu wa ni’mal wakil. Tidak pernah ia terserap dalam sanubariku.
Semasa penerbanganku ke Toronto, aku menyedari bahawa aku tertinggal surat kebenaran untuk membuat visa Canada di airport Frankfurt (stop over), dan semasa itu memang lidahku tidak berhenti berzikir dan berdoa meminta kepadaNya dipermudahkan urusanku. Alhamdulillah aku tidak menghadapi sebarang masalah di imigresen Toronto. Surat itu telah ayahku fax ke imigresen tersebut sebelum kapal terbang yang aku naiki mendarat di bumi Toronto lagi. Aku masih teringat kata-kata pegawai imigresen itu, “Young man, you should not forget something as important as this.” Aku hanya mampu tersenyum. Sudah tentu aku sangat lega, gembira dan bersyukur kepada Allah pada hari itu. Perasaan gembira aku bercampur baur denga rasa bersalah. Jika difikirkan balik, aku tidak pernah (atau jarang sekali) membasahi lidahku dengan zikrullah kecuali apabila tersempit dan tidak dapat memikirkan jalan keluar.
Membasahi lidah dengan zikr bukanlah menjadi isu utama sebenarnya. Maksud aku, banyak lagi masalah-masalah yang lebih besar dengan diriku ini. Barangkali, aku sudah hanyut dalam pelbagai nikmat dunia dan terus terang, aku pun tidak tahu di mana Allah dalam hatiku (kecuali bila dalam kesusahan). Handphone yang dibeli hendak canggih-canggih sahaja. Kononnya banyak functions, tetapi kebenarannya ingin mengikut trend dan ingin berbangga juga. Jenama atau Brand diberi keutamaan dalam membeli apa-apa barang pon- termasuk pakaian. Akal mengerti akan suruhan ‘merendahkan pandangan’, tetapi mata mengikut kata-kata nafsu sekali-sekala.
Kebenarannya, mana mungkin seorang hamba benar-benar khusyu’ dalam solat apabila diri sudah dimamah nikmat duniawi. Sifirnya senang sahaja: apabila seseorang itu solat dia boleh memilih untuk mengingati Allah atau perkara-perkara duniawi. Bukanlah aku ingat handphone, brand, sebagainya dalam solatku, tetapi perkara-perkara tersebut bertakhta dihatiku, sehingga mengingati Allah itu tidakku nampak lagi nikmatnya. Perkara paling penting: Aku seorang sahaja yang mengerti akan diriku sebenar. Keluarga aku sentiasa menganggap aku ini ‘alim sebab aku ini dulu mengaji agama sikit. Begitu jugalah dengan rakan-rakanku. Senang cerita, kapalku sarat dengan pelbagai benda-benda lagha tetapi luaranya tampak indah sahaja.
Semasa aku terkapai-kapai di tengah lautan itu, sudah tentu aku menunggu kapal lain untuk menyelamatkan aku. Ditakdirkan ada pula sebuah kapal kargo besar berwarna hijau sedang berlayar ke arahku. Di tepi veselnya tertulis al-Ghazali dalam tulisan khat jawi yang sungguh indah.
Aku sangat tertarik dengan tulisan-tulisan al-Ghazali. Bukan tak kenal siapa Imam al-Ghazali di bangku sekolah dahulu. Bukan juga tidak pernah dengar tentang kitab ulungnya Ihya’ Ulumuddin. Tetapi diri ini tidak ingin mengambil tahu. Di dalam fikiranku, tidak pernah pula aku belajar tentang masalah hati ini di bangku sekolah dahulu. Adakah aku sahaja yang tidak sedar dahulu? Ataupun, adakah ia tidak diajar kerana tulisan seperti al-Ghazali ini menjurus ke arah kesufian? Namun, tidak dinafikan aku jumpa ‘bende-benda pelik’ dalam kitab-kitab al-Ghazali yang tidak pernah aku dengari sebelum ini. Bagi aku, apa yang keruh itu dibuang, apa yang baik itu diambil. Cumanya, memang perlu berhati-hati lah di sini.
Aku tidak terus melompat naik ke atas kapal tersebut. Dalam aku sebok menimbang akan keputusanku, sedar tak sedar, ia sudah berlayar meninggalkan aku. Mungkin ada hikmahnya dan hanya yang Maha Kuasa sahaja yang mengetahui. Begitulah kisah kapal kargo al-Ghazali yang sedikit mencurigakan. Apa yang pasti, ia menghidupkan semula harapanku untuk terus menunggu dan mencari jalan keluar dari lautan luas ini yang cuacanya sangat tidak menentu. Kemudian aku….
Apa Ibn Kathir kata tentang Imam al-Ghazali:-
Menurut Ibn Kathir : (pada hari hayat) dia telah pulang ke negerinya Thusi dan tinggal disana, membentuk perhubungan, mengadakan rumah yang baik, menanam tanan-tanaman di kebun yang indah, membaca al-Quran dan menghafal hadith-hadith sahih..... dikatakan pada akhir hayatnya, beliau lebih cenderung kepada mendengar hadith-hadith al-Bukhari dan Muslim dan menghafalmnya. (al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah 12/174).
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Tentang ‘entah’
Hassan ibn ‘Atiya berkata: ‘Two men may offer prayer shoulder to shoulder, and yet between their two prayers lies gulf as vast as that saperating Heaven from earth. This is because one of them has his heart turned towards God, while the other is forgetful and heedless.’[1]
Terus terang dengan diri sendiri, tanyalah diri anda, “Adakah aku kyusuk dalam solat ku?” Jika diri anda yang jujur ini menjawab “Tidak”, tanyalah diri anda, “Mengapa aku tidak berasa sedih dengan jawapanku ini?”
‘Recite what has been revealed to you of the Book and establish the prayer. Verily the prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deed and the remembering of (you by) Allah is greater indeed [than your remembering of Allah in prayers]. And Allah knows what you do’ [Qur’an 29:45]
Syaikh al-Islam ibn Taymiyya menafsirkan ayat ini sebagai: “The correct understanding of the verse is that the prayer has two major purposes, one greater than the other: prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds and contains the remembrance of God Most High; the remembrance of God contained in the prayer is [something] greater than the restrain from shameful deeds and injustice” [2]
Di sini aku ingin berkongsi sedikit pengalaman tentang dilema: “Aku solat tetapi aku masih buat maksiat.” Ingin aku tegaskan bahawa aku ingin berkongsi pengalaman, bukan inginku mendebatkan tentang makna maksiat atau pelbagai tafsiran ayat tersebut.
Jika kita ajukan dilema ini kepada seorang ustaz, biasanya beliau akan bertanya kita kembali, “solat kamu bagaimana?” Anggapkan solat kita sudah menepati cara rasulullah s.a.w. solat (Maknanya mengetahui cara rasulullah s.a.w. solat mengikut hadith-hadith sahih, bukan taqlid buta sahaja), cuma masalahnya di sini adalah tiada kekhusyukan.
Persoalan seterusnya yang timbul tentulah, “Macam mana nak khusyuk pulak?” Bila seorang ustaz ditujukan soalan ini, beliau akan bersyarah panjang lebar tentang bab menumpukan pandangan ke tempat sujud, memahami bacaan yang dibaca dalam solat, memakai pakaian yang bersih, dan sebagainya. Kita pun cuba praktikan ilmu yang baru kita pelajari ini, tetapi malangnya kita tetap tidak dapat khusyuk. Mata sudah tertumpu di tempat sujud tetapi fikiran melayang entah ke mana. Bacaan dalam solat sudah difahami, tetapi semasa solat kita merancang apa nak buat selepas solat nanti.
Jadi, “Macam mana nak kuysuk ni?” Seorang ustaz lain pula berkata, “Anda kena mencari kenikmatan dan ketenangan dalam solat anda. Rasulullah s.a.w. pernah bersabda, “My source of gladness has been put in the prayer” [3] Kemudian beliau menambah lagi, “Mengikut satu hadith riwayat Muslim, Rasulullah s.a.w. menjawab pertanyaan tentang makna ihsan dengan berkata: 'It is to worship Allah as though you could see Him for while you do not see Him, He sees you.' [4]
Hati kita pon berbisik,”Oh begitu.. Bukan aku tak pernah dengar hadith ini. Bukan aku tidak pernah dikhabarkan juga tentang ketenangan dalam solat ini. Tetapi entah, masih tak khusyuk jugak.” Aik, apakah ‘entah’ ini? Secara lojiknya, selagi kita tidak mencari apakah ‘entah’ ini, selagi itu kita tidak boleh khusyuk. Rupa-rupanya, pokok masalahnya mudah sahaja: ‘entah’. ‘Entah’ oh ‘entah’ siapakah engkau ‘entah’? Jangan ‘entah’ menjawab, “memang aku ‘entah’, memang aku ‘entah’” sudah la. Kalau ‘entah’ menjawab begitu, sampai bila pon tidak akan selesai masalah kita ini. Jadi apakah ‘entah’ ini? Cuba anda fikirkan dalam-dalam.
Kita manusia ini, kalau kita tidak suka untuk mengaku akan sesuatu, kita akan tukar perkataan asal yang menjelaskan apa benda itu secara tepat kepada sesuatu perkataan lain yang lebih disenangi hati. Contohnya, penggunaan perkataan 'mother nature'. Ada sesetengah pihak suka berkata, “This is the work of mother nature” apabila mereka menggambarkan keagungan alam ciptaan Allah ini yang tiada kecacatan. Sebenarnya mereka hendak berkata, “This is the work of God” tetapi mereka tidak senang dengan perkataan 'God' itu. Mereka tidak mahu mengaku akan kewujudan Allah tetapi pada masa yang sama mereka takut akan Allah juga. Bagi menenangkan hati mereka, mereka menggantikan perkataan 'God' dengan perkataan 'mother nature' yang maknanya sangat samar. George Orwell, seorang novelis dan penulis artikel tentang bahasa yang terkenal pernah berkata, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” [5]
Kembali kepada topik asal, apakah ‘entah’? Izinkan aku menterjemahkan ‘entah’ ini sebagai ‘sukakan sangat duniawi’. Adakah anda bersetuju? Bukan senang hendak mengaku aku sukakan sangat duniawi ini, lagi-lagi bagi seorang muslim. Mari kita rephrase perkataan tadi dengan menggantikan perkataan ‘entah’ dengan ‘sukakan sangat duniawi’:-
”Oh begitu. Bukan aku tak pernah dengar hadith ini. Bukan aku tidak pernah dikhabarkan juga tentang ketenangan dalam solat ini.. Tetapi sebab aku sukakan sangat duniawi, aku masih tak khusyuk juga.”
Mungkin soalan ini akan timbul: “Apakah kaitan sukakan duniawi dengan khusyuk solat? Solat itu 5 minit sahaja. Apa aku buat luar 5 minit itu mana ada kaitan dengan tumpuan aku semasa aku solat.” Jawapan pertama aku, tepuk dada tanya iman secara jujur.
Mari kita tanya diri kita soalan-soalan ini:-
“Adakah aku taksub dengan harta dan status sehingga memilikinya membuatkan hati ku gembira tidak terkira?”
Untuk lebih direct:-
“Adakah aku suka minum Starbuck semata-mata kerana ia kopi mahal?"
“Adakah aku ingin membeli handphone Nokia atau Sony yang terbaru kerana ia adalah trend yang boleh aku banggakan?”
“Adakah aku ingin membeli pakaian-pakaian berjenama sahaja kerana ingin berbangga denganya?”
Kasr syahwatayn:-
"Adakah aku mengikuti suruhan ‘merendahkan pandangan’, atau mata aku mengikut kata-kata nafsu sekali-sekala?"
"Adakah aku banyak komplen apabila sekali-sekala makanan yang tidak mengikuti seleraku dihidangkan?"
Bukanlah aku berkata memiliki kereta Mercedes, Jeans Levise, handphone Sony Ericsson Walkman (huhu..), dan minum Starbucks adalah salah (jauh sekali dari itu maksudku). Tetapi, adakah hati anda tetap neutral ketika memilikinya dan adakah anda sedar semua benda ini hanya pinjaman daripada Allah buat sementara waktu sahaja? Cumanya, aku risau bahawa hati kita sudah ditawan oleh keinginan-keinginan kita ini sehinggakan mengingati Allah itu menjadi perkara sampingan sahaja.
Ketika Syaikh al-Islam ibn Taimiya dipenjarakan oleh pemerintah yang zalim, beliau berkata:-
‘The real prisoner is someone whose heart is imprisoned from his Lord; the true captive is someone captured by his passions.’ [6]
Jikalau hati anda melompat-lompat dengan perkara-perkara ini, bolehkah ia melompat-lompat juga untuk bertemu dengan Allah semasa solat? Jika kita sudah suka dunia secara melampau, maka kita akan lupa tentang mati. Mati itu pula adalah pertemuan mutlak kita dengan Allah. Apakah pula value pertemuan 5 hari sekali dengan Allah bagi orang yang sudah lupa akan hari kembalinya kepada Allah? Renung-renungkanlah…
“And be not like those who forgets God and whom He causes to forget their own souls: truly those are the corrupted” [Qur’an 59:9]
Lagi satu, kadang-kadang kita suka bercakap tentang life. Ataupun talk about life. Kita selalu juga menggunakan frasa get a life. Penggunaan perkataan life dalam konteks ini pon pada kiraan aku agak samar-samar ertinya. Seolah-olah hendak lari dari sebut sesuatu benda lain sahaja. Adakah talk about life sepatutnya diterjemahkan sebagai ‘bercakap tentang cinta akan duniawi’? Kalau kita bercakap tentang saving life atau life in the hereafter itu lain la. Diharapkan life yang kita sebut-sebutkan ini bukan narrow life yang Allah sebut dalam firman-Nya:-
‘Whoever turns away from My remembrance, for him life shall be narrow, and We will bring him forth on the Day of Judgement blind. He will say, “Lord, why did you bring me forth blind when I used to see?” And He will answer, “My verses came to you and you disregarded them; and so on this Day you are forgotten”’ [Qur’an 20: 124-126]
Bukanlah penggunaan perkataan ‘entah’ dan ‘life’ itu menjadi punca masalah tidak khusyuk dalam solat dan cinta melampau akan duniawi. Bukanlah juga kalau kita berhenti menggunakan perkataan-perkataan tersebut maka masalah kita akan selesai. Aku hanya ingin mengingatkan kita tentang perkara-perkara yang sering kita lupai (sama ada sengaja atau tidak sengaja) dan manifestasinya adalah dalam penggunaan bahasa yang samar. Di dalam essay-nya Politics and the English Language, George Orwell menulis, “I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought.” [7]
Ibn Qayyim al-Jauwziyya menulis dalam kitabnya al-Wabil al-Sayyib min al-Kalim al-Tayyib:-
‘A Gnostic once said, “If kings and the sons of kings knew what we had, they would try to take it from us by the sword!’ Another said: ‘How pitiful, the world people! They would leave this life without ever having tasted the sweetest thing in it.’ When asked what that was he replied, ‘The love of God, the knowledge of God, and the remembrance of God,’ or words to that effect. Another said: ‘There are times when the heart dances in joy.’ And another said, ‘There are times when I say, If the people of Heaven have anything like this, how truly sweet their lives!’ To love God, to know Him intimately, to remember Him constantly, to find peace and rest in Him, to make Him alone the [ultimate] object of love, fear, hope, and trust; to base one’s act on this world’s Heaven, and such is a blessing with which no other love God are gladdened and that the Gnostic find life. As their hearts are gladdened by God, so others are gladdened by them. For whoever finds his source of gladness in God, gladdens all hearts; whoever does not, finds nothing in this world but restlessness. Anyone with life in his heart will confirm this’ [8]
Allah berfirman, ‘Remember me, I shall remember you” [Qur’an 2:152]
Sila bertulkan kesalahanku. Allahu’alam.
Rujukan:-
[1] Al-Wabil al-Sayyib min Kalim al-Tayyib, by ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya ( pg 26) Hassan ibn ‘Atiyya is originally from Basra, he was among the first generation after the companion (Tabi’in).
[2] Al-Wabil al-Sayyib min Kalim al-Tayyib, by ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya ( pg 96)
[3] The full wording is: “Made beloved to me in your world are woman and perfume, and my source of gladness has been placed in prayer” (Nasa’i, Ashra al-Nisa’, 3879).
[4] The full wording is: 'Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "One day while we were sitting with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, there appeared before us a man whose clothes were exceedingly white and whose hair was exceedingly black. No trace of travel could be seen on him and none of us knew him. He walked up and sat down by the Prophet. Resting his knees against his and placing the palms of his hands on his thighs, he said, 'O Muhammad! Tell me about Islam.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Islam is to testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, to perform the prayers, to pay the zakat, to fast in Ramadan and to make the pilgrimage to the House if you are able to do so.' He said, 'You have spoken the truth,' and we amazed at him asking him and then saying that he had spoken the truth. He said, 'Then tell me about belief.' He said, 'It is to believe in Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, and to believe in the decree, both its good and its evil.' He said, 'You have spoken the truth.' He said, 'Then tell me about ihsan.' He said, 'It is to worship Allah as though you could see Him for while you do not see Him, He sees you.' He said, 'Then tell me about the Hour.' He said, 'The one asked about it knows no more about it than the asker.' He said, 'Then tell me about its signs.' He said, 'That a slavegirl will give birth to her mistress and that you will see barefooted, destitute herdsmen competing in constructing lofty buildings.' Then he left but I stayed on a while. Then the Prophet said, ''Umar, do you know who the questioner was?' I said, 'Allah and His Messenger know best.' He said, 'It was Jibril who came to teach you your religion.'" [Muslim]
[5] George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946. Online version: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
[6] Al-Wabil al-Sayyib min Kalim al-Tayyib, by ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya ( pg 56)
[7] George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946. Online version: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
[8] Al-Wabil al-Sayyib min Kalim al-Tayyib, by ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya ( pg 58-59 )
Terus terang dengan diri sendiri, tanyalah diri anda, “Adakah aku kyusuk dalam solat ku?” Jika diri anda yang jujur ini menjawab “Tidak”, tanyalah diri anda, “Mengapa aku tidak berasa sedih dengan jawapanku ini?”
‘Recite what has been revealed to you of the Book and establish the prayer. Verily the prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deed and the remembering of (you by) Allah is greater indeed [than your remembering of Allah in prayers]. And Allah knows what you do’ [Qur’an 29:45]
Syaikh al-Islam ibn Taymiyya menafsirkan ayat ini sebagai: “The correct understanding of the verse is that the prayer has two major purposes, one greater than the other: prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds and contains the remembrance of God Most High; the remembrance of God contained in the prayer is [something] greater than the restrain from shameful deeds and injustice” [2]
Di sini aku ingin berkongsi sedikit pengalaman tentang dilema: “Aku solat tetapi aku masih buat maksiat.” Ingin aku tegaskan bahawa aku ingin berkongsi pengalaman, bukan inginku mendebatkan tentang makna maksiat atau pelbagai tafsiran ayat tersebut.
Jika kita ajukan dilema ini kepada seorang ustaz, biasanya beliau akan bertanya kita kembali, “solat kamu bagaimana?” Anggapkan solat kita sudah menepati cara rasulullah s.a.w. solat (Maknanya mengetahui cara rasulullah s.a.w. solat mengikut hadith-hadith sahih, bukan taqlid buta sahaja), cuma masalahnya di sini adalah tiada kekhusyukan.
Persoalan seterusnya yang timbul tentulah, “Macam mana nak khusyuk pulak?” Bila seorang ustaz ditujukan soalan ini, beliau akan bersyarah panjang lebar tentang bab menumpukan pandangan ke tempat sujud, memahami bacaan yang dibaca dalam solat, memakai pakaian yang bersih, dan sebagainya. Kita pun cuba praktikan ilmu yang baru kita pelajari ini, tetapi malangnya kita tetap tidak dapat khusyuk. Mata sudah tertumpu di tempat sujud tetapi fikiran melayang entah ke mana. Bacaan dalam solat sudah difahami, tetapi semasa solat kita merancang apa nak buat selepas solat nanti.
Jadi, “Macam mana nak kuysuk ni?” Seorang ustaz lain pula berkata, “Anda kena mencari kenikmatan dan ketenangan dalam solat anda. Rasulullah s.a.w. pernah bersabda, “My source of gladness has been put in the prayer” [3] Kemudian beliau menambah lagi, “Mengikut satu hadith riwayat Muslim, Rasulullah s.a.w. menjawab pertanyaan tentang makna ihsan dengan berkata: 'It is to worship Allah as though you could see Him for while you do not see Him, He sees you.' [4]
Hati kita pon berbisik,”Oh begitu.. Bukan aku tak pernah dengar hadith ini. Bukan aku tidak pernah dikhabarkan juga tentang ketenangan dalam solat ini. Tetapi entah, masih tak khusyuk jugak.” Aik, apakah ‘entah’ ini? Secara lojiknya, selagi kita tidak mencari apakah ‘entah’ ini, selagi itu kita tidak boleh khusyuk. Rupa-rupanya, pokok masalahnya mudah sahaja: ‘entah’. ‘Entah’ oh ‘entah’ siapakah engkau ‘entah’? Jangan ‘entah’ menjawab, “memang aku ‘entah’, memang aku ‘entah’” sudah la. Kalau ‘entah’ menjawab begitu, sampai bila pon tidak akan selesai masalah kita ini. Jadi apakah ‘entah’ ini? Cuba anda fikirkan dalam-dalam.
Kita manusia ini, kalau kita tidak suka untuk mengaku akan sesuatu, kita akan tukar perkataan asal yang menjelaskan apa benda itu secara tepat kepada sesuatu perkataan lain yang lebih disenangi hati. Contohnya, penggunaan perkataan 'mother nature'. Ada sesetengah pihak suka berkata, “This is the work of mother nature” apabila mereka menggambarkan keagungan alam ciptaan Allah ini yang tiada kecacatan. Sebenarnya mereka hendak berkata, “This is the work of God” tetapi mereka tidak senang dengan perkataan 'God' itu. Mereka tidak mahu mengaku akan kewujudan Allah tetapi pada masa yang sama mereka takut akan Allah juga. Bagi menenangkan hati mereka, mereka menggantikan perkataan 'God' dengan perkataan 'mother nature' yang maknanya sangat samar. George Orwell, seorang novelis dan penulis artikel tentang bahasa yang terkenal pernah berkata, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” [5]
Kembali kepada topik asal, apakah ‘entah’? Izinkan aku menterjemahkan ‘entah’ ini sebagai ‘sukakan sangat duniawi’. Adakah anda bersetuju? Bukan senang hendak mengaku aku sukakan sangat duniawi ini, lagi-lagi bagi seorang muslim. Mari kita rephrase perkataan tadi dengan menggantikan perkataan ‘entah’ dengan ‘sukakan sangat duniawi’:-
”Oh begitu. Bukan aku tak pernah dengar hadith ini. Bukan aku tidak pernah dikhabarkan juga tentang ketenangan dalam solat ini.. Tetapi sebab aku sukakan sangat duniawi, aku masih tak khusyuk juga.”
Mungkin soalan ini akan timbul: “Apakah kaitan sukakan duniawi dengan khusyuk solat? Solat itu 5 minit sahaja. Apa aku buat luar 5 minit itu mana ada kaitan dengan tumpuan aku semasa aku solat.” Jawapan pertama aku, tepuk dada tanya iman secara jujur.
Mari kita tanya diri kita soalan-soalan ini:-
“Adakah aku taksub dengan harta dan status sehingga memilikinya membuatkan hati ku gembira tidak terkira?”
Untuk lebih direct:-
“Adakah aku suka minum Starbuck semata-mata kerana ia kopi mahal?"
“Adakah aku ingin membeli handphone Nokia atau Sony yang terbaru kerana ia adalah trend yang boleh aku banggakan?”
“Adakah aku ingin membeli pakaian-pakaian berjenama sahaja kerana ingin berbangga denganya?”
Kasr syahwatayn:-
"Adakah aku mengikuti suruhan ‘merendahkan pandangan’, atau mata aku mengikut kata-kata nafsu sekali-sekala?"
"Adakah aku banyak komplen apabila sekali-sekala makanan yang tidak mengikuti seleraku dihidangkan?"
Bukanlah aku berkata memiliki kereta Mercedes, Jeans Levise, handphone Sony Ericsson Walkman (huhu..), dan minum Starbucks adalah salah (jauh sekali dari itu maksudku). Tetapi, adakah hati anda tetap neutral ketika memilikinya dan adakah anda sedar semua benda ini hanya pinjaman daripada Allah buat sementara waktu sahaja? Cumanya, aku risau bahawa hati kita sudah ditawan oleh keinginan-keinginan kita ini sehinggakan mengingati Allah itu menjadi perkara sampingan sahaja.
Ketika Syaikh al-Islam ibn Taimiya dipenjarakan oleh pemerintah yang zalim, beliau berkata:-
‘The real prisoner is someone whose heart is imprisoned from his Lord; the true captive is someone captured by his passions.’ [6]
Jikalau hati anda melompat-lompat dengan perkara-perkara ini, bolehkah ia melompat-lompat juga untuk bertemu dengan Allah semasa solat? Jika kita sudah suka dunia secara melampau, maka kita akan lupa tentang mati. Mati itu pula adalah pertemuan mutlak kita dengan Allah. Apakah pula value pertemuan 5 hari sekali dengan Allah bagi orang yang sudah lupa akan hari kembalinya kepada Allah? Renung-renungkanlah…
“And be not like those who forgets God and whom He causes to forget their own souls: truly those are the corrupted” [Qur’an 59:9]
Lagi satu, kadang-kadang kita suka bercakap tentang life. Ataupun talk about life. Kita selalu juga menggunakan frasa get a life. Penggunaan perkataan life dalam konteks ini pon pada kiraan aku agak samar-samar ertinya. Seolah-olah hendak lari dari sebut sesuatu benda lain sahaja. Adakah talk about life sepatutnya diterjemahkan sebagai ‘bercakap tentang cinta akan duniawi’? Kalau kita bercakap tentang saving life atau life in the hereafter itu lain la. Diharapkan life yang kita sebut-sebutkan ini bukan narrow life yang Allah sebut dalam firman-Nya:-
‘Whoever turns away from My remembrance, for him life shall be narrow, and We will bring him forth on the Day of Judgement blind. He will say, “Lord, why did you bring me forth blind when I used to see?” And He will answer, “My verses came to you and you disregarded them; and so on this Day you are forgotten”’ [Qur’an 20: 124-126]
Bukanlah penggunaan perkataan ‘entah’ dan ‘life’ itu menjadi punca masalah tidak khusyuk dalam solat dan cinta melampau akan duniawi. Bukanlah juga kalau kita berhenti menggunakan perkataan-perkataan tersebut maka masalah kita akan selesai. Aku hanya ingin mengingatkan kita tentang perkara-perkara yang sering kita lupai (sama ada sengaja atau tidak sengaja) dan manifestasinya adalah dalam penggunaan bahasa yang samar. Di dalam essay-nya Politics and the English Language, George Orwell menulis, “I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought.” [7]
Ibn Qayyim al-Jauwziyya menulis dalam kitabnya al-Wabil al-Sayyib min al-Kalim al-Tayyib:-
‘A Gnostic once said, “If kings and the sons of kings knew what we had, they would try to take it from us by the sword!’ Another said: ‘How pitiful, the world people! They would leave this life without ever having tasted the sweetest thing in it.’ When asked what that was he replied, ‘The love of God, the knowledge of God, and the remembrance of God,’ or words to that effect. Another said: ‘There are times when the heart dances in joy.’ And another said, ‘There are times when I say, If the people of Heaven have anything like this, how truly sweet their lives!’ To love God, to know Him intimately, to remember Him constantly, to find peace and rest in Him, to make Him alone the [ultimate] object of love, fear, hope, and trust; to base one’s act on this world’s Heaven, and such is a blessing with which no other love God are gladdened and that the Gnostic find life. As their hearts are gladdened by God, so others are gladdened by them. For whoever finds his source of gladness in God, gladdens all hearts; whoever does not, finds nothing in this world but restlessness. Anyone with life in his heart will confirm this’ [8]
Allah berfirman, ‘Remember me, I shall remember you” [Qur’an 2:152]
Sila bertulkan kesalahanku. Allahu’alam.
Rujukan:-
[1] Al-Wabil al-Sayyib min Kalim al-Tayyib, by ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya ( pg 26) Hassan ibn ‘Atiyya is originally from Basra, he was among the first generation after the companion (Tabi’in).
[2] Al-Wabil al-Sayyib min Kalim al-Tayyib, by ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya ( pg 96)
[3] The full wording is: “Made beloved to me in your world are woman and perfume, and my source of gladness has been placed in prayer” (Nasa’i, Ashra al-Nisa’, 3879).
[4] The full wording is: 'Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "One day while we were sitting with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, there appeared before us a man whose clothes were exceedingly white and whose hair was exceedingly black. No trace of travel could be seen on him and none of us knew him. He walked up and sat down by the Prophet. Resting his knees against his and placing the palms of his hands on his thighs, he said, 'O Muhammad! Tell me about Islam.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Islam is to testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, to perform the prayers, to pay the zakat, to fast in Ramadan and to make the pilgrimage to the House if you are able to do so.' He said, 'You have spoken the truth,' and we amazed at him asking him and then saying that he had spoken the truth. He said, 'Then tell me about belief.' He said, 'It is to believe in Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, and to believe in the decree, both its good and its evil.' He said, 'You have spoken the truth.' He said, 'Then tell me about ihsan.' He said, 'It is to worship Allah as though you could see Him for while you do not see Him, He sees you.' He said, 'Then tell me about the Hour.' He said, 'The one asked about it knows no more about it than the asker.' He said, 'Then tell me about its signs.' He said, 'That a slavegirl will give birth to her mistress and that you will see barefooted, destitute herdsmen competing in constructing lofty buildings.' Then he left but I stayed on a while. Then the Prophet said, ''Umar, do you know who the questioner was?' I said, 'Allah and His Messenger know best.' He said, 'It was Jibril who came to teach you your religion.'" [Muslim]
[5] George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946. Online version: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
[6] Al-Wabil al-Sayyib min Kalim al-Tayyib, by ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya ( pg 56)
[7] George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946. Online version: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
[8] Al-Wabil al-Sayyib min Kalim al-Tayyib, by ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya ( pg 58-59 )
US : Ustaziatul 'Alam Masa Kini
Cengkaman US terhadap ekonomi dunia bukan calang-calang cengkaman. Ketahuilah bahawa US adalah satu-satu negara di dunia ini yang boleh mencetak mata wangnya (US dollar) tanpa back up currency. Semuanya bermula selepas Perang Dunia ke-2, di mana dunia (terutamanya British dan eropah yang terhutang budi kepada US yang membantu mereka mengalahkan Hitler) membenarkan US mencetak wangnya tanpa perlu di backup dengan gold. Peristiwa ini dikenali sebagai runtuhnya Perjanjian Bretton Woods (1944), iaitu perjanjian sistem monetary dunia di mana setiap mata wang perlu diukur kepada gold.
Sebagai rakyat Malaysia, sudah tentu nama International Monetary Fund (IMF) masih terngiang-ngiang di telinga anda. Dalam perjanjian inilah IMF ditubuhkan dan ironinya, US sendiri yang meruntuhkan perjanjian tersebut pada tahun 1971. Bukankah kita sudah biasa dengan musuh yang sering mengingkari janji? Pernahkah anda dengar ura-ura bahawa US sudah bankrup? Sesungguhnya ada sejenis bankrupt dalam dunia ini yang tidak membawa apa-apa makna, malahan si bankrup itu adalah pihak yang paling kaya. Selepas Perjanjian Bretton Woods runtuh, US boleh mencetak mata wangnya secara sesuka hati kerana US tidak perlu backup mata wangnya dengan apa-apa bernilai (dahulu standardnya gold). Sudah tentu masalah inflasi akan timbul jika US main cetak wangnya tanpa henti dan semua mata wangnya berpusing hanya di dalam negaranya sahaja.
Masalah ini dapat diatasi dengan mudah jika US 'menghantar' duitnya ke luar negaranya - dengan kata lain perlaburan antarabangsa. Tidak hairanlah bahawa US adalah negara pengimport dan pelabur terulung di dunia. China sahaja mempunyai 5 trillion US dollar dalam reserve nya dan kebanyakan negara-negara di dunia ini menggunakan US Dollar sebagai backup currency mereka. Pernahkah anda tertanya-tanya mengapa US tidak takut dengan produk-produk 'made in china', malahan mereka sendiri yang melabur di kilang-kilang di sana. Ketahuilah bahawa US sentiasa melabur dengan China menggunakan US Dollar. Oleh sebab itu China ada reserve USD berjumlah 5 trillion . US menggunakan China sebagai bonekanya untuk mengambil kesempatan atas kebolehannya mencetak wang sesuka hati. Sifirnya begini: wang keluar ke China dan produk kembali ke Amerika. Sekali imbas, US tidak mendapat keuntungan besar daripada perdagangan ini, malahan seoalah-olah US membantu China berkembang. Memandangkan US Dollar boleh dicetak sesuka hati, sebenarnye barang ‘Made in China’ bagi US adalah bagaikan free of charge. Sememangnya US sebuah negara yang bankrup kerana duitnya tiada nilai (tidak dibackup oleh gold), tetapi apakah erti sebenar nilai? Adakah nilai itu terletak pada backup currency atau acceptance oleh orang ramai? Sudah tentu dunia menganggap USD itu bernilai (Contoh: 3.5 USD kepada 1 RM), walaupun sebenarnya ia tiada nilai.
Anda mungkin tertanya, mengapakah US tidak membuka kilang di negaranya sendiri sahaja kerana ini dapat membangunkan lagi sektor perkilangan di negaranya? Masalahnya jikalau duit itu berkitar di dalam negaranya sendiri, masalah inflasi akan timbul. Dalam situasi ini, kebolehan mencetak duit sesuka hati US akan memakan tuannya sendiri. Sesungguhnya duit 5 trillion US Dollar yang dimiliki China hasil dagangannya dengan US adalah bagaikan aset beku yang tiada guna. US mengambil kesempatan ini dengan menjual bond kepada China dengan interest yang tinggi. Kiranya seperti symbiosis: China dapat interest daripada aset bekunya dan US dapat terus menghantar duit keluar dari negaranya.
Tidak hairanlah mengapa China bagaikan harimau yang tiada taring dan hanya mengacah-acah sahaja bila ia tidak sependapat dengan US dalam sesuatu isu. Begitu jugalah dengan negara-negara arab, negara kita sendiri, dan Eropah. Sesungguhnya saudara-saudara kita di tanah arab itu adalah boneka Amerika juga kerana mereka sendiri mempunyai aset dalam USD berjumlah berbilion-bilion hasil dagangan minyak dengan negara superpower itu. Tidak hairanlah mengapa mereka hanya Ooo, I See… Kebangkitan Euro memang menggusarkan US, tetapi negara-negara Eropah sendiri mempunyai aset US dollar yg berjumlah berbillion-billion juga. Mereka pon tidak boleh buat apa-apa sangat. Adakah anda dapat melihat bahawa cengkaman US dalam ekonomi ini bukan calang-calang cengkaman?
Satu lagi persoalan: Mengapakah US sangat ghairah untuk berperang dan menyerang Iraq, Afghan, dan negara-negara ‘paksi kejahatan’ lain-lain? Minyak satu hal, tetapi adakah mereka tidak rugi dengan pembaziran berbillion-billion Dollar untuk senajata api,proses pengamanan, dan pembinaan semula negara-negara tersebut? Adakah anda benar-benar percaya US akan tarik keluar daripada Iraq dengan kemenangan Parti Democratic baru-baru ini? Usahlah terpedaya, kerana segala ‘kerugian’ yang US alami di Iraq tidak membawa apa-apa makna selagi ia boleh mencetak duitnya sesuka hati. Konsepnya: Janji duit itu keluar daripada negara mereka. Alangkah indahnya jika kita boleh mencetak duit daripada printer di pejabat kita seperti US? Sudah tentu Malaysia akan bankrup dan mengalami inflasi kerana duit haram tersebut akan dibelanja di Mapele atau Mid Valley, dan bukan Iraq atau China. Ketahuilah bahawa perang itu penjana ekonomi US!
Setiap dinasti itu akan runtuh dan bayang2 keruntuhan US memang sudah ada. Kenaikan Euro sedang pesat, banyak juga negara ingin menukar backup currency daripada USD kepada gold, dan China juga makin mampu berdikari. Alangkah indahnya jika Negara-negara Islam bersatu-padu dan bersepakat untuk menukar backup currency kita daripada USD kepada Dinar. Bayangkan kita menjadi pencetus revolusi. Tidak dinafikan langkah itu bagaikan Ferry Tale dan agak mustahil, kerana asset USD kita begitu banyak. Pokoknya, someone has to sacrifice. Kita boleh bawa US runtuh, tetapi kita kena runtuh sekali. Bunyinya macam pejuang berani mati pula. Adakah umat ini sudah terlalu lemah untuk berbuat apa-apa? Adakah umat ini sudah leka dalam kesenangan hidup duniawi dan sanggup menerima kebatilan demi kepentingan diri sendiri? Walaubagaimanapun, marilah kita terus boikot. Satu lagi perangkap: dikatakan bahawa jika sesiapa cuba menajtuhkan USD dengan menjatuhkan dirinya, US mampu membuat mata wang baru dan letakkan nilai USD lama sebagai sifar. Namun begitu, theory ini terlalu far-fetched.
Dari Tsauban r.a. bahawa Rasulullah s.a.w bersabda : Bermaksud : " Akan datang suatu masa dalam waktu dekat, bangsa-bangsa(selain umat Islam) bersatu dan mengalahkan kamu seumpama sekumpulan manusia berkerumun berebut-rebut akan hidangan makanan di sekitar mereka. Sahabat bertanya :"Wahai Rasulullah!, apakah kerana sedikitnya kita(umat Islam) pada waktu itu? Rasulullah menjawab:" Bukan, bahkan kamu pada waktu itu adalah golongan teramai ( majoriti ),tetapi kualiti kamu pada waktu itu bagaikan buih-buih lautan yang di bawa oleh arus air. ALLAH telah mencabut dari hati musuhmu perasaan takut terhadap kamudan ALLAH mencampakkan perasaan 'wahn' ke dalam hati kamu. Sahabat bertanya : " Wahai Rasulullah!,apa yang di maksudkan 'wahn' itu? Rasulullah s.a.w. menjawab : " Cinta dunia dan takut mati. ( Riwayat Al-Bukhari Muslim )
Link yang berkaitan:-
-Bretton Woods Agreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
-Gold standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
-Is US already bankrupt? ttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE2/doodoo.html
Sudah tentu kuasa yang dimiliki US hasil kebolehannya mencetak USD sesuka hati tidak dihebohkan dalam artikel-artikel tersebut. Cuma jika anda fikir saya merepek sahaja tentang kebolehan US ini, bacalah artikel-artikel tersebut.
Sebagai rakyat Malaysia, sudah tentu nama International Monetary Fund (IMF) masih terngiang-ngiang di telinga anda. Dalam perjanjian inilah IMF ditubuhkan dan ironinya, US sendiri yang meruntuhkan perjanjian tersebut pada tahun 1971. Bukankah kita sudah biasa dengan musuh yang sering mengingkari janji? Pernahkah anda dengar ura-ura bahawa US sudah bankrup? Sesungguhnya ada sejenis bankrupt dalam dunia ini yang tidak membawa apa-apa makna, malahan si bankrup itu adalah pihak yang paling kaya. Selepas Perjanjian Bretton Woods runtuh, US boleh mencetak mata wangnya secara sesuka hati kerana US tidak perlu backup mata wangnya dengan apa-apa bernilai (dahulu standardnya gold). Sudah tentu masalah inflasi akan timbul jika US main cetak wangnya tanpa henti dan semua mata wangnya berpusing hanya di dalam negaranya sahaja.
Masalah ini dapat diatasi dengan mudah jika US 'menghantar' duitnya ke luar negaranya - dengan kata lain perlaburan antarabangsa. Tidak hairanlah bahawa US adalah negara pengimport dan pelabur terulung di dunia. China sahaja mempunyai 5 trillion US dollar dalam reserve nya dan kebanyakan negara-negara di dunia ini menggunakan US Dollar sebagai backup currency mereka. Pernahkah anda tertanya-tanya mengapa US tidak takut dengan produk-produk 'made in china', malahan mereka sendiri yang melabur di kilang-kilang di sana. Ketahuilah bahawa US sentiasa melabur dengan China menggunakan US Dollar. Oleh sebab itu China ada reserve USD berjumlah 5 trillion . US menggunakan China sebagai bonekanya untuk mengambil kesempatan atas kebolehannya mencetak wang sesuka hati. Sifirnya begini: wang keluar ke China dan produk kembali ke Amerika. Sekali imbas, US tidak mendapat keuntungan besar daripada perdagangan ini, malahan seoalah-olah US membantu China berkembang. Memandangkan US Dollar boleh dicetak sesuka hati, sebenarnye barang ‘Made in China’ bagi US adalah bagaikan free of charge. Sememangnya US sebuah negara yang bankrup kerana duitnya tiada nilai (tidak dibackup oleh gold), tetapi apakah erti sebenar nilai? Adakah nilai itu terletak pada backup currency atau acceptance oleh orang ramai? Sudah tentu dunia menganggap USD itu bernilai (Contoh: 3.5 USD kepada 1 RM), walaupun sebenarnya ia tiada nilai.
Anda mungkin tertanya, mengapakah US tidak membuka kilang di negaranya sendiri sahaja kerana ini dapat membangunkan lagi sektor perkilangan di negaranya? Masalahnya jikalau duit itu berkitar di dalam negaranya sendiri, masalah inflasi akan timbul. Dalam situasi ini, kebolehan mencetak duit sesuka hati US akan memakan tuannya sendiri. Sesungguhnya duit 5 trillion US Dollar yang dimiliki China hasil dagangannya dengan US adalah bagaikan aset beku yang tiada guna. US mengambil kesempatan ini dengan menjual bond kepada China dengan interest yang tinggi. Kiranya seperti symbiosis: China dapat interest daripada aset bekunya dan US dapat terus menghantar duit keluar dari negaranya.
Tidak hairanlah mengapa China bagaikan harimau yang tiada taring dan hanya mengacah-acah sahaja bila ia tidak sependapat dengan US dalam sesuatu isu. Begitu jugalah dengan negara-negara arab, negara kita sendiri, dan Eropah. Sesungguhnya saudara-saudara kita di tanah arab itu adalah boneka Amerika juga kerana mereka sendiri mempunyai aset dalam USD berjumlah berbilion-bilion hasil dagangan minyak dengan negara superpower itu. Tidak hairanlah mengapa mereka hanya Ooo, I See… Kebangkitan Euro memang menggusarkan US, tetapi negara-negara Eropah sendiri mempunyai aset US dollar yg berjumlah berbillion-billion juga. Mereka pon tidak boleh buat apa-apa sangat. Adakah anda dapat melihat bahawa cengkaman US dalam ekonomi ini bukan calang-calang cengkaman?
Satu lagi persoalan: Mengapakah US sangat ghairah untuk berperang dan menyerang Iraq, Afghan, dan negara-negara ‘paksi kejahatan’ lain-lain? Minyak satu hal, tetapi adakah mereka tidak rugi dengan pembaziran berbillion-billion Dollar untuk senajata api,proses pengamanan, dan pembinaan semula negara-negara tersebut? Adakah anda benar-benar percaya US akan tarik keluar daripada Iraq dengan kemenangan Parti Democratic baru-baru ini? Usahlah terpedaya, kerana segala ‘kerugian’ yang US alami di Iraq tidak membawa apa-apa makna selagi ia boleh mencetak duitnya sesuka hati. Konsepnya: Janji duit itu keluar daripada negara mereka. Alangkah indahnya jika kita boleh mencetak duit daripada printer di pejabat kita seperti US? Sudah tentu Malaysia akan bankrup dan mengalami inflasi kerana duit haram tersebut akan dibelanja di Mapele atau Mid Valley, dan bukan Iraq atau China. Ketahuilah bahawa perang itu penjana ekonomi US!
Setiap dinasti itu akan runtuh dan bayang2 keruntuhan US memang sudah ada. Kenaikan Euro sedang pesat, banyak juga negara ingin menukar backup currency daripada USD kepada gold, dan China juga makin mampu berdikari. Alangkah indahnya jika Negara-negara Islam bersatu-padu dan bersepakat untuk menukar backup currency kita daripada USD kepada Dinar. Bayangkan kita menjadi pencetus revolusi. Tidak dinafikan langkah itu bagaikan Ferry Tale dan agak mustahil, kerana asset USD kita begitu banyak. Pokoknya, someone has to sacrifice. Kita boleh bawa US runtuh, tetapi kita kena runtuh sekali. Bunyinya macam pejuang berani mati pula. Adakah umat ini sudah terlalu lemah untuk berbuat apa-apa? Adakah umat ini sudah leka dalam kesenangan hidup duniawi dan sanggup menerima kebatilan demi kepentingan diri sendiri? Walaubagaimanapun, marilah kita terus boikot. Satu lagi perangkap: dikatakan bahawa jika sesiapa cuba menajtuhkan USD dengan menjatuhkan dirinya, US mampu membuat mata wang baru dan letakkan nilai USD lama sebagai sifar. Namun begitu, theory ini terlalu far-fetched.
Dari Tsauban r.a. bahawa Rasulullah s.a.w bersabda : Bermaksud : " Akan datang suatu masa dalam waktu dekat, bangsa-bangsa(selain umat Islam) bersatu dan mengalahkan kamu seumpama sekumpulan manusia berkerumun berebut-rebut akan hidangan makanan di sekitar mereka. Sahabat bertanya :"Wahai Rasulullah!, apakah kerana sedikitnya kita(umat Islam) pada waktu itu? Rasulullah menjawab:" Bukan, bahkan kamu pada waktu itu adalah golongan teramai ( majoriti ),tetapi kualiti kamu pada waktu itu bagaikan buih-buih lautan yang di bawa oleh arus air. ALLAH telah mencabut dari hati musuhmu perasaan takut terhadap kamudan ALLAH mencampakkan perasaan 'wahn' ke dalam hati kamu. Sahabat bertanya : " Wahai Rasulullah!,apa yang di maksudkan 'wahn' itu? Rasulullah s.a.w. menjawab : " Cinta dunia dan takut mati. ( Riwayat Al-Bukhari Muslim )
Link yang berkaitan:-
-Bretton Woods Agreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
-Gold standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
-Is US already bankrupt? ttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE2/doodoo.html
Sudah tentu kuasa yang dimiliki US hasil kebolehannya mencetak USD sesuka hati tidak dihebohkan dalam artikel-artikel tersebut. Cuma jika anda fikir saya merepek sahaja tentang kebolehan US ini, bacalah artikel-artikel tersebut.
Critical Examination Of 1984 And Its Ramification In The Current World
Forewords:-
I condemn totalitarianism, but at the same time I disagree that total democracy is always the right way to go. If we look at Iraq, the country was better off during Saddam era than it is right now. Saddam was cruel – by no means, I am suggesting it is the otherwise – but Iraq was more in control than it is right now. While the syiahs, sunnis, etc. cannot see eyes to eyes – what a shame – democracy does not help them to resolve their problems at all. During Saddam era, the equilibrium was there, albeit it was not really fair and based a lot on cruelty. The question is: Is Iraq better off under the current democracy system than it was under dictatorship? There is no clear cut answer of course.
In most cases, democracy is indeed the right way to go. However, democracy has its weaknesses and it should not be the sole system that we should follow. So much for democracy, the States are making marijuana legal. Majority supports the legalization of marijuana due to the fact that Marijuana is just as dangerous as alcohol. Instead of banning alcohol because its hazard is to the magnitude of a drug such as marijuana, the public is legalizing marijuana. What is wrong is still wrong, no matter what the majority say.
Critical Examination Of 1984 And Its Ramification In The Current World
“WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” (Orwell 6) are the three slogans of the ruling Party in Airstrip One – which is London – in the nation of Oceania. Working in the Record Department of the Ministry of Truth, Winston Smith, the hero of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, rewrites documents – the past – in accordance to the demand of the Party. However, he silently rebels against the totalitarian Party, which demands its citizen complete obedience and robs them of any right, freedom, and privacy. In his search to find the truth, Winston starts a secret, forbidden love affair with a fellow Party member, Julia. He soon finds out that in the nightmarish world he lives in, love means hate, war means peace, ignorance is a virtue, and freedom comes with betrayal. Nineteen Eighty-Four is a futuristic novel in which Orwell examines the critical shortcomings and dangers of totalitarian rule.
Nineteen Eighty-Four “belong to a particular genre which is usually described as anti-utopian or dystopian. As such it is a type of satire” (Calder 38). In order to understand what dystopian is, one must first know what is utopia. Utopia is “the imaginary of ideal or superior human society where people have the opportunity to live in peace and harmony” (Baldik 85) - a concept that was created by Plato. Nineteen Eighty-Four, the last book that Orwell wrote in his life, is about a disorganized and chaotic society which he imagines will occur if the world is ruled by a totalitarian government – or any other government that is given excessive power. This society is the opposite of Plato’s utopian concept, thus it is called dystopian.
The first characteristic of totalitarianism is “a single party committed to that ideology, usually led by one man” (Rush 71). In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Oceania is ruled by a single party, which is the Party, who is committed to the ideology “INGSOC” (Orwell 4) – or “English Socialism” (Orwell 42) – and it is led by Big Brother. The posters of Big Brother’s face gazing down over the caption “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU” (Orwell 3) are omnipresent in London, a.k.a. Airstrip One. The Party members are told that Big Brother is the leader of the nation and the ruler of the Party. Every victory, every success, and even every scientific discovery “are held to issue directly from his dictatorship and inspiration” (Orwell 243). In fact, in the heresy book, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, it is written that “Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and the Party is infallible” (Orwell 242). In spite of the supposed greatness of Big Brother, there is a palpable air of mystery and vagueness about him, as no Party members have ever met him. He is like a mystical powerful figure. Winston thinks he remembers that Big Brother emerged around 1960, but the Party’s official records says that Big Brother’s existence dates back to 1930, before Winston was even born. How can the people of a country trust somebody to lead their country when they are not even sure of his existence? The people of Oceania grant the Party excessive power, which is exploited by them to create the dystopic society in Oceania.
The second characteristic of totalitarianism is “police power based on terror” (Rush 71). The Thought Police in Nineteen Eighty-Four is an extreme version of this aspect of totalitarianism. Party members in Airstrip One are under total surveillance and monitoring by the Thought Police, especially through the use of high-tech gizmos like telescreen, hidden microphone, and patrol helicopter. What is extreme about the Thought Police is that they capture anyone who shows even a slightest sign of unorthodoxy - even like talking to oneself. This is evident when Winston says: “The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to oneself – anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality” (Orwell 71). Party members have lost their privacy and also their freedom. They live in terror as their movements are scrutinized all the time and it has become an instinct for them to behave in a robotic and extremely orthodox way. This is evident when Winston says: “You had to live –did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” (Orwell 5). Furthermore, those who are caught by the Thought Police are ‘vaporised’ without notice – not to mention about having a fair trial – and their existence in any registry will be deleted. Winston once points out that “purges and vaporisations were a necessary part of the mechanics of government” (Orwell, 53). In short, the Thought Police operates based on terror.
A totalitarian government also practices “a centralized economy and control of all organizations” (Rush 71). The Party has the Ninth Three-Year Plan, “which recall Stalin’s Five-Year Plans” (Calder 121). All Party members are forced to work hard, so that the goals set in the Three-Year Plan will be fulfilled. As a result, there is a depression and the Party members have to endure a low quality of life. The Party controls the supplies of products to an extend that necessities such as shoelaces and razor blades are “impossible to get hold on in any other way” (Orwell 8). The effect of depression set by the Party due to the economic constrain is seen in this passage: “The pipes burst in every hard frost, the roof leaked whenever there was snow, the heating system was usually running at half steam when it was not closed down together from motives of economy.” (Orwell 25). The economy of Oceania is ran solely by the Party and they are free to do anything they want – including oppressing economic plans – as they are being granted total power. The low quality of life endured by the Party members serves as a reminder of the danger of totalitarianism.
The Party is also in control of all organizations, which means only pro-Party organizations are allowed to be established. An example is the Junior Anti-Sex League which serves the purpose of promoting sex as “a duty to the Party” (Orwell 103). With total control of organizations by the Party, political will of the people – if there is any – cannot be translated into an organized act; as such organisations will be banded. This fact is underlined when even the underground heretic Brotherhood organization in Oceania is actually made up and controlled by the Party; in fact, it is an invention by the Thought Police. This is proven when O’Brien, an Inner Party member and a Thought Police, tells Winston that he himself writes the heretic book of the Brotherhood: “I wrote it. That is to say, I collaborated in writing it” (Orwell 300). Considering this fact, the people of Oceania have no hope of defending their rights – through any organisation.
Another important aspect of a totalitarian government is “widespread Indoctrination, particularly through the education system” (Rush 71). The Party does this through many ways: The Two Minutes Hate, The Hate Week, Junior Anti-Sex League, and through the propaganda spreading device – telescreen. However, the most horrific indoctrination by the Party is that it has managed to brainwash the minds of the kids – at school – into thinking that it is heroic to denounce parents who are unfaithful to the Party: “Hardly a week passed on which the Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak – ‘child hero’ was the phrase generally used – had overheard some compromising remark and denounced his parents” (Orwell 29). The once impregnable bond between parents and their child, which usually will stand through any test, is now shattered by the Party’s indoctrination through the education system. Kids denouncing their parents is not something unheard of under the ruling of past totalitarian government like the U.S.S.R., but those cases were unintentional:- “The mask was taken off only at home, and then not always – even from your children you had to conceal how horror-struck you were; otherwise, God save you, they might let something slip in school” (McCaunley 85).
A totalitarian government also “monopolizes the means of communication” (Rush 71). The Party takes the meaning of monopolization of the means of communication and manipulation of information to a new height. The Party’s slogan, “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past” (Orwell 40) speaks volume as to the Party’s policy on information and communication. The ministry of information and communication of Oceania is euphemistically named Ministry of Truth and its purpose is none other than to scrutinize every means of communication and alter them when their contents contradict with the Party’s ideology:-
This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs – to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance (Orwell 47).
Furthermore, statistics are unethically made up by the Party to cover the real truth and to show the performance of the Party in better light. For example:-
The Ministry of Plenty’s forecast had estimated the output of boot for that quarter at a hundred and forty-five million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in re-writing the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been over-fulfilled (Orwell 48) As a result, “history is continuously rewritten” (Orwell 243) by the Party, which bring the novel’s theme, the mutability of the past. No information can be verified to be truth anymore as the Party manipulates almost everything.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell also criticizes the totalitarian “Marxist-Leninist ideology” (McCaunley 124) of “rewriting the history” (McCaunley 124) and “the process of reality control to ensure orthodoxy” (McCaunley 124). Since Marxist-Leninist ideology is the basis of the totalitarian Soviet Union, it can be said that the ideology is pretty much the characteristic of a totalitarian government. The rewriting of history by the Party has already been discussed before, but the Party must also be able to make people trust the altered history, or at least make them accept it without any questioning.
Newspeak is introduced by the Party with the goal of ensuring orthodoxy by limiting people’s thought. Newspeak is an ‘evolution’ of the current modern English, but it is much shorter and its vocabulary is ironically much lesser. As Syme, a friend of Winston who is one of the ‘engineers’ of Newspeak puts it: “We’re destroying –words – scores of them, hundred of them, every day. We’re cutting the language down to the bone” (Orwell 59). In Newspeak, only the aspects of the language that contribute to the Party’s cause are preserved. Obviously words like freedom, democracy, and privacy are eliminated from the vocabulary. “Newspeak is the ultimate reduction of language. It was a reduction that, like the reduction of humanity, Orwell saw already happening around him” (Calder 105). Orwell wrote in his essay, Politics and the English Language: “Language should be an instant for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought” (Orwell, website). Ironically, Newspeak is specifically designed to prevent thought or “thoughtcrime” (Orwell 60). Syme understands this objective of Newspeak, as can be seen when he says to Winston: “In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it” (Orwell 60). Orwell wrote in his essay, Politics and the English Language: “But if thoughts corrupt language, language can also corrupt thought” (Orwell 167). Newspeak not only deprives freedom of speech, it also deprives freedom of thought. It renders political will almost impossible and it is perhaps the Party’s single most powerful weapon in keeping itself in power. The invention of Newspeak ties into the novel’s theme: The importance of language to express thought.
Doublethink, a word in Newspeak, is the ability “to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them” (Orwell 41). A blatant example of doublethink is the naming of the ministries in Oceania – the Ministry of Peace wages war, the Ministry of Truth invents false news, the Ministry of Love tortures people. Another blatant example of the use of doublethink: During the Hate Week, the hatred towards Eurasia – Oceania’s enemy – is at its climax as the Party rally its members to hate the enemy in order to achieve collectivism. Suddenly, they announce that “Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally” (Orwell 209). Party members have to practice doublethink to accept this flagrant twist of truth – which most of them do as there was no revolt – or they will be caught by the Thought Police with the offense of committing “thoughtcrime” (Orwell 60), or worse, they can become insane. The Party members unquestioning nature in accepting whatever the Party says is an extreme example of the success of a totalitarian government in ensuring orthodoxy and it serves as a reminder to the reader that erroneous thought is the stuff of freedom – an important theme in the novel. O’Brien says to the rebellious Winston while they are in a torture room: “It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be” (Orwell 292).
The thrush is an important symbol in Nineteen Eighty-Four even though it appears only once in the novel. Winston and Julia hear the melodious song sing by a thrush while they are at the Golden Country – the countryside where they ‘date’ for the first time: “The music went on and on, minute after minute, with astonishing variations, never once repeating itself, almost as though the bird were deliberately showing off its virtuosity” (Orwell 142). The thrush is a bird – an archaic symbol of freedom. To further associate it with freedom, Orwell wrote that it sings for no one and with no particular purpose. In other words, it sang because it has the freedom to do so. This is evident when Winston says, “For whom, for what, was that bird singing? No mate, no rival was watching it. What made it sit at the edge of the lonely wood and pour its music into nothingness?” (Orwell 142). Winston, whose each moves is dictated by the Party, cannot comprehend the purpose – or the lack of it – of the thrush as in his mind, freedom is nonexistence and something totally alien. The absence of the sense of freedom in Winston’s mind shows the novel’s important theme, the danger of totalitarianism. Another important thing to note is that Winston finds the song as very exquisite and melodious, unlike any other song that he had ever heard before. This is because he had only heard songs invented by the Party using machines: “the words of these songs were composed without any human intervention whatever on an instrument known as a versificator” (Orwell 159). The thrush song is genuine, beautiful, and natural as it “never once repeating itself” (Orwell 142) and it is far superior to the fake, mechanical songs invented by the machine. The difference between these two songs symbolizes the mechanical and rigid life under the totalitarian government as oppose to the joyous life of those who have freedom.
The room above Mr. Charington’s antique shop is a hideout place for Winston and Julia. Winston likes the room since the first time he enters it:-
It seems to him he knew exactly what it felt like to sit in a room like
this, in an armchair beside an open fire with your feet on the fender and
a kettle on the hob; utterly alone, utterly secure, and nobody watching
you, no sound except the kettle and the friendly ticking of the clock. (111)
He likes the antique objects in the room like the kettle, the armchair, the “old-fashioned glass clock” (Orwell 111), and the wooden bed, which give Winston a sense of reliving the past; They awake his “ancestral memory” (Orwell 111). The memory theme is an important one in the novel. The biggest reason why Winston is so fond of the room is that “there’s no telescreen!” (Orwell 111). With no one watching him, he feels secure and alone – he likes the solitariness of the room. “The realities of 1984 force a longing to be beyond the all-seeing eye and intrusive voice” (Calder 61). In other words, he wants privacy the most, as all his life is under the constant surveillance and monitoring of the Party. The rare privacy that Winston gets from this room reminds the reader about the novel’s theme: The danger of totalitarianism.
The glass paperweight is a prominent symbol in the novel as it is often repeated. The glass paperweight is half-round and there is a pink sea anemone in it: “At the heart of it, magnifies by the curved surface, there was a strange, pink, convoluted object that recalled a rose or a sea anemone” (Orwell 109). Winston buys it at an antique shop which he frequently visits and the shop keeper tells him, “it wasn’t made a hundred years ago. More, by the look of it” (Orwell 109). He likes the paperweight because it is an antique, a rarity, something concrete from the past, not really because the thing is beautiful or purposeful:-
I don’t think it’s anything – I mean, I don’t think it was ever put to
any use. That’s what I like about it. It’s a little chunk of history
that they’ve forgotten to alter. It’s a message from a hundred years
ago, if one knew how to read it” says Wintson (168).
History has been extensively altered by the Party to suit its need and the antique paperweight symbolizes Winston’s “attempt to reconnect with the lost past” (Calder 69). Orwell also shows that Winston finds comfort and security in the paperweight. This can be seen when Orwell describes Winston’s fantasy about the paperweight: “The paperweight was the room he was in, and the coral was Julia’s life and his own, fixed in a sort of eternity at the heart of the crystal” (Orwell 169). The paperweight’s “curved surface” resembles a world, and Winston’s fantasy of living in it eternally with Julia suggests that Winston wants a world of his own where he can have privacy and he can do whatever he wants, which is something deprived by the totalitarian Party. However, the paperweight “remains a fragile object” (61) – a fragile glass – which reflects how fragile is his dream. “At the same time it reflects the vulnerability of both past and present” (Calder 61). The glass paperweight is “smashed to pieces on the hearth-stone” (Orwell 254) by the Thought Police when Winston and Julia are caught by them. The thought police action of smashing the glass into pieces represents the symbolical smashing of privacy and the real past by the totalitarian government.
The omnipresent telescreens are the ‘eyes’ of the Party in exercising total surveillance and monitoring of its members. The telescreen is a sophisticated television-shaped device, which is able to capture real-time video and audio and feeds them to the Thought Police: “Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard” (Orwell 5). Not only that, the telescreen is also a propaganda tool for the Party as it shows programme that promotes nationalism and fake news about the Party’s achievements. The telescreen is a symbol of the abuse of technology by totalitarian government for its tyrannical needs instead for the good of the civilization.
Winston Smith, the hero of the novel, is far from being the typical hero. He is neither physically powerful nor high status. With his varicrose ulcer he ascends the stairs painfully: “Winston, who was thirty-nine and had a varicrose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times” (Orwell 1). He is a “smallish, frail figure” (Orwell 14) and he is frequently attacked by a coughing fit. Status wise, he is only a normal Party member, which can be considered as the middle-class. The only thing special about him is that he is “an individual who is perhaps more than ordinarily aware of his surroundings” (Calder 41). Winston’s ordinariness contributes to the reader’s understanding about the novel as he is the reader’s “vehicle of observation” (Calder 41).
Winston’s most prominent quality is his rebelliousness. He writes “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!” in his diary, he breaks the Party’s rule by having an affair with a fellow Party member, Julia, and he willingly joins the Brotherhood – an anti Party organisation. At first, Winston’s rebellion seems to be only personal as his feeling is born out of discontent with his life. After Winston and Julia have their first sex, Orwell wrote, “Their embrace had been a battle, the climax is a victory. It was a blow struck against the Party. It was a political act” (Orwell 145). Even his ‘political act’ is actually personal, as sex is something definitely personal. However, his rebel has always been fueled by his intellectual awareness – he knows that the Party is defeating individuality, breeching privacy, and depriving people’s right. He writes in his diary: “From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink – greetings!” (Orwell 32). As the story goes on, it becomes clear that Winston’s rebel is also political, as he willingly joins the underground heretic organization - the Brotherhood. He professes to O’Brien that he is willing to give his life for the cause of the Brotherhood: “You are prepared to give your lives? Yes. You are prepared to commit murder? Yes” (Orwell 199). The flaw in totalitarianism is that some of their citizens are actually discontent with them, even after all the indoctrination.
Winston also has a strong sense of fatalism – a strong belief that he is actually doomed. This can be seen when he writes in his diary: “Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death” (Orwell 33). When Winston rents the room above Mr. Charington shop as a hiding place for him and his lover Julia, this thought comes to his mind: “There it lay, fixed in future time, preceding death as surely as 99 precedes 100” (Orwell 161). Winston’s paranoia and fatalism are induced by the totalitarian Party’s ruling system based on terror.
Julia, Winston’s lover, is a sensuous character. Winston describes her as “young and lusty” (Orwell 116). She is the one who starts their relationship by slipping a paper saying “I love you” into Winston’s palm. She has a courage that Winston lacks, and this quality of hers attracts Winston. She is the only person who Winston can be sure hates the Party and wishes to rebel against it as he does. However, there is a fundamental difference between Julia’s rebelliousness and Winston’s. Her rebel towards the Party is more instinctive than intellectual. She likes to break the Party rules like having sex with Winston, but “She had not the faintest interest in the ramification of Party doctrine” (Orwell 179). Her lack of intellectual depth is seen when she questions Winston’s urge to keep an evidence of the Party’s alteration of history: “I’m quite ready to take risks but only for something worth while, not for bits of old newspaper. What could you have down with it even if you had kept it?” (Orwell 179).
Julia is a striking contrast with Winston – apart from their sexual desire and hatred for the Party. She is an optimistic person – the opposite of the fatalistic and paranoid Winston. This can be seen when she scolds Winston for talking about their imminent death: “Oh, rubbish! Which would you sooner sleep with, me or a skeleton? Don’t you enjoy being alive?” (Orwell 156). Her lack of understanding of the real nature of the Party is perhaps the reason why she is an optimist. Then Winston begins to understand that many Party members are perhaps like Julia: They do rebel against the Party to a certain extend, but they do not see the big picture; they do not like the restriction imposed on them but they do not understand that they should have their own rights. Winston eloquently says, “They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird” (180). Julia’s lack of intellectual depth shows the novel’s theme: Erroneous thought is the stuff of freedom.
O’Brien is the third major character in Nineteen-Eighty Four and he serves the role to deliver the absolute power theme in the novel. Orwell does a good job in elaborating O’Brien’s characteristic and actions to show the definition of power, how dangerous absolute power can be, and how power can give positive impact to people. Winston’s loneliness and solidarity causes him to long for someone who can share his feeling of hatred towards the Party. Initially, he cannot find someone. However, after he meets O’Brien, an officer of Inner Party, for the first time, he feels that O’Brien is the perfect company to share his rebellious feeling. He can sense something “special” about O’Brien which gives him courage and support to continue his rebellion against the Party. This is shown when Orwell mentions that the diary which Winston writes to express his feeling – something that is considered as ‘thoughtcrime’- is “for O’Brien – to O’Brien” (Orwell 92). He dedicates his diary to O’Brien because he thinks that he is his protector – somebody who will support him and somebody who will always stand beside him when he faces troubles and this situation creates a unique bond between Winston and O’Brien. This special bond is shown when Orwell states Winston’s perception towards O’Brien: “He was the tormentor, he was the protector, he was the inquisitor, he was the friend” (Orwell 280). As O’Brien embodies power, this passage shows what power can be: a friend, a protector, or a tormentor.
Winston’s misplaced trust on O’Brien leads to his own downfall. O’Brien uses his power to induct Winston into the underground Brotherhood, whose aim is to destroy the Party, by showing that he is on Winston’s side. Winston bares all his secrets to O’Brien when he professes to the Brotherhood. For example, he brings along his lover Julia with him and he clearly shows his love for her by saying “No!” (Orwell 200) when he is asked by O’Brien: “You are prepared, the two of you, to separate and never see one another again?” (Orwell 200). O’Brien is actually a Thought Police, so what Winston does is planting his seeds of destruction unknowingly. Orwell shows that it is dangerous to give anyone – especially a government – excessive trust and power, as they can easily manipulate back the naïve giver – just like the people of Oceania is being manipulated by the Party.
By the end of the book, Orwell starts to reveal the evil side of O’Brien. O’Brien pretends to be good but actually he has a hidden agenda: he wants to “save” Winston from the crime. Ironically enough, the Party also says that all the things that they do is for the good of the people, but they are actually the opposite – just like O’Brien. O’Brien can be considered as the most evil character in the novel. He oversees Winston’s entire time in the prisoner, taking almost a personal interest in him. By using his absolute power, he tortures and brainwashes Winston brutally in pursuit of his goal of “saving” Winston. “O’Brien absolute physical power enables him to force Winston to accept his essentially mad belief in a society based on the principle of power” (Meyers 137). In the end of the novel, Winston becomes a person who obeys the Party and “He loved Big Brother” (Orwell 342).
Through the character O’Brien, Orwell explains that his warning is not only towards totalitarian government, but also to any government that seeks for excessive power. O’Brien tells Winston that “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake” (Orwell 301) and – in fact – the German Nazis and the Russian Communists only “came very close to us” (Orwell 301). He says that the difference is they seek for “pure power” (Orwell 302) while the two totalitarian governments only “pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly” (Orwell 302). Therefore, the criteria of a government that can match the Party’s flawed characteristics is how much it longs for power, not whether it has any totalitarian trait.
Nineteen Eighty-Four examines the critical shortcomings and dangers of totalitarian rule. However, Orwell is not limiting his critics only to totalitarian government; his critics are towards any government that is being given excessive power or practicing any of the flawed characteristics of totalitarianism. Thus, the novel has an enduring relevance – a sign of great literature. For example, the perpetual, false war waged by the Party has a striking resemblance with the war on terrorism – a “different” kind of war – currently waged by the world’s biggest superpower, the United States of America. The invention of the ubiquitous internet, at first, seems to promise an end to the stifling monopoly of communication by totalitarian government and grants a total freedom of knowledge to everybody; again, it was a false hope. China has managed to build a ‘Cyber Record Department’ which filters scores of ‘unwanted’ websites and establishes a secret ‘Cyber Thought Police’ that can tract down cyber thoughtcrimes. O’Brien says to Winston while he is brainwashing him: “We are the priests of power… God is power” (Orwell 303).
I condemn totalitarianism, but at the same time I disagree that total democracy is always the right way to go. If we look at Iraq, the country was better off during Saddam era than it is right now. Saddam was cruel – by no means, I am suggesting it is the otherwise – but Iraq was more in control than it is right now. While the syiahs, sunnis, etc. cannot see eyes to eyes – what a shame – democracy does not help them to resolve their problems at all. During Saddam era, the equilibrium was there, albeit it was not really fair and based a lot on cruelty. The question is: Is Iraq better off under the current democracy system than it was under dictatorship? There is no clear cut answer of course.
In most cases, democracy is indeed the right way to go. However, democracy has its weaknesses and it should not be the sole system that we should follow. So much for democracy, the States are making marijuana legal. Majority supports the legalization of marijuana due to the fact that Marijuana is just as dangerous as alcohol. Instead of banning alcohol because its hazard is to the magnitude of a drug such as marijuana, the public is legalizing marijuana. What is wrong is still wrong, no matter what the majority say.
Critical Examination Of 1984 And Its Ramification In The Current World
“WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” (Orwell 6) are the three slogans of the ruling Party in Airstrip One – which is London – in the nation of Oceania. Working in the Record Department of the Ministry of Truth, Winston Smith, the hero of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, rewrites documents – the past – in accordance to the demand of the Party. However, he silently rebels against the totalitarian Party, which demands its citizen complete obedience and robs them of any right, freedom, and privacy. In his search to find the truth, Winston starts a secret, forbidden love affair with a fellow Party member, Julia. He soon finds out that in the nightmarish world he lives in, love means hate, war means peace, ignorance is a virtue, and freedom comes with betrayal. Nineteen Eighty-Four is a futuristic novel in which Orwell examines the critical shortcomings and dangers of totalitarian rule.
Nineteen Eighty-Four “belong to a particular genre which is usually described as anti-utopian or dystopian. As such it is a type of satire” (Calder 38). In order to understand what dystopian is, one must first know what is utopia. Utopia is “the imaginary of ideal or superior human society where people have the opportunity to live in peace and harmony” (Baldik 85) - a concept that was created by Plato. Nineteen Eighty-Four, the last book that Orwell wrote in his life, is about a disorganized and chaotic society which he imagines will occur if the world is ruled by a totalitarian government – or any other government that is given excessive power. This society is the opposite of Plato’s utopian concept, thus it is called dystopian.
The first characteristic of totalitarianism is “a single party committed to that ideology, usually led by one man” (Rush 71). In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Oceania is ruled by a single party, which is the Party, who is committed to the ideology “INGSOC” (Orwell 4) – or “English Socialism” (Orwell 42) – and it is led by Big Brother. The posters of Big Brother’s face gazing down over the caption “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU” (Orwell 3) are omnipresent in London, a.k.a. Airstrip One. The Party members are told that Big Brother is the leader of the nation and the ruler of the Party. Every victory, every success, and even every scientific discovery “are held to issue directly from his dictatorship and inspiration” (Orwell 243). In fact, in the heresy book, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, it is written that “Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and the Party is infallible” (Orwell 242). In spite of the supposed greatness of Big Brother, there is a palpable air of mystery and vagueness about him, as no Party members have ever met him. He is like a mystical powerful figure. Winston thinks he remembers that Big Brother emerged around 1960, but the Party’s official records says that Big Brother’s existence dates back to 1930, before Winston was even born. How can the people of a country trust somebody to lead their country when they are not even sure of his existence? The people of Oceania grant the Party excessive power, which is exploited by them to create the dystopic society in Oceania.
The second characteristic of totalitarianism is “police power based on terror” (Rush 71). The Thought Police in Nineteen Eighty-Four is an extreme version of this aspect of totalitarianism. Party members in Airstrip One are under total surveillance and monitoring by the Thought Police, especially through the use of high-tech gizmos like telescreen, hidden microphone, and patrol helicopter. What is extreme about the Thought Police is that they capture anyone who shows even a slightest sign of unorthodoxy - even like talking to oneself. This is evident when Winston says: “The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to oneself – anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality” (Orwell 71). Party members have lost their privacy and also their freedom. They live in terror as their movements are scrutinized all the time and it has become an instinct for them to behave in a robotic and extremely orthodox way. This is evident when Winston says: “You had to live –did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” (Orwell 5). Furthermore, those who are caught by the Thought Police are ‘vaporised’ without notice – not to mention about having a fair trial – and their existence in any registry will be deleted. Winston once points out that “purges and vaporisations were a necessary part of the mechanics of government” (Orwell, 53). In short, the Thought Police operates based on terror.
A totalitarian government also practices “a centralized economy and control of all organizations” (Rush 71). The Party has the Ninth Three-Year Plan, “which recall Stalin’s Five-Year Plans” (Calder 121). All Party members are forced to work hard, so that the goals set in the Three-Year Plan will be fulfilled. As a result, there is a depression and the Party members have to endure a low quality of life. The Party controls the supplies of products to an extend that necessities such as shoelaces and razor blades are “impossible to get hold on in any other way” (Orwell 8). The effect of depression set by the Party due to the economic constrain is seen in this passage: “The pipes burst in every hard frost, the roof leaked whenever there was snow, the heating system was usually running at half steam when it was not closed down together from motives of economy.” (Orwell 25). The economy of Oceania is ran solely by the Party and they are free to do anything they want – including oppressing economic plans – as they are being granted total power. The low quality of life endured by the Party members serves as a reminder of the danger of totalitarianism.
The Party is also in control of all organizations, which means only pro-Party organizations are allowed to be established. An example is the Junior Anti-Sex League which serves the purpose of promoting sex as “a duty to the Party” (Orwell 103). With total control of organizations by the Party, political will of the people – if there is any – cannot be translated into an organized act; as such organisations will be banded. This fact is underlined when even the underground heretic Brotherhood organization in Oceania is actually made up and controlled by the Party; in fact, it is an invention by the Thought Police. This is proven when O’Brien, an Inner Party member and a Thought Police, tells Winston that he himself writes the heretic book of the Brotherhood: “I wrote it. That is to say, I collaborated in writing it” (Orwell 300). Considering this fact, the people of Oceania have no hope of defending their rights – through any organisation.
Another important aspect of a totalitarian government is “widespread Indoctrination, particularly through the education system” (Rush 71). The Party does this through many ways: The Two Minutes Hate, The Hate Week, Junior Anti-Sex League, and through the propaganda spreading device – telescreen. However, the most horrific indoctrination by the Party is that it has managed to brainwash the minds of the kids – at school – into thinking that it is heroic to denounce parents who are unfaithful to the Party: “Hardly a week passed on which the Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak – ‘child hero’ was the phrase generally used – had overheard some compromising remark and denounced his parents” (Orwell 29). The once impregnable bond between parents and their child, which usually will stand through any test, is now shattered by the Party’s indoctrination through the education system. Kids denouncing their parents is not something unheard of under the ruling of past totalitarian government like the U.S.S.R., but those cases were unintentional:- “The mask was taken off only at home, and then not always – even from your children you had to conceal how horror-struck you were; otherwise, God save you, they might let something slip in school” (McCaunley 85).
A totalitarian government also “monopolizes the means of communication” (Rush 71). The Party takes the meaning of monopolization of the means of communication and manipulation of information to a new height. The Party’s slogan, “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past” (Orwell 40) speaks volume as to the Party’s policy on information and communication. The ministry of information and communication of Oceania is euphemistically named Ministry of Truth and its purpose is none other than to scrutinize every means of communication and alter them when their contents contradict with the Party’s ideology:-
This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs – to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance (Orwell 47).
Furthermore, statistics are unethically made up by the Party to cover the real truth and to show the performance of the Party in better light. For example:-
The Ministry of Plenty’s forecast had estimated the output of boot for that quarter at a hundred and forty-five million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in re-writing the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been over-fulfilled (Orwell 48) As a result, “history is continuously rewritten” (Orwell 243) by the Party, which bring the novel’s theme, the mutability of the past. No information can be verified to be truth anymore as the Party manipulates almost everything.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell also criticizes the totalitarian “Marxist-Leninist ideology” (McCaunley 124) of “rewriting the history” (McCaunley 124) and “the process of reality control to ensure orthodoxy” (McCaunley 124). Since Marxist-Leninist ideology is the basis of the totalitarian Soviet Union, it can be said that the ideology is pretty much the characteristic of a totalitarian government. The rewriting of history by the Party has already been discussed before, but the Party must also be able to make people trust the altered history, or at least make them accept it without any questioning.
Newspeak is introduced by the Party with the goal of ensuring orthodoxy by limiting people’s thought. Newspeak is an ‘evolution’ of the current modern English, but it is much shorter and its vocabulary is ironically much lesser. As Syme, a friend of Winston who is one of the ‘engineers’ of Newspeak puts it: “We’re destroying –words – scores of them, hundred of them, every day. We’re cutting the language down to the bone” (Orwell 59). In Newspeak, only the aspects of the language that contribute to the Party’s cause are preserved. Obviously words like freedom, democracy, and privacy are eliminated from the vocabulary. “Newspeak is the ultimate reduction of language. It was a reduction that, like the reduction of humanity, Orwell saw already happening around him” (Calder 105). Orwell wrote in his essay, Politics and the English Language: “Language should be an instant for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought” (Orwell, website). Ironically, Newspeak is specifically designed to prevent thought or “thoughtcrime” (Orwell 60). Syme understands this objective of Newspeak, as can be seen when he says to Winston: “In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it” (Orwell 60). Orwell wrote in his essay, Politics and the English Language: “But if thoughts corrupt language, language can also corrupt thought” (Orwell 167). Newspeak not only deprives freedom of speech, it also deprives freedom of thought. It renders political will almost impossible and it is perhaps the Party’s single most powerful weapon in keeping itself in power. The invention of Newspeak ties into the novel’s theme: The importance of language to express thought.
Doublethink, a word in Newspeak, is the ability “to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them” (Orwell 41). A blatant example of doublethink is the naming of the ministries in Oceania – the Ministry of Peace wages war, the Ministry of Truth invents false news, the Ministry of Love tortures people. Another blatant example of the use of doublethink: During the Hate Week, the hatred towards Eurasia – Oceania’s enemy – is at its climax as the Party rally its members to hate the enemy in order to achieve collectivism. Suddenly, they announce that “Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally” (Orwell 209). Party members have to practice doublethink to accept this flagrant twist of truth – which most of them do as there was no revolt – or they will be caught by the Thought Police with the offense of committing “thoughtcrime” (Orwell 60), or worse, they can become insane. The Party members unquestioning nature in accepting whatever the Party says is an extreme example of the success of a totalitarian government in ensuring orthodoxy and it serves as a reminder to the reader that erroneous thought is the stuff of freedom – an important theme in the novel. O’Brien says to the rebellious Winston while they are in a torture room: “It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be” (Orwell 292).
The thrush is an important symbol in Nineteen Eighty-Four even though it appears only once in the novel. Winston and Julia hear the melodious song sing by a thrush while they are at the Golden Country – the countryside where they ‘date’ for the first time: “The music went on and on, minute after minute, with astonishing variations, never once repeating itself, almost as though the bird were deliberately showing off its virtuosity” (Orwell 142). The thrush is a bird – an archaic symbol of freedom. To further associate it with freedom, Orwell wrote that it sings for no one and with no particular purpose. In other words, it sang because it has the freedom to do so. This is evident when Winston says, “For whom, for what, was that bird singing? No mate, no rival was watching it. What made it sit at the edge of the lonely wood and pour its music into nothingness?” (Orwell 142). Winston, whose each moves is dictated by the Party, cannot comprehend the purpose – or the lack of it – of the thrush as in his mind, freedom is nonexistence and something totally alien. The absence of the sense of freedom in Winston’s mind shows the novel’s important theme, the danger of totalitarianism. Another important thing to note is that Winston finds the song as very exquisite and melodious, unlike any other song that he had ever heard before. This is because he had only heard songs invented by the Party using machines: “the words of these songs were composed without any human intervention whatever on an instrument known as a versificator” (Orwell 159). The thrush song is genuine, beautiful, and natural as it “never once repeating itself” (Orwell 142) and it is far superior to the fake, mechanical songs invented by the machine. The difference between these two songs symbolizes the mechanical and rigid life under the totalitarian government as oppose to the joyous life of those who have freedom.
The room above Mr. Charington’s antique shop is a hideout place for Winston and Julia. Winston likes the room since the first time he enters it:-
It seems to him he knew exactly what it felt like to sit in a room like
this, in an armchair beside an open fire with your feet on the fender and
a kettle on the hob; utterly alone, utterly secure, and nobody watching
you, no sound except the kettle and the friendly ticking of the clock. (111)
He likes the antique objects in the room like the kettle, the armchair, the “old-fashioned glass clock” (Orwell 111), and the wooden bed, which give Winston a sense of reliving the past; They awake his “ancestral memory” (Orwell 111). The memory theme is an important one in the novel. The biggest reason why Winston is so fond of the room is that “there’s no telescreen!” (Orwell 111). With no one watching him, he feels secure and alone – he likes the solitariness of the room. “The realities of 1984 force a longing to be beyond the all-seeing eye and intrusive voice” (Calder 61). In other words, he wants privacy the most, as all his life is under the constant surveillance and monitoring of the Party. The rare privacy that Winston gets from this room reminds the reader about the novel’s theme: The danger of totalitarianism.
The glass paperweight is a prominent symbol in the novel as it is often repeated. The glass paperweight is half-round and there is a pink sea anemone in it: “At the heart of it, magnifies by the curved surface, there was a strange, pink, convoluted object that recalled a rose or a sea anemone” (Orwell 109). Winston buys it at an antique shop which he frequently visits and the shop keeper tells him, “it wasn’t made a hundred years ago. More, by the look of it” (Orwell 109). He likes the paperweight because it is an antique, a rarity, something concrete from the past, not really because the thing is beautiful or purposeful:-
I don’t think it’s anything – I mean, I don’t think it was ever put to
any use. That’s what I like about it. It’s a little chunk of history
that they’ve forgotten to alter. It’s a message from a hundred years
ago, if one knew how to read it” says Wintson (168).
History has been extensively altered by the Party to suit its need and the antique paperweight symbolizes Winston’s “attempt to reconnect with the lost past” (Calder 69). Orwell also shows that Winston finds comfort and security in the paperweight. This can be seen when Orwell describes Winston’s fantasy about the paperweight: “The paperweight was the room he was in, and the coral was Julia’s life and his own, fixed in a sort of eternity at the heart of the crystal” (Orwell 169). The paperweight’s “curved surface” resembles a world, and Winston’s fantasy of living in it eternally with Julia suggests that Winston wants a world of his own where he can have privacy and he can do whatever he wants, which is something deprived by the totalitarian Party. However, the paperweight “remains a fragile object” (61) – a fragile glass – which reflects how fragile is his dream. “At the same time it reflects the vulnerability of both past and present” (Calder 61). The glass paperweight is “smashed to pieces on the hearth-stone” (Orwell 254) by the Thought Police when Winston and Julia are caught by them. The thought police action of smashing the glass into pieces represents the symbolical smashing of privacy and the real past by the totalitarian government.
The omnipresent telescreens are the ‘eyes’ of the Party in exercising total surveillance and monitoring of its members. The telescreen is a sophisticated television-shaped device, which is able to capture real-time video and audio and feeds them to the Thought Police: “Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard” (Orwell 5). Not only that, the telescreen is also a propaganda tool for the Party as it shows programme that promotes nationalism and fake news about the Party’s achievements. The telescreen is a symbol of the abuse of technology by totalitarian government for its tyrannical needs instead for the good of the civilization.
Winston Smith, the hero of the novel, is far from being the typical hero. He is neither physically powerful nor high status. With his varicrose ulcer he ascends the stairs painfully: “Winston, who was thirty-nine and had a varicrose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times” (Orwell 1). He is a “smallish, frail figure” (Orwell 14) and he is frequently attacked by a coughing fit. Status wise, he is only a normal Party member, which can be considered as the middle-class. The only thing special about him is that he is “an individual who is perhaps more than ordinarily aware of his surroundings” (Calder 41). Winston’s ordinariness contributes to the reader’s understanding about the novel as he is the reader’s “vehicle of observation” (Calder 41).
Winston’s most prominent quality is his rebelliousness. He writes “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!” in his diary, he breaks the Party’s rule by having an affair with a fellow Party member, Julia, and he willingly joins the Brotherhood – an anti Party organisation. At first, Winston’s rebellion seems to be only personal as his feeling is born out of discontent with his life. After Winston and Julia have their first sex, Orwell wrote, “Their embrace had been a battle, the climax is a victory. It was a blow struck against the Party. It was a political act” (Orwell 145). Even his ‘political act’ is actually personal, as sex is something definitely personal. However, his rebel has always been fueled by his intellectual awareness – he knows that the Party is defeating individuality, breeching privacy, and depriving people’s right. He writes in his diary: “From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink – greetings!” (Orwell 32). As the story goes on, it becomes clear that Winston’s rebel is also political, as he willingly joins the underground heretic organization - the Brotherhood. He professes to O’Brien that he is willing to give his life for the cause of the Brotherhood: “You are prepared to give your lives? Yes. You are prepared to commit murder? Yes” (Orwell 199). The flaw in totalitarianism is that some of their citizens are actually discontent with them, even after all the indoctrination.
Winston also has a strong sense of fatalism – a strong belief that he is actually doomed. This can be seen when he writes in his diary: “Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death” (Orwell 33). When Winston rents the room above Mr. Charington shop as a hiding place for him and his lover Julia, this thought comes to his mind: “There it lay, fixed in future time, preceding death as surely as 99 precedes 100” (Orwell 161). Winston’s paranoia and fatalism are induced by the totalitarian Party’s ruling system based on terror.
Julia, Winston’s lover, is a sensuous character. Winston describes her as “young and lusty” (Orwell 116). She is the one who starts their relationship by slipping a paper saying “I love you” into Winston’s palm. She has a courage that Winston lacks, and this quality of hers attracts Winston. She is the only person who Winston can be sure hates the Party and wishes to rebel against it as he does. However, there is a fundamental difference between Julia’s rebelliousness and Winston’s. Her rebel towards the Party is more instinctive than intellectual. She likes to break the Party rules like having sex with Winston, but “She had not the faintest interest in the ramification of Party doctrine” (Orwell 179). Her lack of intellectual depth is seen when she questions Winston’s urge to keep an evidence of the Party’s alteration of history: “I’m quite ready to take risks but only for something worth while, not for bits of old newspaper. What could you have down with it even if you had kept it?” (Orwell 179).
Julia is a striking contrast with Winston – apart from their sexual desire and hatred for the Party. She is an optimistic person – the opposite of the fatalistic and paranoid Winston. This can be seen when she scolds Winston for talking about their imminent death: “Oh, rubbish! Which would you sooner sleep with, me or a skeleton? Don’t you enjoy being alive?” (Orwell 156). Her lack of understanding of the real nature of the Party is perhaps the reason why she is an optimist. Then Winston begins to understand that many Party members are perhaps like Julia: They do rebel against the Party to a certain extend, but they do not see the big picture; they do not like the restriction imposed on them but they do not understand that they should have their own rights. Winston eloquently says, “They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird” (180). Julia’s lack of intellectual depth shows the novel’s theme: Erroneous thought is the stuff of freedom.
O’Brien is the third major character in Nineteen-Eighty Four and he serves the role to deliver the absolute power theme in the novel. Orwell does a good job in elaborating O’Brien’s characteristic and actions to show the definition of power, how dangerous absolute power can be, and how power can give positive impact to people. Winston’s loneliness and solidarity causes him to long for someone who can share his feeling of hatred towards the Party. Initially, he cannot find someone. However, after he meets O’Brien, an officer of Inner Party, for the first time, he feels that O’Brien is the perfect company to share his rebellious feeling. He can sense something “special” about O’Brien which gives him courage and support to continue his rebellion against the Party. This is shown when Orwell mentions that the diary which Winston writes to express his feeling – something that is considered as ‘thoughtcrime’- is “for O’Brien – to O’Brien” (Orwell 92). He dedicates his diary to O’Brien because he thinks that he is his protector – somebody who will support him and somebody who will always stand beside him when he faces troubles and this situation creates a unique bond between Winston and O’Brien. This special bond is shown when Orwell states Winston’s perception towards O’Brien: “He was the tormentor, he was the protector, he was the inquisitor, he was the friend” (Orwell 280). As O’Brien embodies power, this passage shows what power can be: a friend, a protector, or a tormentor.
Winston’s misplaced trust on O’Brien leads to his own downfall. O’Brien uses his power to induct Winston into the underground Brotherhood, whose aim is to destroy the Party, by showing that he is on Winston’s side. Winston bares all his secrets to O’Brien when he professes to the Brotherhood. For example, he brings along his lover Julia with him and he clearly shows his love for her by saying “No!” (Orwell 200) when he is asked by O’Brien: “You are prepared, the two of you, to separate and never see one another again?” (Orwell 200). O’Brien is actually a Thought Police, so what Winston does is planting his seeds of destruction unknowingly. Orwell shows that it is dangerous to give anyone – especially a government – excessive trust and power, as they can easily manipulate back the naïve giver – just like the people of Oceania is being manipulated by the Party.
By the end of the book, Orwell starts to reveal the evil side of O’Brien. O’Brien pretends to be good but actually he has a hidden agenda: he wants to “save” Winston from the crime. Ironically enough, the Party also says that all the things that they do is for the good of the people, but they are actually the opposite – just like O’Brien. O’Brien can be considered as the most evil character in the novel. He oversees Winston’s entire time in the prisoner, taking almost a personal interest in him. By using his absolute power, he tortures and brainwashes Winston brutally in pursuit of his goal of “saving” Winston. “O’Brien absolute physical power enables him to force Winston to accept his essentially mad belief in a society based on the principle of power” (Meyers 137). In the end of the novel, Winston becomes a person who obeys the Party and “He loved Big Brother” (Orwell 342).
Through the character O’Brien, Orwell explains that his warning is not only towards totalitarian government, but also to any government that seeks for excessive power. O’Brien tells Winston that “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake” (Orwell 301) and – in fact – the German Nazis and the Russian Communists only “came very close to us” (Orwell 301). He says that the difference is they seek for “pure power” (Orwell 302) while the two totalitarian governments only “pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly” (Orwell 302). Therefore, the criteria of a government that can match the Party’s flawed characteristics is how much it longs for power, not whether it has any totalitarian trait.
Nineteen Eighty-Four examines the critical shortcomings and dangers of totalitarian rule. However, Orwell is not limiting his critics only to totalitarian government; his critics are towards any government that is being given excessive power or practicing any of the flawed characteristics of totalitarianism. Thus, the novel has an enduring relevance – a sign of great literature. For example, the perpetual, false war waged by the Party has a striking resemblance with the war on terrorism – a “different” kind of war – currently waged by the world’s biggest superpower, the United States of America. The invention of the ubiquitous internet, at first, seems to promise an end to the stifling monopoly of communication by totalitarian government and grants a total freedom of knowledge to everybody; again, it was a false hope. China has managed to build a ‘Cyber Record Department’ which filters scores of ‘unwanted’ websites and establishes a secret ‘Cyber Thought Police’ that can tract down cyber thoughtcrimes. O’Brien says to Winston while he is brainwashing him: “We are the priests of power… God is power” (Orwell 303).
Apple ithink
Isn’t the world just different during the age of innocent, when all your troubles are trivial? When you think you understand everything or you think you have seen everything that this world has to offer. Like a fish in a pond who sees everything in two dimensions; untroubled by the fact that this world can be experienced in its entire splendor with three dimensional spatial senses. In short, being a fool, who is oblivious about a plethora of nuances about this world.
A proverb goes: An apple a day keeps a doctor away. How I wish the subject matter of apple is really that simple. Well, it used to be that simple. The famous story about a poisoned apple did not make it any more complicated than it used to be. However, the man-made Apple – ipod, imac, iphone, etc. - made the subject matter a little bit more interesting. But that alone is not worth mentioning. How strange that an apple floating in a river can cause such great affliction and misguidance, when someone naively picked it up and eat it. An apple should keep a doctor away. But an apple can also cause grievous misguidance. It may lead you down the sophisticated road of ‘I pod, I don’t think’ or the sufisticated road of blind, unfounded allegiance.
"The inner reality of veneration for the Divine Law is to follow it with neither excessive license nor obsessive strictness. The goal is the straight path that leads the one who travels it to God. But there is not one of God’s commandments without two ways of approach to the Devil: one by deficiency, the other by excess. It makes no difference between the two errors overtakes the servant: they appear in his heart as equal. If he is already inclined towards ease and license, the Devil seizes him in his way. He slows him and sits him down, afflicts him with laziness, sloth, and inactivity. Then he opens for him the door of interpretation, [vain] hope and other [illusions], until perhaps he abandons entirely the commandments.
If the Devil finds him vigilance, activity and energy, he abandons his attempts to seize him from the one direction and instead spurs him on to ever greater efforts, whispering to him, ‘This is not enough for you. Your aspiration is higher than this. You should accomplish more than others, and if they let up, you will not. If they break their fast, you will not. If they wear down, you will not. If one of them washes the hands three times, you will wash yours seven. If one of them makes ablution for prayer, you will take the complete bath’ – and other extremes. Therefore, the Devil urges to do so much that he passes up the straight path through excess; when he urges the first person to do so little that he never reaches the straight path nor even approaches it. But his aim with both is [the same]: to keep them off the straight path, either by not drawing near to it or by passing it up. [Surely], many are so afflicted and there is no deliverance [for them] save through deeper knowledge, faith, and the strength to resist them and to keep to the middle way. And God is the Helper”
*Al-Wabil al-Sayyib min al-Kalim al-Tayyib, by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, translated by Michael Abdurrahman Fitzgerald & Moulay Youssef Slitine, pg 15-16, The Islamic Texts Society.
A proverb goes: An apple a day keeps a doctor away. How I wish the subject matter of apple is really that simple. Well, it used to be that simple. The famous story about a poisoned apple did not make it any more complicated than it used to be. However, the man-made Apple – ipod, imac, iphone, etc. - made the subject matter a little bit more interesting. But that alone is not worth mentioning. How strange that an apple floating in a river can cause such great affliction and misguidance, when someone naively picked it up and eat it. An apple should keep a doctor away. But an apple can also cause grievous misguidance. It may lead you down the sophisticated road of ‘I pod, I don’t think’ or the sufisticated road of blind, unfounded allegiance.
"The inner reality of veneration for the Divine Law is to follow it with neither excessive license nor obsessive strictness. The goal is the straight path that leads the one who travels it to God. But there is not one of God’s commandments without two ways of approach to the Devil: one by deficiency, the other by excess. It makes no difference between the two errors overtakes the servant: they appear in his heart as equal. If he is already inclined towards ease and license, the Devil seizes him in his way. He slows him and sits him down, afflicts him with laziness, sloth, and inactivity. Then he opens for him the door of interpretation, [vain] hope and other [illusions], until perhaps he abandons entirely the commandments.
If the Devil finds him vigilance, activity and energy, he abandons his attempts to seize him from the one direction and instead spurs him on to ever greater efforts, whispering to him, ‘This is not enough for you. Your aspiration is higher than this. You should accomplish more than others, and if they let up, you will not. If they break their fast, you will not. If they wear down, you will not. If one of them washes the hands three times, you will wash yours seven. If one of them makes ablution for prayer, you will take the complete bath’ – and other extremes. Therefore, the Devil urges to do so much that he passes up the straight path through excess; when he urges the first person to do so little that he never reaches the straight path nor even approaches it. But his aim with both is [the same]: to keep them off the straight path, either by not drawing near to it or by passing it up. [Surely], many are so afflicted and there is no deliverance [for them] save through deeper knowledge, faith, and the strength to resist them and to keep to the middle way. And God is the Helper”
*Al-Wabil al-Sayyib min al-Kalim al-Tayyib, by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, translated by Michael Abdurrahman Fitzgerald & Moulay Youssef Slitine, pg 15-16, The Islamic Texts Society.
Disillusioned
The heart is tranquil when it should be worried,
Instead it is worried when it should be tranquil,
The heart just cannot comprehend what it longs for,
The heart knows the way but it is hesitant for some reason,
Like a horse in confusion when he is being asked to cross a river,
To put trust in his partner or to trust his own self,
His instinct is akin to Navier or perhaps even stronger,
Everything is in asunder for he knows not the depth,
Mute talk in whisper panders the wretched soul,
It may take just a few breaths or it may take a life time,
The sublime Equus trying its best to console,
For getting his trust, is not just a matter of time,
Rhythmic splashes sending waves through the Rhine,
Leaving eternal whispers echoing the bank behind.
Instead it is worried when it should be tranquil,
The heart just cannot comprehend what it longs for,
The heart knows the way but it is hesitant for some reason,
Like a horse in confusion when he is being asked to cross a river,
To put trust in his partner or to trust his own self,
His instinct is akin to Navier or perhaps even stronger,
Everything is in asunder for he knows not the depth,
Mute talk in whisper panders the wretched soul,
It may take just a few breaths or it may take a life time,
The sublime Equus trying its best to console,
For getting his trust, is not just a matter of time,
Rhythmic splashes sending waves through the Rhine,
Leaving eternal whispers echoing the bank behind.
Scientific Absurdity
Before I start, I would like to remind the reader that one's belief in Allah should be based hundred percent on al-Quran, as-sunnah, and Ijmak Salafus Soleh. The intellect does not contradict with the revelation. Here is a metaphor: The intelect can accept the fact that there is something beyond a solid wall. Revelation tells what is beyond the wall. However, the intellect cannot know what is beyond the wall, unless it accepts what the revelation tells about it. Some people have this delusion that their intellect can can tell whatever is beyond the wall. This is a serious error and this article is meant to tell those people that their intellect is actually limited. After the intellect is enlightened by the fact that it is limited, then it should seek to understand the revelation.
Please correct my mistakes. I am very glad to recieve comments.
To comprehend the existence of God and to be submissive to God is two very different things. Not believing in God usually is a simple case of being naïve; therefore it is a problem with the mind. The mind can be fixed by learning true knowledge. The problem of not wanting to be submissive to God is a problem with the heart. There are many scientists out there who believe in God, but they do not practice their religious duties. There are people out there who try to comfort their hearts by reasoning out that God does not exist, so that they do not feel this guilt of committing sins and leaving obligations set by God.
As Descartes once put, “I think, therefore I am.” Of course there is a paradox attach to this phrase which I do not want to dwell any further here. I am just saying that by convincing one self that God does not exist, therefore one does not feel guilty when one does not submit to God – needless to say that such peace is an illusionary one. Some try to sooth their heart by convincing themselves that God created this universe, but after that they say He just “sits back” and He does not interfere at all with his creations, as they are already govern by laws which He has set when he created them – deism. There are many people out there who profess believe in science and they naively say: It contradicts with the existence of God. How ironic is this.
Just to check your knowledge about science, let us go through some phenomenon (examples) of this world. Let’s say that you are traveling at 10m/s north and I am traveling 20m/s. north too. I am some distance away directly behind of you. Therefore, the relative speed between us is 10m/s or in other words, I am catching you up at a speed of 10m/s right? Let’s say that light’s speed is 20m/s(this is not light’s true speed, it’s just a hypothetical case) and there is a photon of light some distance away directly behind of you. So light will catch you up at the speed of 10m/s just like I did right? Logical reasoning says yes, but the universe does not work that way. Light will catch you up at 20m/s. In fact, even if you are traveling at 20m/s, light will still catch you up at the speed of 20m/s. It’s just that light’s true speed is 3x10^8m/s (blinding fast), which is why all the mind-bending predictions about space and time that Einstein made in Special and General Relativity are counterintuitive to us.
This peculiar nature of light does not makes sense to you, as according to you, everything in this universe has to be logical. I am sorry my friend, unfortunately, it is not our job to tell light and the universe what they should do or how they should behave. Let’s just say, Mother Nature has set those laws. Shall I say, God has set those laws and you have no part in deciding it? Einstein abandoned all the proven scientific laws and mathematical theorem such as Galilean Transformation and Euclidian Geometry – geometry that you have been leaning in high school and guess what, they are actually WRONG! They are only good approximations – instead he put his trust in Principle of Relativity, which is purely an assumption. Of course it turned out that he is right. There are countless of good books out there which explain Relativity in great details. I am just trying to point out that this universe is not what it seems and what is actually science?
To give you a more intuitive sense of what this particular nature of light may mean to you, let me give you an example. (This example is a modified version of an example in Brian Greene's book, The Elegant Universe) Let’s say that the leaders of Palestine and Israel are going to sign a peace treaty on a train. This train is a special one: It travel’s at relativistic speed (near the speed of light), and its carriages are all transparent so that people from outside can see what is happening inside. To add a bit of a twist to this anecdote, let’s say that this state-of-the-art train is engineered by an Israeli. Thousands of Palestinian and Israelis are waiting at a train station which is situated at the border of the two countries, as the treaty is scheduled to be made when the train passes that station. Let’s forget about the impossibility of the human eye to focus on something that moves near the speed of light. There is a long table in the train and there is a light bulb in the middle of the table. The Israeli president sits at one end of the table with his back facing the front of the train and the Palestinian president sits on the other end where his face is facing the front of the train. The rule is like this: The carriage will be made pitch dark. When the light bulb in the middle of the train is switched on, both leaders will sign the treaty. This is to make sure that they sign it at the exact same time (again forget about human’s reaction time). There is also a third person in the train to verify that the treaty is signed together and nobody cheats.
Now, the train is passing the designated station and the light bulb switches on. Both leaders play by the rule and they sign the treaty together, as confirmed by the third person. So we are on a verge of a new peaceful era in the Middle East, right? Shockingly, fighting starts between the Israelis and the Palestinians who are at the train station after the treaty was signed. Shall I say kudos to the Israeli engineer who designed this train? People from the platform claim that the Palestinian leader cheated: They say he signed the treaty first. Mind you that this is not some twist of the truth – this is the reality. People from outside of the train will indeed see that the Palestinian leader signed the treaty first, but the three people inside the train will claim that they agreed that nobody cheats. I can hear you say, “How could that be? This is a single event; therefore there can’t be two truths about it.” I don’t want to bore you with the technicalities here, but to cut long story short: It is because time is relative and a SINGLE event is not the same for different observers in different frames. So, do you understand what is time? When I say time, I am not talking about the watch that you are wearing on your wrist or even just the feeling of the passing of time. I am talking about all the events that had happened, are happening, and will happen in your life and the nature of this world that YOU THINK you understand. Mind you that when you look at the sky and the stars during the night, you are actually looking at something you call the past and it is billions of years back.
If that did not amuse you, lets peak into the strange world of Quantum Mechanics (Ironically it is the very world that you live in). Before I go any further, let me quote what Neils Bohr once said: “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.” So if you have no idea what Quantum Theory is, pray try to understand it. If you are wondering why I want you to know all these; it is because Einstein, Hawking, Penrose, Bohr, etc. know all these and that part of the reason why they don’t think science contradicts with God.
(Example below is taken from Jim Al-Khalili’s book, Quantum : A Guide for the Perplexed, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2003)
The Road Not Taken – Robert Frost
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth.
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same.
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Regrets, choices, and the unknown future; part of life right?
“While we are often burdened with regrets about the choices we make in life, quantum mechanics tells of a very different reality at the subatomic level. Meeting it for the first time, the quantum world may seem unbelievable to us [Actually, it is the very world that we live in] when judgeg according to the PREJUDICED VIEWS of our everyday experiences – what we call common sense. But the alien way that quantum objects behave is beyond any doubt. A single atom can travel both roads in Frost’s yellow wood… no regrets for atoms; they can sample all possible experiences simultaneously” (Al-Khalili, 22)
Long gone the time when Newton’s laws say that this universe is deterministic, in fact now it is probabilistic and the weirdest thing is, atoms know the future before making ‘its decision'. Maybe this is a bit too complicated. Let’s just put it this way. According to Quantum mechanics (proven theory), there is a probability that you can go through a wall! It’s just that the probability for an atom to pass through a wall is 1 in a billion, let alone you, who consists of billions of atoms. But there is a chance right? Who decides this? Who decides for the electron? So who decides the probabilistic position of all these subatomic particles? Mind you that we are not in a realm of ‘we don’t know yet’, we are sure that it is not explainable – even if we found Theory of Everything – unless you invoke the word God. You can read books on Quantum mechanics if you do not believe me. Pray make yourself understand about Quantum mechanics (the nature of our world). After that, if you still think science contradicts with God, I can’t help you anymore.
One more thing that I want to ask: Why do you trust science so much that you are prepared to abandon certain things because science says so? Of course, there is absurd stuff out there which are clearly wrong. For example, many people back then believed that the universe is infinite; therefore there is no need for a creator. Then it is found out that the universe is finite and it has a beginning – the Big Bang – then certain people believe that there must be creator who created this universe. Many people buy this idea that God ‘sits back’ after He created this universe and He does not interfere with it after He created it. They argued that every physical laws - Newton ’s law, Gravitational Law, etc. In fact every classical physical laws out there – is perfect and there is no need for Him to ‘interfere’ with this world. They also say the same thing for living organism, by arguing on the basis of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. In other words, they are afraid of the fact that God is omniscient and their deeds and sins will be judged accordingly. Isn’t this a nice escape route to convince your intellect?
Suddenly Quantum mechanics is found out, and we learn that the deterministic classical physical laws (which are all the stuff you learn in high school physics) are actually ‘wrong’ – well, they are good approximations – and the CURRENT real nature of this world, is probabilistic. You can’t predict or say for sure where an electron’s position is and Bohr’s deterministic model of atom - he applied Newton's laws – is actually wrong. We know that there are certain things in this universe which we cannot predict and there is no exact rule that bound them. Someone or something decides certain thing. Those who believe in deism and they are honest with themselves admit that God has a role in this universe even after creation.
So believer in science, why do you make your judgment about God based solely on science? What is the ultimate truth? Can science tell you that? Once upon a time science says that an apple should be blue, but now it says that it should be red, but what about the future? Beforehand you argue that an apple should be blue JUST because SCIENCE SAYS SO, only to found out that science 'changes its mind' and now it says that apple should be red. What a bummer if you decide the most important thing in your life based on science, which proven laws are often found out to be actually wrong. Anyway, the current physics that we know certainly agrees with the existance of God. Is there a revealed knowledge from God which is the ultimate truth? May you find the right path, seeker of the truth.
Allah knows best.
Please correct my mistakes. I am very glad to recieve comments.
To comprehend the existence of God and to be submissive to God is two very different things. Not believing in God usually is a simple case of being naïve; therefore it is a problem with the mind. The mind can be fixed by learning true knowledge. The problem of not wanting to be submissive to God is a problem with the heart. There are many scientists out there who believe in God, but they do not practice their religious duties. There are people out there who try to comfort their hearts by reasoning out that God does not exist, so that they do not feel this guilt of committing sins and leaving obligations set by God.
As Descartes once put, “I think, therefore I am.” Of course there is a paradox attach to this phrase which I do not want to dwell any further here. I am just saying that by convincing one self that God does not exist, therefore one does not feel guilty when one does not submit to God – needless to say that such peace is an illusionary one. Some try to sooth their heart by convincing themselves that God created this universe, but after that they say He just “sits back” and He does not interfere at all with his creations, as they are already govern by laws which He has set when he created them – deism. There are many people out there who profess believe in science and they naively say: It contradicts with the existence of God. How ironic is this.
Just to check your knowledge about science, let us go through some phenomenon (examples) of this world. Let’s say that you are traveling at 10m/s north and I am traveling 20m/s. north too. I am some distance away directly behind of you. Therefore, the relative speed between us is 10m/s or in other words, I am catching you up at a speed of 10m/s right? Let’s say that light’s speed is 20m/s(this is not light’s true speed, it’s just a hypothetical case) and there is a photon of light some distance away directly behind of you. So light will catch you up at the speed of 10m/s just like I did right? Logical reasoning says yes, but the universe does not work that way. Light will catch you up at 20m/s. In fact, even if you are traveling at 20m/s, light will still catch you up at the speed of 20m/s. It’s just that light’s true speed is 3x10^8m/s (blinding fast), which is why all the mind-bending predictions about space and time that Einstein made in Special and General Relativity are counterintuitive to us.
This peculiar nature of light does not makes sense to you, as according to you, everything in this universe has to be logical. I am sorry my friend, unfortunately, it is not our job to tell light and the universe what they should do or how they should behave. Let’s just say, Mother Nature has set those laws. Shall I say, God has set those laws and you have no part in deciding it? Einstein abandoned all the proven scientific laws and mathematical theorem such as Galilean Transformation and Euclidian Geometry – geometry that you have been leaning in high school and guess what, they are actually WRONG! They are only good approximations – instead he put his trust in Principle of Relativity, which is purely an assumption. Of course it turned out that he is right. There are countless of good books out there which explain Relativity in great details. I am just trying to point out that this universe is not what it seems and what is actually science?
To give you a more intuitive sense of what this particular nature of light may mean to you, let me give you an example. (This example is a modified version of an example in Brian Greene's book, The Elegant Universe) Let’s say that the leaders of Palestine and Israel are going to sign a peace treaty on a train. This train is a special one: It travel’s at relativistic speed (near the speed of light), and its carriages are all transparent so that people from outside can see what is happening inside. To add a bit of a twist to this anecdote, let’s say that this state-of-the-art train is engineered by an Israeli. Thousands of Palestinian and Israelis are waiting at a train station which is situated at the border of the two countries, as the treaty is scheduled to be made when the train passes that station. Let’s forget about the impossibility of the human eye to focus on something that moves near the speed of light. There is a long table in the train and there is a light bulb in the middle of the table. The Israeli president sits at one end of the table with his back facing the front of the train and the Palestinian president sits on the other end where his face is facing the front of the train. The rule is like this: The carriage will be made pitch dark. When the light bulb in the middle of the train is switched on, both leaders will sign the treaty. This is to make sure that they sign it at the exact same time (again forget about human’s reaction time). There is also a third person in the train to verify that the treaty is signed together and nobody cheats.
Now, the train is passing the designated station and the light bulb switches on. Both leaders play by the rule and they sign the treaty together, as confirmed by the third person. So we are on a verge of a new peaceful era in the Middle East, right? Shockingly, fighting starts between the Israelis and the Palestinians who are at the train station after the treaty was signed. Shall I say kudos to the Israeli engineer who designed this train? People from the platform claim that the Palestinian leader cheated: They say he signed the treaty first. Mind you that this is not some twist of the truth – this is the reality. People from outside of the train will indeed see that the Palestinian leader signed the treaty first, but the three people inside the train will claim that they agreed that nobody cheats. I can hear you say, “How could that be? This is a single event; therefore there can’t be two truths about it.” I don’t want to bore you with the technicalities here, but to cut long story short: It is because time is relative and a SINGLE event is not the same for different observers in different frames. So, do you understand what is time? When I say time, I am not talking about the watch that you are wearing on your wrist or even just the feeling of the passing of time. I am talking about all the events that had happened, are happening, and will happen in your life and the nature of this world that YOU THINK you understand. Mind you that when you look at the sky and the stars during the night, you are actually looking at something you call the past and it is billions of years back.
If that did not amuse you, lets peak into the strange world of Quantum Mechanics (Ironically it is the very world that you live in). Before I go any further, let me quote what Neils Bohr once said: “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.” So if you have no idea what Quantum Theory is, pray try to understand it. If you are wondering why I want you to know all these; it is because Einstein, Hawking, Penrose, Bohr, etc. know all these and that part of the reason why they don’t think science contradicts with God.
(Example below is taken from Jim Al-Khalili’s book, Quantum : A Guide for the Perplexed, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2003)
The Road Not Taken – Robert Frost
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth.
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same.
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Regrets, choices, and the unknown future; part of life right?
“While we are often burdened with regrets about the choices we make in life, quantum mechanics tells of a very different reality at the subatomic level. Meeting it for the first time, the quantum world may seem unbelievable to us [Actually, it is the very world that we live in] when judgeg according to the PREJUDICED VIEWS of our everyday experiences – what we call common sense. But the alien way that quantum objects behave is beyond any doubt. A single atom can travel both roads in Frost’s yellow wood… no regrets for atoms; they can sample all possible experiences simultaneously” (Al-Khalili, 22)
Long gone the time when Newton’s laws say that this universe is deterministic, in fact now it is probabilistic and the weirdest thing is, atoms know the future before making ‘its decision'. Maybe this is a bit too complicated. Let’s just put it this way. According to Quantum mechanics (proven theory), there is a probability that you can go through a wall! It’s just that the probability for an atom to pass through a wall is 1 in a billion, let alone you, who consists of billions of atoms. But there is a chance right? Who decides this? Who decides for the electron? So who decides the probabilistic position of all these subatomic particles? Mind you that we are not in a realm of ‘we don’t know yet’, we are sure that it is not explainable – even if we found Theory of Everything – unless you invoke the word God. You can read books on Quantum mechanics if you do not believe me. Pray make yourself understand about Quantum mechanics (the nature of our world). After that, if you still think science contradicts with God, I can’t help you anymore.
One more thing that I want to ask: Why do you trust science so much that you are prepared to abandon certain things because science says so? Of course, there is absurd stuff out there which are clearly wrong. For example, many people back then believed that the universe is infinite; therefore there is no need for a creator. Then it is found out that the universe is finite and it has a beginning – the Big Bang – then certain people believe that there must be creator who created this universe. Many people buy this idea that God ‘sits back’ after He created this universe and He does not interfere with it after He created it. They argued that every physical laws - Newton ’s law, Gravitational Law, etc. In fact every classical physical laws out there – is perfect and there is no need for Him to ‘interfere’ with this world. They also say the same thing for living organism, by arguing on the basis of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. In other words, they are afraid of the fact that God is omniscient and their deeds and sins will be judged accordingly. Isn’t this a nice escape route to convince your intellect?
Suddenly Quantum mechanics is found out, and we learn that the deterministic classical physical laws (which are all the stuff you learn in high school physics) are actually ‘wrong’ – well, they are good approximations – and the CURRENT real nature of this world, is probabilistic. You can’t predict or say for sure where an electron’s position is and Bohr’s deterministic model of atom - he applied Newton's laws – is actually wrong. We know that there are certain things in this universe which we cannot predict and there is no exact rule that bound them. Someone or something decides certain thing. Those who believe in deism and they are honest with themselves admit that God has a role in this universe even after creation.
So believer in science, why do you make your judgment about God based solely on science? What is the ultimate truth? Can science tell you that? Once upon a time science says that an apple should be blue, but now it says that it should be red, but what about the future? Beforehand you argue that an apple should be blue JUST because SCIENCE SAYS SO, only to found out that science 'changes its mind' and now it says that apple should be red. What a bummer if you decide the most important thing in your life based on science, which proven laws are often found out to be actually wrong. Anyway, the current physics that we know certainly agrees with the existance of God. Is there a revealed knowledge from God which is the ultimate truth? May you find the right path, seeker of the truth.
Allah knows best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)