Subhanallah. Allahuakbar! Memang benar apa yang telah Allah
'amaran'kan kita berkali-kali dalam Al-Quran. Memang they will never
accept us. Kebatilan itu akan tetap musuhi kebenaran walau bagaimana
cantik berseri indah nya kebenaran itu. That's why we have to always
be prepared. Wamakaru wamakarallah - wallahu khairul maakirin. Allah
lah tempat kita bergantung, tempat kita mengadu, tempat kita kembali
- now or afterdeath... Just love Allah and follow HIs prophet's way.
Whatever come, jalan inilah yang akan menjadi prinsip kita. Nothing
else matters, not even our own life and kesenangan sementara ini...
Ya Allah - alaika tawakkalna, wa ilaika anabna, wa ilaikal masir...
wassalam.
On Sep 5, 2007, at 7:12 AM, Nusantara wrote:
Lotfi's comments:
This article by Ed Koch, who's not a journalist but rather part of
the Establishment, being the ex-Mayor of New York, reflects the
hypocrisy of the West and their deep hatred towards Islam and
Muslims who want Islam.
They can talk about democracy etc but when it comes to the crunch,
democracy does not matter, it's the selfish interests of the West
that should overcome. No matter if this comes by with the help of
corrupt blood-drenched hands of the dictators and military tinpots.
No matter if hundreds of thousands of lives (of the natives) were
lost. Furthermore, they do not make any distinction at all between
"tame avowedly-secularised Islamists" like the AKP (however clean
and uncorruptible and with great record of good governance) and the
"no negotiations staunchly anti-West fundamentalists" like the FIS
or the Taliban.
This, we Muslims have to understand and realise, and position
ourselves according to OUR own principles as set down by ALlah,
rather than try to please them and their ways.
By Ed Koch
World Tribune
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Should the U.S. back the generals or accept an Islamist Turkey?
An interesting and vital question in today's international
maelstrom is, what should the U.S. government's position be toward
Turkey? What should we do if the Turkish army — which has long
regarded itself as the guardian of Turkey's secular form of
government — decides to take action against Turkey's democratically
elected government?
The Turkish army has held the keys to power since the death of
Kemal Ataturk, who radically reformed Turkey's government and
culture. The army has exercised its perceived prerogative to oust
Turkish national civil governments four times since 1960, and may
do so again.
Turkey's army command sent signals it was opposed to the selection
of Abdullah Gul as president of Turkey. The army perceives Gul to
be an Islamist and supporter of a religion-dominated government.
Nevertheless, in a recent national election the Turkish people
reelected the Justice and Development Party. Based on its huge
electoral victory in a subsequent election held by the parliament,
that party voted to elect Abdullah Gul as president of Turkey by a
vote of 339 to 83.
The military command conveyed its upset by declining to attend the
inauguration, a clear signal that its opposition to the
presidential selection remains.
If the Turkish military leaders — who see themselves as the
guardians of a secular Turkey and fear Mr. Gul and his party will
gradually whittle away at the secularity of the Turkish government
— steps in and supersedes the civil government imposing military
rule to protect a continued secular Turkey, should the then U.S.
president, the U.S. Congress, national media and our nation's other
leaders denounce the Turkish military in such event and call for
sanctions against them?
When the Algerian military in 1992 stopped the then pending second
round of the national election because it was clear that were the
election to go forward, the fundamentalist Islamic party, Islamic
Salvation Front (F.I.S.) would win, deposing the National
Liberation Front (F.L.N.), a secular party which had ruled Algeria
since its independence achieved in 1962, and seek to implement its
official slogan, “No Constitution and no laws. The only rule is the
Koran and the law of God.”
The New York Times in an editorial of August 24, 1993 after the
F.L.N. with the support of the military cancelled the elections,
inveighed, “Algeria, with opportunities for peaceful change rapidly
disappearing and its unpopular government clinging to power by
military force, slides deeper into the sterile politics of death.”
The article went on, “Most Western governments winked when
Algeria’s army seized power in January 1992 to deny the Islamic
movement a victory it had won in parliamentary elections.” It
continued, “Had the Islamic movement been allowed to assume
parliamentary power, would it have been any less repressive, or
more competent, than the army? No one can know.”
On May 17, 2007, after a bloody civil war which claimed at least
100,000 lives, the Algerian military allowed an election to be held
and the secular, current Algerian civil government led by the
F.L.N., won.
Was that preferable to the Islamist F.I.S. taking power? I think so.
If Musharraf of Pakistan, Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah II of
Jordan, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia — all leaders of
authoritarian-style governments — were to allow fair elections in
their countries, there is little doubt but that the Islamic party
religious fundamentalists in those countries wanting to impose
Sharia (which among other penalties provides for the cutting off of
hands for those who steal and the stoning to death of those who
commit adultery or acts of homosexuality) and restore the caliphate
with one religious leader in command of all of the Islamic
republics, would prevail.
Would that be good or bad for the U.S. and the Western world? Is
the conclusion reached responding to that question a legitimate
reason for our response in seeking as best we can an avoidance of
such an outcome? I think it definitely is and that first and
foremost as their obligation for any president and Congress is the
protection of the U.S. from foreign attack. I fear there are many
in Congress, the media and the public who would conclude, it is the
choice of the people of those countries and we have to live with it.
What would former President Jimmy Carter say? I have no doubt he
would denounce any action on the part of the U.S. to assist those
in those countries seeking to prevent such an outcome.
I for one believe we would be fools not to intervene and support
those seeking to stop the rise of another Islamic state bent on our
destruction. I believe Senator McCain best summed up what our
response should be in like situations when he said, "There's only
one thing worse than the United States exercising the military
option, that is, a nuclear-armed Iran."
Edward I. Koch, who served as mayor of New York City from 1978 to
1989, is a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave.
Article link: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/
ss_koch_09_04.asp
