People Accustomed to Freedom, Will Seek It Again

"The owner of a large factory decided to make a surprise visit and check up on his staf. They don't know whether for self-branding or just ordinary control. After passing through a badly damaged road, he arrived at the factory and as he walked through the plant, he noticed a young man doing nothing but leaning against the wall. Without asking anything to his staf, he walked up to the young man and said angrily, 'How much do you make a week?'

'Three hundred bucks,' replied the young man.

Taking out his wallet, the owner counted out three hundred dollars, shoved it into the young man’s hands, and said, 'Here is a week’s pay—now get out and don’t come back!'

Turning to one of the supervisors, the owner asked, 'Just how long had that lazy kid been working here?'

'He doesn’t work here,' said the supervisor. 'He was just here delivering rujak cingur for our breakfast, according to your directions,' said the Moon when her light shone brightly, after greeting with Basmalah and Salaam.

"If a people are used to living under the political culture of a monarchy or a despotism, they are neither cultured to desire freedom nor are they educated to succeed in such any insurgency efforts," the Moon carried on. "This contrasts with a people living in a liberal democracy, who will want freedom again and who are better equipped to win it back because of how they exercised freedom in the past.

If you've seen Mel Gibson's Braveheart, a 1995 American epic historical drama film, you can see what Machiavelli's true motives were in his advice to Lorenzo.

The fictional telling of the story of William Wallace (played by Mel Gibson), a leader during the Scottish wars of independence with England in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The film begins by informing viewers that the king of Scotland died without any issue, so English King Edward I (Patrick McGoohan), described as 'a cruel pagan,' aimed to fill the power vacuum by claiming the Scottish throne. When the Scottish nobles fought Edward on this, he proposed a truce; but this was a ruse, as Edward had all of the nobles killed, thus helping to consolidate his power over Scotland. The Scots, who were a relatively free people, were then abused by the tyrannical reign of Edward. King Edward took Scottish owned lands and gave them to his own nobles. Perhaps the most egregious wrong that Edward committed in the film was granting his nobles in Scotland prima nocte, a right for the nobleman to have sexual relations with a Scottish woman on her wedding night.

Wallace’s father was killed, when he was still a boy, by Edward’s army. When he reaches adulthood, Scotland has been under tyrannical English ruler for nearly two decades. Wallace is forced to marry his love, Murron MacClannough (Catherine McCormack), in secret, so that she does not have to submit to the prima nocte right given to the English nobles. However, when MacClannough refuses to subsequently submit to the sexual advances of English soldiers and fights them off, she is executed by the local English lord for 'lawlessness' and assault. This ruthlessness and arbitrary rule prompts Wallace and his fellow villagers to revolt against the local lord and his troops, killing them all. This eventually grows into an independence movement by Wallace and other Scottish leaders, and a series of battles against the English army ensue, with Wallace at the helm.

Machiavelli would not be surprised by this fictional account of William Wallace being able to easily rally an army against the oppression of Edward and his nobles ruling over Scotland. The Scots had many more rights and freedoms before Edward’s rule, so they wanted their liberty back again. When rumors spread of Wallace beginning a rebellion, Scottish volunteers numbering in the thousands quickly join the fight. When he leads his countrymen on the field at the Battle of Stirling Bridge, he gives a rousing speech that emphasizes how important it is for them to fight for their freedom. Later, when he is meeting with King Edward’s emissary, the Princess Isabella of Wales (Sophie Marceau), Wallace describes why his army sacked the City of York and killed the king’s nephew, Isabella’s cousin-in-law, 'York was a staging point for every invasion of my country, and that royal cousin hanged innocent Scots, even women and children, from the city walls. . . . Longshanks did far worse the last time he took a Scottish city.' Still later, Wallace is captured by the English, tried for treason, found guilty, and sentenced to be tortured and executed. During the torture, Wallace refuses to state 'mercy,' which would have led to the end of the torture and a quick death. Instead, the sole word he defiantly shouts is 'Freedom!' This rallying cry, and the sentiment it represents, spurs Wallace’s soldiers and Scottish King Robert the Bruce (Angus Macfadyen) to continue their rebellion against the English.

The Bruce then leads the Scottish army into battle, where, in the narrator’s words, 'patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets, they fought like Scotsmen, and won their freedom.'

Thus, the Scots continued to fight the English and remained a thorn in the side of English kings until they won back their freedom. This should come as no surprise to the Machiavellian scholar, as the Scots knew freedom, so they would do nearly anything to get it back.

Niccolò Machiavelli was born in Florence on 3 May 1469. His playing oknown by an active part in the affairs of his native city in 1498, the year in which the regime controlled by Savonarola fell from power. Girolamo Savonarola, the Dominican prior of San Marco, whose prophetic sermons had dominated Florentine politics for the previous four years, was arrested for heresy early in April; soon afterwards the city's ruling council began to dismiss his remaining supporters from their positions in the government.

By the time Machiavelli entered the chancery, there was a wellestablished method of recruitment to its major offices. In addition to giving evidence of diplomatic skills, aspiring officials were expected to display a high degree of competence in the so-called humane disciplines. This concept of the studia humanitatis had been derived from Roman sources, and especially from Cicero, whose pedagogic ideals were revived by the Italian humanists of the fourteenth century and came to exercise a powerful influence on the universities and on the conduct of Italian public life. The humanists were distinguished first of all by their commitment to a particular theory about the proper contents of a 'truly humane' education.

By the time Machiavelli came to record his final verdicts on the rulers and statesmen he had met, he had reached the conclusion that there was one simple yet fundamental lesson which they had all misunderstood, as a result of which they had generally failed in their undertakings, or else had succeeded more by luck than sound political judgement. The basic weakness they all shared was a fatal inflexibility in the face of changing circumstances. Cesare Borgia was at all times overweening in his self-confidence; Maximilian was always cautious and over-hesitant; Julius II was always impetuous and over-excited. What they all refused to recognize was that they would have been far more succcessful if they had sought to accommodate their personalities to the exigencies of the times, instead of trying to reshape their times in the mould of their personalities.

Machiavelli eventually placed this judgement at the very heart of his analysis of political leadership in The Prince. In chapter 1 of the Prince, he wrote, 'All the States and Governments by which men are or ever have been ruled, have been and are either Republics or Princedoms. Princedoms are either hereditary, in which the sovereignty is derived through an ancient line of ancestors, or they are new. New Princedoms are either wholly new, as that of Milan to Francesco Sforza; or they are like limbs joined on to the hereditary possessions of the Prince who acquires them, as the Kingdom of Naples to the dominions of the King of Spain. The States thus acquired have either been used to live under a Prince or have been free; and he who acquires them does so either by his own arms or by the arms of others, and either by good fortune or by merit.'

In chapter 5, Machiavelli wrote, 'When a newly acquired State has been accustomed, as I have said, to live under its own laws and in freedom, there are three methods whereby it may be held. The first is to destroy it; the second, to go and reside there in person; the third, to suffer it to live on under its own laws, subjecting it to a tribute, and entrusting its government to a few of the inhabitants who will keep the rest your friends. Such a Government, since it is the creature of the new Prince, will see that it cannot stand without his protection and support, and must therefore do all it can to maintain him; and a city accustomed to live in freedom, if it is to be preserved at all, is more easily controlled through its own citizens than in any other way.

We have examples of all these methods in the histories of the Spartans and the Romans. The Spartans held Athens and Thebes by creating oligarchies in these cities, yet lost them in the end. The Romans, to retain Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, destroyed them and never lost them. On the other hand, when they thought to hold Greece as the Spartans had held it, leaving it its freedom and allowing it to be governed by its own laws, they failed, and had to destroy many cities of that Province before they could secure it. For, in truth, there is no sure way of holding other than by destroying, and whoever becomes master of a City accustomed to live in freedom and does not destroy it, may reckon on being destroyed by it. For if it should rebel, it can always screen itself under the name of liberty and its ancient laws, which no length of time, nor any benefits conferred will ever cause it to forget; and do what you will, and take what care you may, unless the inhabitants be scattered and dispersed, this name, and the old order of things, will never cease to be remembered, but will at once be turned against you whenever misfortune overtakes you, as when Pisa rose against the Florentines after a hundred years of servitude.

If, however, the newly acquired City or Province has been accustomed to live under a Prince, and his line is extinguished, it will be impossible for the citizens, used, on the one hand, to obey, and deprived, on the other, of their old ruler, to agree to choose a leader from among themselves; and as they know not how to live as freemen, and are therefore slow to take up arms, a stranger may readily gain them over and attach them to his cause. But in Republics there is a stronger vitality, a fiercer hatred, a keener thirst for revenge. The memory of their former freedom will not let them rest; so that the safest course is either to destroy them, or to go and live in them.'

In chapter 15, 'It now remains for us to consider what ought to be the conduct and bearing of a Prince in relation to his subjects and friends. And since I know that many have written on this subject, I fear it may be thought presumptuous in me to write of it also; the more so, because in my treatment of it, I depart from the views that others have taken.

But since it is my object to write what shall be useful to whosoever understands it, it seems to me better to follow the real truth of things than an imaginary view of them. For many Republics and Princedoms have been imagined that were never seen or known to exist in reality. And the manner in which we live, and that in which we ought to live, are things so wide asunder, that he who quits the one to betake himself to the other is more likely to destroy than to save himself; since any one who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything, must be ruined among so many who are not good. It is essential, therefore, for a Prince who desires to maintain his position, to have learned how to be other than good, and to use or not to use his goodness as necessity requires.

Laying aside, therefore, all fanciful notions concerning a Prince, and considering those only that are true, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and Princes more than others from their being set so high, are characterized by some one of those qualities which attach either praise or blame. Thus one is accounted liberal, another miserly (which word I use, rather than avaricious, to denote the man who is too sparing of what is his own, avarice being the disposition to take wrongfully what is another’s); one is generous, another greedy; one cruel, another tender-hearted; one is faithless, another true to his word; one effeminate and cowardly, another high-spirited and courageous; one is courteous, another haughty; one impure, another chaste; one simple, another crafty; one firm, another facile; one grave, another frivolous; one devout, another unbelieving; and the like. Every one, I know, will admit that it would be most laudable for a Prince to be endowed with all of the above qualities that are reckoned good; but since it is impossible for him to possess or constantly practise them all, the conditions of human nature not allowing it, he must be discreet enough to know how to avoid the infamy of those vices that would deprive him of his government, and, if possible, be on his guard also against those which might not deprive him of it; though if he cannot wholly restrain himself, he may with less scruple indulge in the latter. He need never hesitate, however, to incur the reproach of those vices without which his authority can hardly be preserved; for if he well consider the whole matter, he will find that there may be a line of conduct having the appearance of virtue, to follow which would be his ruin, and that there may be another course having the appearance of vice, by following which his safety and well-being are secured.'

The story in Braveheart is similar to an example that Machiavelli describes in chapter 5 of The Prince. According to Machiavelli, the 'Spartans held Athens and Thebes [previously free cities] by creating within them a state of a few people.' In Braveheart, King Edward granted land titles to various English nobles to encourage them to move to Scotland and help him oversee the Scots; likewise, the Spartans sent some of their own authorities to Athens and Thebes in an effort to better control them. However, this strategy was ultimately unsuccessful in Braveheart, with the Scots winning back their freedom; likewise, Machiavelli tells us that despite the Spartans’ effort in Athens and Thebes, 'nevertheless, they lost them.' In both cases, the ruler was unwilling to destroy these cities, or at the very least reside there, which eventually resulted in them being lost."

"Ultimately," the Moon was about to leave, "Machiavelli’s chapter 5 discussion in The Prince is a cautionary tale for rulers wishing to overtake free peoples. There can be no peace as long as a Prince tries to rule over people who have known freedom and are unwilling and unable to relinquish it. The fre peoples know what they want. So, the best course for the Prince, may simply be to leave such free peoples alone. And Allah knows best."

Before leaving for the other side of the world, the Moon sang,

Ampuni aku yangg telah memasuki kehidupan kalian

[Forgive me for entering your life]

Mencoba mencari celah dalam hatimu

[Trying to find a hole in your heart]

Aku tau ku takkan bisa menjadi s’perti yang engkau minta

[I know I can't be what you asked for]

Namun selama nafas berhembus, aku kan mencoba

[But as long as the breath blows, I'll try]

Aku tau dia yg bisa menjadi s'perti yang engkau minta

I know he who can be what you ask for]

Namun selama aku bernyawa, aku kan mencoba menjadi s’perti yang kau minta *)

[But as long as I'm alive, I will try to be as you ask for]

Citations & References:
- Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, translated by Ninian Hill Thomson, 1513, Feedbooks
- Eric T. Kasper and Troy A. Kozma, Machiavelli Goes to the Movies: Understanding The Prince through Television and Film, 2015, Lexington Books
- Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction, 1981, Oxford University Press
*) "Seperti Yang Kau Minta" written by Pongki Barata

Bahasa

Erasing the Traces

"A man said to his boss, whom was his close friend, 'I think I deserve a raise. You know, there are three other companies after me.'

'Is that right?" asked the boss. 'What other companies are after you?'

So the man looked up, as if he tried to remember something. 'As I recall,' he replied, 'the electric company, the phone company, and online loan company,' said the Moon when she arrived, after greeting with Basmalah and Salaam.

"We are all born into natural and cultural environments that shape what we become, individually and collectively. From our 'mother tongue' to 'our father's faith,' from medical risks to natural hazards, where we start our journey has much to do with our destiny, and thus with our chances of overcoming the obstacles in our way," the Moon carried on.

"In our journey as a nation, we go through the sweet and bitterness of a journey. Some are flattering and some are unflattering. Now, should the unflattering part of a nations history be erased? The answer is absolutely not. The good needs to be there with the bad. If we obscure the bad, we get the impression that a nation is only good which it never is. The good exists because there is a comparison, the bad; vice versa.

History was ‘a social form of knowledge; the work in any given instance, of a thousand different hands. The idea of history as an organic form of knowledge, and one whose sources are promiscuous, drawing not only on real-life experience but also on memory and myth, fantasy and desire; not only on the chronological past of the documentary record but also the timeless one of ‘tradition’.

The past and the present were brought together in an analysis of the ways in which people made the past part of their everyday routines and turned to the past ‘as a way of grappling with profound questions about how to live’. People used their pasts, their findings suggested, to address questions about ‘relationships, identity, immortality, and agency’. The past was not a distant or abstract, insignificant entity but a key feature of their present lives.

We may say that our experiences of the present, largely depend upon our knowledge of the past, and that our images of the past commonly serve to legitimate a present social order.

We generally think of memory as an individual faculty. None the less, there are a number of thinkers who concur in believing that there is some such thing as a collective or social memory. We may note that images of the past, commonly legitimate a present social order. It is an implicit rule that participants in any social order must presuppose a shared memory. To the extent that their memories of a society's past diverge that extent, its members can share neither experiences nor assumptions.

In seeking to show how this is the case, let's begin by considering a paradoxical example:that of the French Revolution. Whenever one begins the story, it can be argued that it would have been better to have started earlier.

In political terms pre-revolutionary, France was an absolute monarchy. The king shared his power with nobody, and was answerable for its exercise to nobody but God. Affairs of state, including the finances, were his private domain; and in all things he was sovereign in the sense that his decisions were final. On the other hand, no king was, or sought to be, a completely free agent. Even Louis XIV was careful to take advice on all important decisions, and men born to be king (for queens regnant were prohibited by French law) were carefully taught that counsel was of the essence of their sovereign authority. Louis XVI believed this implicitly; but unlike his grandfather Louis XV (his own father had died before inheriting the throne) he did not invariably do what a majority of his ministers recommended. He particularly thought he understood finance–a fateful delusion as it proved.

The crisis was triggered by King Louis XVI’s attempts to avoid bankruptcy. Over the eighteenth century, France had fought three great wars on a worldwide scale. Accustomed by the pride, ambition, and achievements of Louis XIV (1643–1715) to regarding herself as the greatest European power, France found her pretensions challenged over the three generations following the great king’s death by the rise of new powers–Russia, Prussia, and above all Great Britain. Rivalry with the British was fought out on the oceans of the world. At stake was dominance of the sources and supply of the tropical and oriental luxuries for which Europe was developing an insatiable appetite.

Nor was the king unfettered in his choice of advisers. Although he could sack them without explanation, his practical choice was limited to career administrators, magistrates, and courtiers. They, in turn, could only be brought to his notice by the intrigues of other ministers and familiars of both sexes drawn from the ranks or clienteles of the few hundred families rich enough to live in the gilded splendour of the Court. Imprisoned in scarcely changing routines of etiquette established in the previous century by Louis XIV, his two successors passed their lives peripatetically, following the hunting around forest palaces outside Paris–Fontainebleau, Compiègne, and of course Versailles, that spectacular seat of power imitated by rulers throughout Europe. When they visited the capital, it was briefly. Louis XIV had established this royal lifestyle deliberately to distance himself from a turbulent and volatile city whose people had defied royal authority during his minority in the uprising of the Fronde (1648–53).

The king’s absolute authority over the country at large was embodied in a handful of omnicompetent executive agents, the intendants. One of these was assigned to each of 36 generalities into which Louis XVI’s kingdom was divided. The king thought them the showcase of his government, and there was no doubt about their high level of professionalism. But they were increasingly unpopular for their authoritarian ways, and their shortcomings and mistakes were mercilessly denounced by bodies whose authority they had largely supplanted since the seventeenth century. Taxation in some large provinces, for instance, still required the consent of estates–representative, though seldom elected, assemblies with no ultimate powers to resist, but whose semblance of independence enabled them to borrow relatively cheaply on the king’s behalf. Above all, the fiscal and administrative work of the intendants was constantly impeded by the courts of law, most of which had administrative as well as judicial functions.

Yet it was hard to see how a French king could keep up his international pretensions without some modification in his subjects’ time-honoured privileges and inequalities. Nowhere was the kingdom’s lack of uniformity more glaring than in the structure of privilege and exemption which gave each and every institution, group, or area a status not quite like any other.

So the crisis of 1787 was not just financial. Calonne, the finance minister appointed in 1783 to manage a return to peacetime conditions, began with lavish expenditures in the hope of sustaining confidence.

It was a political disaster. Few of the Notables accepted Calonne’s version of the crisis confronting the state. Even those who did tended to hold him responsible, and therefore not the right person to resolve it.

A month before monarchical authority collapsed into bankruptcy, a colossal hailstorm swept across northern France and destroyed most of the ripening harvest. With reserves already low after Calonne had authorized free export of grain in 1787, the inevitable result was that the months before the harvest of 1789 would bring severe economic difficulties. Bread prices would rise, and as consumers spent more of their incomes on food, demand for other goods would fall. Manufactures, hit by cheaper British competition under the commercial treaty of 1786, were already slumping; and there were widespread layoffs at the very time when bread prices began to soar.

On top of all this came an unusually cold winter, when rivers froze, immobilizing mills and bulk transport and producing widespread flooding when a thaw finally came. So the political storm that was about to break would take place against a background of economic crisis, and would be profoundly affected by it. Then the 14 July was not the beginning of the French Revolution. It was the end of the beginning.

This piece of history, is a paradoxical case, because if there is anywhere you would not expect to find social memory at work, it must surely be in times of great revolutions. But one thing that tends to get forgotten about the French Revolution is that like all beginnings, it involved recollection. Another is that it involved the severing of a head and a change in the clothes people wore. It can be believed that there is a connection between these two things, and that what we can say about that connection is generalisable beyond the particular instance."

"And finally," said the Moon, "let's try to ponder about Ernst Bloch's writing entitled the 'Mark!' as follows,

'More and more appears among us to the side. One should observe precisely the little things, go after them.

What is slight and odd often leads the furthest. One hears a story-say, about the soldier who arrives too late for muster. He doesn't insert himself into the ranks but rather stands next to the officer, who 'thereby' notices nothing. Apart from the amusement that this story provides, an impression is still working: What was that? Something moved! And it moved in its own way. An impression that will not let us come to rest over what we heard. An impression on the surface of life, so that it tears, perhaps.

In short, its good to think in stories too. So much just isn't done with itself when it happens, even where its beautifully told.. Instead, very strangely, theres more going on there. The case has something about it; this is what it shows or suggests. Stories of this kind are not just recounted; instead we also count what something struck there—or we listen up: What was that?

Out of incidents comes a 'Mark!' that would otherwise not be thus; or a 'Mark!' that already is, that takes little incidents as traces and examples.

They point out a 'less' or 'more' that will have to be thought in the telling, retold in the thinking; that isnt right in these stories, because things aren’t right with us, or with anything. Some things can be grasped only in such stories, not in a more expansive, elevated style, or then not in the same way. How some such things came to notice will be retold here, and tentatively marked; lovingly marking in the retelling; by marking, intending the retelling. It’s little strokes and such from life that haven’t been forgotten; our refuse is worth a lot these days. But an older impulse was also there: to hear stories, good ones, poor ones, stories in different tones, from different years, remarkable ones that, when they come to an end, only really come to an end in the stirring. Its a reading of traces every which way, in sections that only divide up the frame. In the end, everything one meets and notices is the same.'"

"And Allah knows best."

It's time to go, the Moon took her leave and sang,

Terus melangkah melupakanmu, lelah hati perhatikan sikapmu

[Keep walking to forget you, my heart was tired to pay attention to your attitude]

Jalan pikiranmu buatku ragu, tak mungkin ini tetap bertahan

[Your way of thinking makes me doubt, there's no way this can last]

Perlahan mimpi terasa mengganggu, kucoba untuk terus menjauh

[Slowly the dream is disturbing, I'm trying to keep away]

Perlahan hatiku terbelenggu, kucoba untuk lanjutkan hidup

[Slowly my heart shackled, I'm trying to move on]

Engkau bukanlah segalaku, bukan tempat tuk hentikan langkahku

[You are not my everything, not a place to stop my steps]

Usai sudah, semua berlalu, biar hujan menghapus jejakmu *)

[It's over, it's all gone, let the rain wash away your traces]

Citations & References:
- Paul Connerton, How Societies Remember, 1996, Cambridge University Press
- William Doyle, The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction, 2001, Oxford University Press
- Ernst Bloch, Traces, 2006, Stanford University Press
*) "Mengapus Jejakmu" written by Nazriel Irham

Bahasa

Lawful Earnings : Islamic Perspective (2)

"Our life is a trust, and also, is a journey where the values which govern our lives will impact the outcome of our journey. Therefore it presents an opportunity and gives us the confidence that change is possible. Change is part of our destiny. We need to have a vision for that change and, as a Muslim, we need to appreciate and leverage the transformational power of Islam as a system of belief, values and ethics. In a qudsi hadith [Sahih Al-Bukhari], Allah says, 'I am just as My slave thinks I am,' i.e. I am able to do for him, what he thinks I can do for him. In this hadith, Allah is teaching us about our paradigm. Our destiny actually lies with us in how we think and behave, " the Moon went on.

"Some people regard certain kinds of work or professions as contemptible. However, the Prophet (ﷺ) denied the validity of this notion. He taught his Companions that the whole of a human being's dignity is tied up with his work— any sort of work— and that real disgrace and humiliation are in depending on other people's help. The Muslim can earn his livelihood by agriculture, trade, or industry or by any profession or employment as long as it does not involve doing, supporting, or propagating anything haram.

It is not permitted for man to avoid working for a living on the pretext of devoting his life to worship or dependence on Allah, as gold and silver certainly do not fall from the sky. It is also not permissible for him to depend on charity while he is able to earn what is sufficient for his own and his family's needs through his own efforts. The Prophet (ﷺ) made it haram for the Muslim to beg from others without dire necessity thus losing his honor and his dignity.

By such strong admonitions, the Prophet (ﷺ) intended to train the Muslim to safeguard his dignity, to develop self-reliance, and to be far-removed from dependence on others.

The Prophet (ﷺ) was, however, aware of situations of necessity. If, under the pressure of need, one is forced to ask for financial help from the government or from individuals, one is blameless. The Prophet (ﷺ) said,

لْمَسَائِلُ كُدُوحٌ يَكْدَحُ بِهَا الرَّجُلُ وَجْهَهُ فَمَنْ شَاءَ أَبْقَى عَلَى وَجْهِهِ وَمَنْ شَاءَ تَرَكَ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَسْأَلَ الرَّجُلُ ذَا سُلْطَانٍ أَوْ فِي أَمْرٍ لاَ يَجِدُ مِنْهُ بُدًّا

'Acts of begging are lacerations with which a man disfigures his face, so he who wishes may preserve his self-respect, and he who wishes may abandon it; but this does not apply to one who begs from a ruler, or in a situation which makes it necessary.' [Sunan Abi Dawud; Sahih by Al-Albani]

When the Prophet (ﷺ) gave advice to Abu Bishr Qubaysah ibn al-Makharaq, he (ﷺ) said,

إِنَّ اَلْمَسْأَلَةَ لَا تَحِلُّ إِلَّا لِأَحَدِ ثَلَاثَةٍ: رَجُلٍ تَحَمَّلَ حَمَالَةً فَحَلَّتْ لَهُ اَلْمَسْأَلَةُ حَتَّى يُصِيبَهَا ثُمَّ يُمْسِكَ، وَرَجُلٍ أَصَابَتْهُ جَائِحَةٌ اِجْتَاحَتْ مَالَهُ, فَحَلَّتْ لَهُ اَلْمَسْأَلَةُ حَتَّى يُصِيبَ قِوَامًا مِنْ عَيْشٍ، وَرَجُلٍ أَصَابَتْهُ فَاقَةٌ حَتَّى يَقُولَ ثَلَاثَةٌ مِنْ ذَوِي الْحِجَى مِنْ قَوْمِهِ: لَقَدْ أَصَابَتْ فُلَانًا فَاقَةٌ, فَحَلَّتْ لَهُ اَلْمَسْأَلَةُ

'Begging is not lawful except to one of three (people): a man who has become a guarantor for a payment, for whom begging is lawful till he gets it, after which he must stop begging; a man whose wealth has been destroyed by a calamity which has befallen him, for whom begging is lawful till he gets what will support life; and a man who has been struck by poverty, the genuineness of which is confirmed by three intelligent members of his people, so it is lawful for him to beg.' [Reported by Muslim].

The Prophet (ﷺ) worked as a merchant, trading with his uncle, then with Umm AI-Mu'mineen Khadeejah bint Khuwaylid, radhiyallahu 'anha. And there were found wealthy people amongst the Companions (like Abu Bakr, 'Uthmaan, 'Abdul-Rahmaan bin 'Awf, Talhah bin 'Ubaydullaah and others, radhiyallahu 'anhum) who attained their wealth through trade and used their wealth to support the struggle in Allah's Cause.

And such was Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq, radhiyallahu 'anhu, for he would buy and sell and sacrifice his wealth to support lslam and the Muslims, from the time he was in Makkah before migrating, as well as after migrating. He would give away much of his wealth for the Cause of Allah.

Likewise was 'Uthmaan bin 'Affaan, radhiyallahu 'anhu, who supplied the poor in the army with equipment and 'Abdur-Rahmaan bin 'Awf, radhiyallahu 'anhu, who would donate money to the Muslims at the time of need and at the time ofJihaad. The Salaf (the pious predecessors) encouraged one another and their students to 'adhere to the marketplace'.

Therefore, seeking the means of sustenance according to the permissible channels—the greatest of which are buying and selling— has much good in it.

In business, Muslims should realize that the sooner they consider Islam in the lifetime of the business, the easier it will be to implement business practices that are consistent with their religious beliefs. Muslim investors, for example, may seize a particular business opportunity but only later discover that the relevant business models are typically sustained by haram elements. If they continue to engage in that business with its haram aspects, they will clearly be harming themselves. Even if they extract themselves, and as much of their original investment as possible, their net gain is almost always negative, particularly if one considers the opportunity cost of bogus investment activities.

Businesses that earn their revenue from haram products or services such as pork, gambling, alcohol, drugs or prostitution are undoubtedly prohibited. Many Muslims fool themselves by arguing that although they sell alcohol in their liquor stores, they do not consume it themselves. Muslims should completely avoid such businesses, instead of trying to find ways to rationalize their involvement in them.

In the Qur'an, while referring to His bounties and favors to man, Allah mentions the principles required for the pursuit of agriculture. He has spread out the earth and made it suitable and fertile for cultivation and production; this is a bounty to human beings which they ought to recall and to be thankful for Allah has also provided water in abundance. He sends it down as rain and makes it flow in streams to revive the earth after it is dead. Further, He sends the winds, with 'good tidings' to drive the clouds and scatter the seeds. All of these, are encouragement for man to engage in agricultural activity, for it has been made easy for him as a divine favor. The Prophet (ﷺ) said,

فَلاَ يَغْرِسُ الْمُسْلِمُ غَرْسًا فَيَأْكُلَ مِنْهُ إِنْسَانٌ وَلاَ دَابَّةٌ وَلاَ طَيْرٌ إِلاَّ كَانَ لَهُ صَدَقَةً إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ

'No Muslim who plants (trees) and from their fruits the human beings or the beasts or birds eat, but that would be taken as an act of charity on the Day of Resurrection.' [Sahih Muslim]

The reward of the person who plants a tree or a crop continues as long as the produce of this tree or crop is eaten or used, even though he may have sold it to someone else. Scholars have said, 'It is Allah's generosity that He continues to add to the reward of a person even after his death, just as when he was alive, for six things: for the charity whose benefits continue, for knowledge which is used, for righteous children who pray for him, for the trees he planted, for the crops he sowed, and for territorial borders he guarded.'

But It is prohibited to cultivate a plant, which is haram for eating or which has no other known use except what is harmful.

From the Islamic point of view, it would be extremely undesirable if people limited their economic efforts solely to one field, a situation analogous to supposing that the inexhaustible oceans had no use other than the extraction of pearls from their depths.

Muslims must develop such industries, crafts, and professions as are essential for the life of a community, for the strength of a free and powerful nation, and for the posterity and wealth of a country. As the great scholars and jurists have explained, the essential industries and professions are not merely permitted by the Islamic Shari'ah, they are in fact an obligation on the Muslim community as a whole. Such obligations are termed 'the obligations of sufficiency' ( fard kifayah); that is to say, the Muslim community must include among its members people engaged in every essential science, industry, and profession in numbers sufficient to meet its needs. If there is a shortage of qualified persons in some fields of science or industry, the entire Muslim community is blameworthy, especially those in positions of authority.

No one should be surprised when we say that medicine as well as arithmetic are of the sciences which are fard kifayah, as are the basic industries, such as agriculture, weaving, politics, and even cupping and tailoring. For, if a town should lack an experts or specialists, it might be, extinction would overtake its people and they would be driven to expose themselves to destruction. Did He, Who sent down a malady, not also send down its remedy, give guidance for its use, and prepare the means for administering it? It is not, therefore, permissible to expose oneself to destruction by neglecting the remedy.'

The Qur'an mentions many industries dan crafts, terming them Allah’s favor and bounty. Allah made iron soft for Prophet Dawud, alayhissalam, commanding him to make coats of mail, to protect him from violence. And Allah made a fountain of molten copper flow for Solomon; and of the jinn there were those who worked in front of him by his Rabb's permission. Allah built for Dhul-Qarnayn the high dam buildings. Allah mentions the story of Prophet Nuh, alayhissalam, and the construction of the ark, and He also mentions great ships in the size of mountains which sail the seas. The Qur'an also mentions hunting in all its varied forms, from the catching of fish, and the pursuit of land animals to diving in the deep for pearls, coral, and the like. In addition to this, the Quran informs us about the value of iron, in in which there is great strength and benefits for mankind.

The Qur'an tells the story of Prophet Musa, alayhissalam, who worked for eight years as a hired man to gain the hand of an old man's daughter in marriage. Musa was an excellent worker and employee.

The Muslim is free to seek employment in the service of the government, an organization, or an individual as long as he is able to do his work satisfactorily and carry out his duties. However, he is not permitted to seek a job for which he is unfit, especially if the job carries judicial or executive authority, except for the one who is qualified for it and fulfills his responsibilities toward it. If not, on the Day of Resurrection it will be a cause of regret and shame, because it is a trust.

If a person knows, however, that there is no one else qualified to do a particular job except himself, and that if he does not come forward to take it, public interests will be endangered, he should come forward.

Al-Hakim recorded that Ibn 'Abbas, radhiyallahu 'anhu, said, 'Dawud was a maker of coats of mail and shields, Adam was a farmer, Nuh a carpenter, Idris a tailor, and Musa a shepherd.' Since every Prophet of Allah had some occupation, the Muslim should derive satisfaction in his occupation or profession. Islam gave dignity to many professions. Any sort of work which fills a need in the society or brings real benefit is regarded as good, provided the person performs it in a proper manner, as is required by Islam.

Concerning the permissibility of working as an employee of a government, organization, or individual, excludes those jobs which are injurious to the cause of Islam or which harm Muslims. Accordingly, it is not permissible for a Muslim to be an officer or soldier in an army which is fighting against Muslims, nor to work in a corporation or factory which manufactures armaments to be used against Muslims, nor in an organization which is hostile to Islam and fights its adherents. Similarly, any service rendered in support of injustice or in promoting what is haram is itself haram. For example, it is prohibited to the Muslim to be an employee in an organization which deals in riba, in a bar or liquor shop, nightclub, dance hall, and the like.

Islam does not prohibit any trade except that which involves injustice, cheating, making exorbitant profits, and the promotion of something haram. Islam has prohibited certain professions and industries to its followers because they are harmful to the beliefs, morals, honor, or good manners of the society. Prostitution, for example, is legal in many countries of the West; permits and licenses are issued to those who play this trade, and prostitutes enjoy rights similar to other professionals. Islam absolutely rejects and condemns this practice, and forbids any female, to earn money by trading herself in sexual relations.

Similarly, Islam does not permit sexually exciting dancing or any other erotic activity. Islam prohibits every sort of sexual contact and sexual relationship outside marriage. This is the secret behind the significant words of the Qur’an prohibiting zina.

Islam also prohibits the acquisition of statues and even more strongly the making of them. As for drawing, painting, or photography, are either permitted or at worst detestable, depending on what comes closest to the spirit of the Islamic legislation. Of course, their subject matter should not be sexually provocative, as, for example, the erotic parts of the female body or a man and woman in a state of intimacy, and should not be of someone sacred or respected, such as the angels or the Prophets.

Islam prohibits any participation in the promotion of alcoholic beverages, whether it be in their manufacture, distribution, or consumption, and that anyone who participated in any of these is cursed by the Prophet (ﷺ). The case of other intoxicants and drugs, such as hashish, cocaine, and the like, is the same; manufacturing, distributing, or consuming any of them is prohibited.

Commercial transactions and other lawful means of earnings must be set with religious guidelines, so that the Muslim can avoid falling into forbidden transactions and unlawful forms of earning. And from many kand of transactions, Allah forbid Riba. There are two major forms of Riba are defined in Islam. They are Riba Al-qurud, which relates to usury involving loans, and Riba Al-Buyu, which relates to usury in trade.

Insurance has been the subject of discussion and reaserach by scholars. The conclussion of majority of them is that insurance is prohibited, because commercial insurance contains the elements of Gharar ( a contract where the results are not known), Maysir (a form of gambling) and Riba.

Gambling is prohibited, nowadays, there are many forms of gambling, including: lotteries and raffles, in which people pay money to buy numbers, then numbers are drawn for first prize, second prize, and so on for a variety of prizes. This is prohibited, even when it is supposedly done for charity. Buying a product which includes something unknown, or paying for a number for a draw which will decide who gets what.

Offering or accepting bribes are prohibited. Giving a bribe to a Qaadi or judge to make him turn a blind eye to the truth or to make a false claim succeed is a sin, because it leads to oppression and injustice for the person who is in the right, and it spreads corruption. Similarly, someone in official is prohibited to accept a gift, to benefit others by injustice."

"And as a closing," said the Moon, "The general rule in regard to earning a living is that Islam does not permit its followers to earn money in any way they like, rather it differentiates between lawful and unlawful methods based on the criterion of the overall well-being of the society. This differentiation is based on the general principle that any transaction in which one person's gain results in another's loss is unlawful, while any transaction which is fair and beneficial to all the parties concerned and which is transacted by mutual consent is lawful. This is where it is important, in working and seeking a lawful earning, there are two things that accompany our paradigm: Al-Adl and Al-Ihsan, that is, we put something in its place and we perfect our work as perfectly as possible, not for being praised or other reasons, but because Allah witnesses what we do. And Allah knows best."

Her rays of light went dim, then the Moon hummed softly,

إِلهِي لَسْتُ لِلْفِرْدَوْسِ أَهْلاً

Ilahi, I don't deserve to be a resident of Paradise

وَلاَ أَقْوَى عَلىَ النَّارِ الجَحِيْمِ

And could not stand the embers of hellfire

فَهَبْ ليِ تَوْبَةً وَاغْفِرْ ذُنُوْبيِ

So, accept my repentance and forgive my sins

فَإِنَّكَ غَافِرُ الذَّنْبِ العَظِيْمِ

For truly Thou art the Forgiver of great sins

ذُنُوْبيِ مِثْلُ أَعْدَادِ الرِّمَالِ

My sins are as many as the grains of sand

فَهَبْ ليِ تَوْبَةً يَاذاَالجَلاَلِ

So, accept my repentance, O Owner of Glory

وَعُمْرِي نَاقِصٌ فيِ كُلِّ يَوْمٍ

And my age, not even a day

وَذَنْبيِ زَئِدٌ كَيْفَ احْتِمَالِ

And my regrets are piling up

إِلهِي عَبْدُكَ العَاصِي أَتَاكَ

Ilahi, Thy servant who disobeyed Thee, has come before Thee

فَإِنْ تَغْفِرْ فَأَنْتَ لِذَا أَهْلٌ

Indeed, if Thou forgive, then Thou art the Owner of forgiveness

فَإِنْ تَطْرُدْ فَمَنْ نَرْجُو سِوَاكَ

And if Thou turn away, where else would I go, except Thee?

Citations & References:
- Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, 2001, Al-Falah Foundation
- Darussalam Research Divsion, Rizq and Lawful Earnings, 2014, Darussalam
- Mohammad Rahman, Your Money Matters: The Islamic Approach to Business, Money, and Work, 2014, IIPH

Bahasa

Lawful Earnings : Islamic Perspective (1)

"The fundamental attitude of Islam toward man's position in the world is that Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, has made the earth for the benefit of man, to whom He has given control over it. It is the duty of man to profit from this favor and to exert himself to seek Allah's bounties throughout the earth," said the Moon when mentioned a topic that related to the previous discussion [here and here], after saying Basmalah and greeting with Salaam.

"In an Islamic perspective, the foundations of earnings can be viewed broadly as follows: It is Allah that provides our provisions for us; therefore, it is from Him that we can seek for our provision. It is our duty to strive for that, which has been decreed for us. The fact that it is Allah that provides for us has not ruled out the fact that we have to seek the means of reaching, that which has been decreed for us. While it is decreed that we will be hungry, no one would sit in one place without making an effort to satisfy the hunger and depend only on the fact that Allah will feed him. He will seek means of satisfying the hunger.

So also with our livelihood, we would never get what has not been decreed for us, but we have to strive for that which has been decreed. Allah says,

فَاِذَا قُضِيَتِ الصَّلٰوةُ فَانْتَشِرُوْا فِى الْاَرْضِ وَابْتَغُوْا مِنْ فَضْلِ اللّٰهِ وَاذْكُرُوا اللّٰهَ كَثِيْرًا لَّعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُوْنَ

'And when the prayer has been concluded, disperse within the land and seek from the bounty of Allāh, and remember Allāh often that you may succeed.' [QS. Al-Jumu'ah (62):10]

The Prophet (ﷺ) said,

لَوْ أَنَّكُمْ كُنْتُمْ تَوَكَّلُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ حَقَّ تَوَكُّلِهِ لَرُزِقْتُمْ كَمَا تُرْزَقُ الطَّيْرُ تَغْدُو خِمَاصًا وَتَرُوحُ بِطَانًا ‏

'If you were to rely upon Allah with the required reliance, then He would provide for you just as a bird is provided for, it goes out in the morning empty, and returns full.' [Jami' at-Tirmidhi; Hasan Shahih according to Tirmidhi]

Some of us might misinterpret this saying of the Prophet (ﷺ) to mean that wherever we are, we will get our provision; but they should also read in the saying that the birds actually go out, they do not stay in their nest all day. The point in this Hadith is the idea of going out and coming back, striving and moving; certainly not the idea of sitting back, doing nothing and then claiming that we have put all trust in Allah.

Now, how do we get our earnings? And how do we spend it? Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying,

« أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ طَيِّبٌ لاَ يَقْبَلُ إِلاَّ طَيِّبًا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ أَمَرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ بِمَا أَمَرَ بِهِ الْمُرْسَلِينَ فَقَالَ ( يَا أَيُّهَا الرُّسُلُ كُلُوا مِنَ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَاعْمَلُوا صَالِحًا إِنِّى بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ عَلِيمٌ) وَقَالَ (يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُلُوا مِنْ طَيِّبَاتِ مَا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ) ». ثُمَّ ذَكَرَ الرَّجُلَ يُطِيلُ السَّفَرَ أَشْعَثَ أَغْبَرَ يَمُدُّ يَدَيْهِ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ يَا رَبِّ يَا رَبِّ وَمَطْعَمُهُ حَرَامٌ وَمَشْرَبُهُ حَرَامٌ وَمَلْبَسُهُ حَرَامٌ وَغُذِىَ بِالْحَرَامِ فَأَنَّى يُسْتَجَابُ لِذَلِكَ ».

'O people, Allah is Good and He therefore, accepts only that which is good. And Allah commanded the believers as He commanded the Messengers by saying, 'O Messengers, eat of the good things, and do good deeds; verily I am aware of what you do [QS. Al Mu'minun (23:51)]." And He said, 'O those who believe, eat of the good things that We gave you. [QS.Al-Baqah (2):172]' He then made a mention of a person who travels widely, his hair disheveled and covered with dust. He lifts his hand towards the sky (and thus makes the supplication): "O Lord, O Lord," whereas his diet is unlawful, his drink is unlawful, and his clothes are unlawful and his nourishment is unlawful. How can then his supplication be accepted?' [Sahih Muslim]

So, we should seek our earnings in prescribed ways and this necessitates that we know the ways that are not permissible. It is only after we know that something is not permissible that we can stay away from it.

We should spend our earnings in prescribed ways; and to do this means that, we should also know how not spend our earnings. Allah says,

اِنَّ الْمُبَذِّرِيْنَ كَانُوْٓا اِخْوَانَ الشَّيٰطِيْنِ ۗوَكَانَ الشَّيْطٰنُ لِرَبِّهٖ كَفُوْرًا وَاِمَّا تُعْرِضَنَّ عَنْهُمُ ابْتِغَاۤءَ رَحْمَةٍ مِّنْ رَّبِّكَ تَرْجُوْهَا فَقُلْ لَّهُمْ قَوْلًا مَّيْسُوْرًا

'And give the relative his right, and [also] the poor and the traveler, and do not spend wastefully [i.e., on that which is unlawful or in disobedience to Allah]. Indeed, the wasteful are brothers of the devils, and ever has Satan been to his Lord ungrateful.' [QS. Al-Isra (17):26-27]

The basis of the Islamic economy are working and exerting oneself to make lawful earnings. Work is the main source of Halal income. Work is the prescribed means by which man can achieve the goal of populating the earth over which he has been given authority. Also, work is the means of making use of the things that Allah has subjugated for man, so that he can benefit himself and his fellow human beings by meeting and satisfying his needs. Islam urges us to strive and work through many ways. From among them are,

Taqwa. If you wish to increase your provision from Allah and live a comfortable life, then fear Allah and be pious in all your affairs: at home, at work and with your family. Protect yourself from sins, adhere to the commandments of your Lord, refrain from His prohibitions and protect your- self from whatever results in His punishment.

Repentance and seeking forgiveness. The type of supplication for forgiveness which brings provisions, increases it and blesses it is that which is made from the heart as well as the tongue, while he is not persistent in his sin. However, the one who seeks forgiveness verbally, whilst at the same time committing different types of sins, is not truthful in his supplications, and these supplications will be fruitless. If Allah has provided for you abundantly, then rush to repentance and follow your words with actions.

Tawakkul. He whose heart hopes in Allah alone in bringing benefit or preventing harm, and puts his trust fully in Him, He will suffice him, relieve him from all grief and provide him from sources which others are deprived of. Some of the Salaf have said, 'If you rely on Allah, provisions will come to you without any effort.'

Tawakkul is to express ones inherent incapacity, complete and inclusive dependence on Allah alone, along with the certainty that Allaah alone has control over the universe and that the affairs of all of creation are under His Will. It is He alone Who provides, creates, grants and deprives from bounties, benefits, afflicts, gives wealth, causes poverty, health, sickness, life and death.

Tawakkul does not entail abandoning the utilisation of worldly means, because Allah has commanded us to utilise all possible means along with relying on Him. Physically striving to utilise all worldly means is in fact an act of obedience to Allah, and reliance on Him with ones heart reflects his belief in Him.

A Muslim is required to utilise all means, but without relying on them for the results. Instead, he should firmly believe that the matter is completely with Allah, and that He alone is The Provider.

Maintaining ties of kinship. The Prophet (ﷺ) clarified that good ties with kinship has many fruits and good outcomes; it increases ones provisions, prolongs life, protects against an evil death and brings love between relatives. The question therefore arises: who are kin and how does one maintain good ties with them?

Kin are any blood or marital relative, regardless of whether one can Islamically inherit from them or not. Ties may be maintained in many ways: visiting them, giving them gifts, enquiring about their condition, giving charity to the poor amongst them, being kind and respectful to the old amongst them, inviting them and being hospitable to them, joining them in their celebrations and joy, comforting them during adversities, supplicating for them, holding no grudges against them, accepting their invitations, visiting them when they are sick, advising them, enjoining them with good and forbidding them from evil, protecting them from evil and many others.

Spending for the sake of Allah. Ibn Katheer, rahimahullah, said that whatever you spend in the areas that Allah has commanded or allowed you to spend in, it will be replaced in this life and rewarded for in the Hereafter. Ibn ‘Abbas, rahiyallahu 'anhu, said, 'Two things are from Allah and two things are from Satan. Satan says, 'Do not spend your wealth, and hold on to it because you need it,' and then commands you to do evil. Allah promises you forgiveness for your sins and more blessing in your provisions. Allah conceals the sins of His slave in this life and the Hereafter, and increases his provisions in this life and bestows His bounties upon him in the Hereafter.'

Many hadith encourage spending and promise great rewards and bounties from Allah, plus raising the rank of the spender.

Repeatedly performing Hajj and ‘Umrah. It is because they get rid of poverty and sins just as fire gets rid of the impure particles in metal, gold and silver. A correctly performed Hajj will have no less a reward than Paradise.

Kindness to the weak. The Prophet (ﷺ) clarified that people receive provisions and victory by virtue of being kind to the weak among their ranks. The weak to whom the Prophet (ﷺ) referred to are of different types, such as the poor, the needy, orphans, the sick, strangers and women who have no guardians or slaves. The way to show kindness to them differs from one type to another: the poor by giving them money and gifts, the orphan and women with no guardians by checking on them and financially supporting them, the sick by visiting them and encouraging them to persevere and so on.

If you wish to increase you provisions, gain the support of Allah, be kind to the weak and refrain from harming them.

Devoting oneself to worship. Allah promises the one who devotes himself to the worship of Allaah two things: contentment and wealth, It is known that the one towhom Allaah gives a con- tented heart, poverty will never find a way to reach him.

Devoting oneself to worshipping Allaah does not mean that one stops seeking provisions, refrains from working and sits in the mosque day and night. Rather, what is meant is that the slave should always have his heart attentive during his worship to Allaah, humble himself to Him, be aware of His greatness and remember that he is invoking upon the Rabb of the Heavens and the earth.

There are other ways to increase ones provisions which we will mention in brief: Migrating for the sake of Allah; Jihaad for the sake of Allah; thankfulness to Allah; Marriage; Supplicating to Allah during times of need; Shunning sins and maintaining oneself upon the religion of Allah by performing acts of obedience.

The most important of all what has been mentioned, for provisions are gained by obedience and lost by disobedience, and a person gets deprived from provisions due to a sin he commits. Sins are the greatest cause for losing provisions, having a difficult life and losing blessings in life.

So, concretely, what jobs or professions are permissible in an Islamic perspective? We will discuss it in the next session, bi idhnillah."

[Session 2]

Bahasa

The Ju Gong Fable

"On the never never land, a country is teetering on the edge of a civil war, because of fraudulent elections, almost all parties refuses to accept election results.

Armed insurgents invade the capitol, threaten violence and are ultimately overpowered. But intelligence shows that they may be planning another attack.

The country’s leaders ask for advice in how to handle the violence.

One party yells, 'Impeach the outgoing president during his final week in office!'

But other parties plead for unity while still refusing to acknowledge the election.

One man looks out at the scene of thousands of military troops forced to sleep in the capitol to protect it, heads resting on cold hard floor, and immediately advises the president that we need to call up even more troops and impose martial law.

'And what is your background?' the president asks. 'Are you a homeland security expert? Or a military general with experience in revolutions?'

'No,' the man answers. 'I’m a pillow salesman,'" said the Moon when she began to carry out her duties, after saying Basmalah and Salaam.

The Moon then said, "Achieving a society with both freedom and peace is of course,  full of challenges. It will require great strategic skill, organization, and planning. Above all, it will require power.

In countries controlled by authoritarians or dictatorships, hoping to overthrow them and establish political freedom, require democratic enforcers, an ability to apply their own power effectively. But is this possible? What kind of power can the democratic opposition mobilize that will be sufficient to destroy the dictatorship and its vast military and police networks?

There are a number of ways that scholars define an authoritarian regime. As Erica Frantz mentions, A regime is authoritarian if the executive achieved power through undemocratic means, that is, any means besides direct relatively free and fair elections; or if the executive achieved power via free and fair elections, but later changed the rules such that subsequent electoral competition (whether legislative or executive) was limited. Electoral fraud, in fact, will lead to an authoritarian regime. Authoritarian regimes, wrote Juan Linz, are political systems with limited, not responsible political pluralism; without elaborate and guiding ideology (but with distinctive mentalities); without intensive nor extensive political mobilization (except some points of their development); and in which a leader (or occasionally a small group) exercises power within formally ill-defned limits but actually quite predictable ones.

This definition is roughly echoed by Samuel Huntington, who writes that authoritarian regimes are characterized by a single leader or group of leaders, with either no party or a weak party, little mass mobilization, and limited political pluralism. Adam Przeworski, when talking about democracy and dictatorship, says: 'democracies are regimes in which 'those who govern are selected through contested elections; dictatorships are 'not democracies.'

As we all know, Dictatorship developed as a major form of government in the 19th century. Dictatorship, a form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. The Dictator was a public office in the Roman Republic. In times of crisis, the government appointed a Dictator of Rome who was given extensive abilities to address said crisis, which was his chief responsibility. By tradition, the Dictator could only serve a brief term in office (some have suggested six months as the term) and was expected to resign as soon as the crisis was addressed. These limitations were implemented to prevent Rome from sliding into a monarchy. In the Roman Republic's closing decades, the position of Dictator was abused by men such as Sulla and Caesar, who used the office for self-aggrandizement. This abuse frayed the Republic's institutions and led to the emperors' rise.

The three world top dictators are Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler. During the 20th century, some dictators name can be mentioned, among others, Juan Perón (1895–1974) of Argentina, Fulgencio Batista (1901–1973) of Cuba, François Duvalier (1907–1971) of Haiti, Anastasio Somoza (1896–1956) of Nicaragua, and Alfredo Stroessner (1912–2006) of Paraguay.

Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski, highlight six features of totalitarian dictatorships. These features are: the implementation of an official ideology, a single political party, party control over mass communications, party control over the military, a central economy, and a secret police. In later work, Brzezinski defines totalitarianism as a new form of government that seeks to bring about a social revolution, based on the ideological assumptions declared by the leadership. In totalitarian regimes, power is 'wielded without restraint.' The main goal of the leadership is to achieve the total unity of society and politicization of the populace via political organizations. These means are achieved through propaganda and terror. The leader has greater power than the party or security apparatus and typically possesses religious or charismatic appeal. Examples cited include Nazi Germany, Communist Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, and Communist China.

There are key factors that distinguish totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, the degree of social pluralism and levels of political mobilization. Linz argues that authoritarian regimes are characterized by a mentality, whereas totalitarian regimes are characterized by an ideological belief system. The main goals of authoritarian regimes are political demobilization and depoliticization. Authoritarian regimes do not seek to homogenize society and instead allow for some degree of pluralism. By contrast, totalitarian regimes place great emphasis on political mobilization and use ideology as a main source of their legitimacy.

Why does dictatorships appear? According to Natasha Ezrow and Erica Frantz, Institutional factors may be the first reason. Governments with low levels of institutionalization are in states of political decay, characterized by high levels of corruption, the blurring of private and public in government, lack of civil associations, and an absence of political consensus. Such scenarios lead to “ungovernability” and the unfeasibility of democracy. Secondly, for Seymour Martin Lipset, economic and demographic factors explain why some countries are democratic and others are not. In particular, urbanization, industrialization, education, and healthy populations all lead to pressures within a country to democratize. 'Modernization' of society makes democracy more likely by leading to a change in the mentality of citizens. Absent such societal characteristics, dictatorship will persist. Third, Barrington Moore highlights how the presence of a large middle class is favorable to democratization. He points to the critical role of the established, landed upper class and the peasantry during countries’ transitions from agrarian to industrial societies in determining the type of political system that takes shape. Democracy is most likely to emerge where there are groups in society that have independent economic bases, i.e. where there is a middle class. Fourth, the Role of Ethnicity. A handful of scholars have sought to disentangle the role of ethnicity in determining regime type. Donald Horowitz claims that ethnic cleavages and diversity are obstacles for countries attempting to democratize.

Natasha Ezra and Erica Frantz further suggest forms of dictatorship. Military dictatorships begin with the military executing (or threatening to execute) a coup d'état. Or Single-party dictatorships arise under a variety of circumstances. Or Personalist dictatorships typically emerge following seizures of power in which the co-conspirators are not organized tightly, enabling the leader to maximize power. Or Monarchies which differ from other forms of dictatorship, in that they involve institutionalized hereditary rule, often rooted in the historical legacies of family bloodlines. The leadership pool is comprised of the royal family, rather than a military or party institution.

There are interesting things in the discussion presented by Gene Sharp (2010), about dictatorship and political power. Liu-Ji, give an example, says Sharp, to understand political power. The fourteenth century Chinese parable goes like this,

In the feudal state of Chu, an old man survived by keeping monkeys in his service. The people of Chu called him 'ju gong' (monkey master).

Each morning, the old man would assemble the monkeys in his courtyard, and order the eldest one to lead the others to the mountains to gather fruits from bushes and trees.

It was the rule that each monkey had to give one-tenth of his collection to the old man. Those who failed to do so would be ruthlessly flogged. All the monkeys suffered bitterly, but dared not complain.

One day, a small monkey asked the other monkeys, 'Did the old man plant all the fruit trees and bushes?' The others said, 'No, they grew naturally.' The small monkey further asked. 'Can’t we take the fruits without the old man’s permission?' The others replied. 'Yes, we all can.'

The small monkey continued. 'Then, why should we depend on the old man; why must we all serve him?'

Before the small monkey was able to finish his statement, all the monkeys suddenly became enlightened and awakened.

On the same night, watching that the old man had fallen asleep, the monkeys tore down all the barricades of the stockade in which they were confined, and destroyed the stockade entirely. They also took the fruits the old man had in storage, brought all with them to the woods, and never returned. The old man finally died of starvation.

This story, originally titled 'Rule by Tricks' is from Yu-li-zi by Liu Ji (1311-1375). Yu-li-zi is also the pseudonym of Liu Ji. He comment the story, 'Some men in the world rule their people by tricks and not by righteous principles. Aren’t they just like the monkey master? They are not aware of their muddleheadedness. As soon as their people become enlightened, their tricks no longer work.'

Then Sharp answers the previous questions. That the answers lie in an oft ignored understanding of political power. Learning this insight is not really so difficult a task. The principle is simple, says Sharp. Dictators require the assistance of the people they rule, without which they cannot secure and maintain the sources of political power. These sources of political power include,

Authority, the belief among the people that the regime is legitimate, and that they have a moral duty to obey it;

Human resources, the number and importance of the persons and groups which are obeying, cooperating, or providing assistance to the rulers;

Skills and knowledge, needed by the regime to perform specific actions and supplied by the cooperating persons and groups;

Intangible factors, psychological and ideological factors that may induce people to obey and assist the rulers;

Material resources, the degree to which the rulers control or have access to property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic system, and means of communication and transportation; and,

Sanctions, punishments, threatened or applied, against the disobedient and noncooperative to ensure the submission and cooperation that are needed for the regime to exist and carry out its policies.

All of these sources, however, depend on acceptance of the regime, on the submission and obedience of the population, and on the cooperation of innumerable people and the many institutions of the society. These are not guaranteed.

Full cooperation, obedience, and support will increase the availability of the needed sources of power and, consequently, expand the power capacity of any government.

On the other hand, withdrawal of popular and institutional cooperation with aggressors and dictators diminishes, and may sever, the availability of the sources of power on which all rulers depend. Without availability of those sources, the rulers’ power weakens and finally dissolves.

Naturally, dictators are sensitive to actions and ideas that threaten their capacity to do as they like. Dictators are therefore likely to threaten and punish those who disobey, strike, or fail to cooperate. However, that is not the end of the story. Repression, even brutalities, do not always produce a resumption of the necessary degree of submission and cooperation for the regime to function.

If, despite repression, the sources of power can be restricted or severed for enough time, the initial results may be uncertainty and confusion within the dictatorship. That is likely to be followed by a clear weakening of the power of the dictatorship. Over time, the withholding of the sources of power can produce the paralysis and impotence of the regime, and in severe cases, its disintegration. The dictators’ power will die, slowly or rapidly, from political starvation.

The degree of liberty or tyranny in any government is, it follows, in large degree a reflection of the relative determination of the subjects to be free and their willingness and ability to resist efforts to enslave them.

Contrary to popular opinion, says Sharp, even totalitarian dictatorships are dependent on the population and the societies they rule. As the political scientist Karl W. Deutsch noted in 1953,

'Totalitarian power is strong only if it does not have to be used too often. If totalitarian power must be used at all times against the entire population, it is unlikely to remain powerful for long. Since totalitarian regimes require more power for dealing with their subjects than do other types of government, such regimes stand in greater need of widespread and dependable compliance habits among their people; more than that they have to be able to count on the active support of at least significant parts of the population in case of need.'

The English Nineteenth Century legal theorist, John Austin, described the situation of a dictatorship confronting a disaffected people. Austin argued that if most of the population were determined to destroy the government and were willing to endure repression to do so, then the might of the government, including those who supported it, could not preserve the hated government, even if it received foreign assistance. The defiant people could not be forced back into permanent obedience and subjection.

Niccolo Machiavelli had much earlier argued that the prince '... who has the public as a whole for his enemy can never make himself secure; and the greater his cruelty, the weaker does his regime become.'

Therefore, says Sharp, three of the most important factors in determining to what degree a government’s power will be controlled or uncontrolled are:

(1) the relative desire of the populace to impose limits on the government’s power;

(2) the relative strength of the subjects’ independent organizations and institutions to withdraw collectively the sources of power; and

(3) the population’s relative ability to withhold their consent and assistance.

Are there features characterized a democratic society? One characteristic of a democratic society, says Sharp, is that there exist independent of the state a multitude of nongovernmental groups and institutions. These include, for example, families, religious organizations, cultural associations, sports clubs, economic institutions, trade unions, student associations, political parties, villages, neighborhood associations, gardening clubs, human rights organizations, musical groups, literary societies, and others. These bodies are important in serving their own objectives and also in helping to meet social needs.

Additionally, these bodies have great political significance. They provide group and institutional bases by which people can exert influence over the direction of their society and resist other groups or the government when they are seen to impinge unjustly on their interests, activities, or purposes. Isolated individuals, not members of such groups, usually are unable to make a significant impact on the rest of the society, much less a government, and certainly not a dictatorship.

Consequently, if the autonomy and freedom of such bodies can be taken away by the dictators, the population will be relatively helpless. Also, if these institutions can themselves be dictatorially controlled by the central regime or replaced by new controlled ones, they can be used to dominate both the individual members and also those areas of the society.

However, if the autonomy and freedom of these independent civil institutions (outside of government control) can be maintained or regained they are highly important for the application of political defiance.

These centers of power provide the institutional bases from which the population can exert pressure or can resist dictatorial controls. In the future, they will be part of the indispensable structural base for a free society. Their continued independence and growth therefore is often a prerequisite for the success of the liberation struggle. If the dictatorship has been largely successful in destroying or controlling the society’s independent bodies, it will be important for the resisters to create new independent social groups and institutions, or to reassert democratic control over surviving or partially controlled bodies."

"And finally, before I go," said the Moon, let me tell you this, Jerzy J. Wiatr when talking about New Authoritarianism in 21th Century, says that the crucial problem for new authoritarian regimes is how to consolidate the new system. In democracy, parties get used to the fact of political rotation. Since they respect the rules of democracy, they do not fear electoral defeat, knowing that with the passing of time they would have their second chance. The authoritarian leaders are in a different position. The more they consolidate their hold on state power by legal or extra-legal means, the more reasons they have to fear defeat. Therefore, they have strong interest in fortifying their political position so that their removal from power would be very diffcult, if not impossible.

There are three crucial elements in this process. First, they have to establish political control over the judiciary to prevent independent courts from questioning their power. This is being done by a combination of new laws and of buying support of some of the judges.

Second, they have to put their hand on mass media, particularly those which give them access to the less educated strata. Television and survey–much more than the printed media–is particularly important since it is the primary source of political information for the less educated. It is true that today, with the free access to internet, it is more diffcult to establish full control over the exchange of information and of opinions, but the extent to which internet is being used varies depending on education and social status.

Third, the new authoritarian regimes buy support of the poorer strata by adopting populist social and economic strategies of redistribution. Even if, as it is the case in Russia, they tolerate or even support oligarchs, they make systematic effort to improve the economic situation of the poorer strata–something that many of the previous liberal governments neglected.

In addition to these three policies, common for all new authoritarian regimes, there have been nation-specifc policies refecting specifc conditions of various countries. And Allah knows best."

Time to go, and the Moon sang,

I want to ride my bicycle

I want to ride my bike

I want to ride my bicycle

I want to ride it where I like *)

Citations & References:
- Gene sharp, From Dictatorship to Democracy, 2010, the Albert Einstein Institution
- Natasha M. Ezrow & Erica Frantz, Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders, 2011, The Continuum International Publishing Group
- Jerzy J. Wiatr (ed.), New Authoritarianism Challenges to Democracy in the 21st century, 2019, Barbara Budrich Publishers
- Barbara Geddes, Joseph Wright & Erica Frantz, How Dictatorships Work: Power, Personalization, and Collapse, 2018, Cambridge University Press
*) "Bicycle Race" written by Freddie Mercury

Bahasa