Minarets and Europe's crisis

By Anas Altikriti, Al-Jazeera.

The mind is boggled by the fact that Switzerland, a country renowned for its tolerant nature, could come to see less than a handful of minarets as a threat to its identity and culture. The main campaign poster used by far right groups to rally against the construction of minarets in Switzerland depicted a Muslim woman in niqab standing before a multitude of minarets graphically rendered to look like missiles. Switzerland's Commission Against Racism said that the campaign poster defamed the country's Muslim minority.

Neither the niqab nor the minaret is characteristic of the Muslim community in Switzerland but both have been regularly used to stoke the flames of hatred and fear against Muslims throughout Europe in recent times.And it was that fear which pushed over half of Swiss voters to choose, by a majority of 57 per cent, to support the minaret ban called for by the Union Démocratique du Centre (UDC), a right wing populist party.

Switzerland's identity crisis

The vote revealed that Switzerland, like a number of other Western nations, faces a deep identity crisis which has nothing to do with Islam, sharia, immigration or any other red-rags that were waived by the far-right to increase European fears of Muslims.

The question the Swiss should really be asking themselves is whether the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy - upheld so preciously by European nations - are practised as reverently as they are preached.

This becomes even more of a crisis when one recalls that among the crucial outcomes of the struggle between church and state throughout Europe was the emergence of these values as an 'alternative' to church dictate and the preaching of clerics.

Hence, the first serious problem with the referendum process is how a democratic society can begin to contemplate holding a popular vote on a matter that is regarded integral to the core themes of freedom and rights.

While it is only fair to assert that the Swiss government and most newspaper editors had urged voters to defeat the ban, it remains the case that the vote should not have been held in the first place. The very concept of a referendum in which the vast majority are asked to vote on a topic specific to the culture or religion of a minority group is in itself extremely problematic.

Imagine the furor that would certainly ensue should a country with an overwhelmingly Muslim population be asked to vote on whether its small Christian community should be allowed to build their churches according to a particular design or method, or whether they would rather do without the church bells sounding from time to time.

Limits of democracy?

What next, one wonders, and how far does this appetite for 'democracy' go? Is it a matter of time before there is a referendum on whether or not Muslims should be allowed to practise their faith, or even be allowed to exist at all?

This might sound slightly melodramatic, but a quick examination of where we were and how far we have come in so little time, offers quite a concerning assumption of where we might be heading. The reader should bear in mind that the grand sum of existing minarets in all of Switzerland is exactly ... four.

It is only a tiny fraction of the Swiss population which regularly encounters the sight of a mosque minaret.

The referendum becomes even more ludicrous when one discovers that there were precisely two applications for building permits which included the construction of minarets, and neither likely to be built within the next five years.

Therefore, since it was unlikely that the Swiss people were soon going to wake up to find themselves surrounded by a forest of minarets, this whole process begs the question of what the real motives were behind the referendum.

With most European governments continuously flaunting democracy, civil liberties and minority rights as the cornerstones of a national identity, it remains a mystery how the issue of minarets was presented as a challenge and a problem facing multi-cultural, liberal and secular Europe.Can a civilised people be so ill at ease and low on confidence that the specific design of a handful of buildings be construed as a threat to the country's national heritage, identity and culture?

Questionable timing?

One wonders where this leaves the throng of Western commentators who persistently remind their audiences that Christians are disallowed from practising their faith freely or building churches in certain Muslim countries. In fact one wonders whether the ramifications of the Swiss vote on Christians and other minorities living freely among Muslim societies were ever considered.

Whatever the outcome, the impact of this ban on Muslims in Switzerland in day-to-day terms will be almost negligible. Muslims pray in all sorts of buildings and in all sorts of venues, with minarets and without.

Indeed, figures suggest that most Western Muslims perform their daily prayers in buildings that are not classified as mosques in the first place. Which is why this was a non-starter on the scale of issues concerning the people of Switzerland; including Muslims. Consider the referendum's timing: It comes following the so-called war on terror and coincides with the rise of far-right and fascist groups.

The timing coupled with the racist and inflammatory discourse that has guided this process, the images that adorn the campaign posters as well as those who have promoted this ban, indicate that Europe is in the throes of an Islamophobic trend gathering pace as a result of the gross failures of official economic, social and political policies.

Already, celebratory remarks from far-right and racist figures, including Heinz-Christian Strache, the leader of the radical-right Austrian Freedom Party, and Marine Le Pen, the vice-president of France's National Front, have reverberated from various corners of the European continent.

Dutch deputy Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom has gone as far as to suggest that they will be following the example of their Swiss compatriots and pursuing a ban on mosque minarets in the Netherlands. The pioneers of Europe's enlightenment movement must be turning in their graves.

Integrating Muslims in Europe

While I acknowledge statements made by various commentators regarding the need for the Muslim community in Switzerland (and throughout Europe) to do more to integrate and prove their worth to their respective societies, I would warn against asking too much of a community under so much scrutiny and pressure.

Building mosque minarets was never seen by Swiss Muslims as central to and inseparable from their faith or religious practise. Equivocally, Switzerland should not have made the banning of minarets a pivot about which it defines its national identity and culture.The construction of minarets is a right - one that bears no effect whatsoever on the vast majority of the Swiss people. By voting to ban this right, it is Swiss - and Western - values which become poorer and less meaningful.

The only way forward is for a realisation that Europe is not built solely on a Judeo-Christian heritage, but that Muslims too have played a vital and significant role in shaping modern day Europe through contributions of culture, arts, politics, law, theology, science, medicine and dozens of other disciplines.

There must be a realisation too that the 30 million or so European Muslims have become part of the European social fabric, through an invaluable contribution which they have made over decades if not for centuries.By singling them out as suspects and potential enemies within, European societies are creating wide-spread instability and future uncertainty for everyone on the social, economic and political levels.

For a Europe that still commemorates the tragedies that occurred when it played host to a concerted attack on one of its own communities nearly 70 years ago, it is a serious over-sight and a case of horrific negligence to allow the same to happen again, only against a different victim.

Anas Altikriti is the CEO of the Cordoba Foundation, a London-based think-tank concerned with building bridges and improving understanding between the West and the Muslim world, through research, training and conflict resolution.

 

Cherchez The French

Asia Sentinel( Taken From Malaysia Today's Website on 19 Nov 2009)

On September 3, a 66-meter submarine named for Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia's founding father, glided into the Royal Malaysian Navy base at Port Klang on Malaysia's western coast after a 54-day voyage from France. Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was there to greet them.

As defense minister, Najib had commissioned a huge military buildup to upgrade Malaysia's armed forces including the purchase of two Scorpene-class submarines and the lease of a third, a retired French Navy Agosta-class boat, for US$1 billion. The two submarines were designed by France's DCNS naval shipbuilder and built in partnership with Spain's Navantia. Both companies are state owned. The deal earned a commission of €114 million for a company owned by Najib's best friend, Abdul Razak Baginda, once the head of a Kuala Lumpur political thinktank.

The Tunku Abdul Rahman, along with its companion, to be named for Najib's father Tun Abdul Razak and to be delivered in 2010, is at the very heart of the continuing controversy over the death of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a 28-year-old Mongolian translator and Razak Baginda's jilted lover. Altantuya was murdered in October of 2006 by two bodyguards attached to Najib's office after Razak, who had jilted Altantuya, went to Najib's chief of staff, Musa Safri, for help in keeping the 28-year-old woman away from him. Not long after being acquitted under questionable circumstances of participating in her murder, he left the country for England.

Questions over the purchases go well beyond the death of a spurned paramour and point to some difficult subjects for French and Malaysian officials. These questions assume added relevancy in light of revelations last week that someone, allegedly close to the Prime Minister, was willing to pay RM5 million (US$1.48 million) to a private detective to forget his statement connecting Najib to Altantuya.

The continuing controversy makes it appropriate to ask to examine the defence minister's diaries, calendars and telephone logs and those of Razak Baginda in 2002, when the Royal Malaysian Navy ordered the vessels. In letters found after her death, Altantuya said she was attempting to blackmail Razak Baginda for as much as US$500,000, apparently, her father said, because of her role as translator over the purchase of the submarines. Malaysia ordered the two diesel-electric submarines from DCN SA (Direction des Constructions Navales), a French manufacturer of warships and submarines and the largest naval shipyard in Europe, in 2002. However, Razak Baginda and Altantuya went to France at the same time Najib did in 2005 to settle details of the purchase.

Perimekar, a company owned by Abdul Razak Baginda, received the €114 million for “coordination and support services” – 11 percent of the sale price of the submarines. Zainal Abidin, then the deputy defense minister, told a parliamentary inquiry that such commissions were commonplace in Malaysia. No further inquiry was made as to the commission, nor was any attempt made to determine what coordination and support services Perimekar might be providing.

However, it might pay to take a look at some other deals in which top French politicians were involved in, some of them along with DCN, and to ask whether all of that €114 actually went to Razak Baginda, or if some, with the complicity of Malaysian politicians, went into the pockets of their French counterparts.

There is plenty of reason to entertain that possibility. French politicians seem to have a knack for backhanders. On October 26, in a trial that centered on illegal arms sales to Angola, Jean-Christophe Mitterrand, the son of the late president Francois Mitterand, was given a two-year suspended sentence and a €375,000 fine for receiving embezzled funds. The court ruled that he had accepted millions of euros in "consultant fees" on the arms deals between 1993 and 1998. In the dock with him were 42 people accused of selling weapons to Angola in defiance of a UN arms embargo, or of taking payments from the arms dealers and using their influence to facilitate the sales.

The trial, it was said, shined a light into a murky world of secret payments made in cash and discreet deals linking Parisian high society with one of Africa's longest-running wars. But it hasn't shined a light on what happened elsewhere with contracts concluded by the representatives of France, and particularly by DCN. For instance, 11 French engineers employed by DCN, which peddled Malaysia's subs to Pakistan, were blown up in a bus bombing in 2002 which was first thought to have been perpetrated by Islamic militants. The 11 were in Karachi to work on three Agosta 90 B submarines that the Pakistani military had bought in 1994, with payment to be spread over a decade. According to Reuters, commissions were promised to middlemen including Pakistani and Saudi Arabian nationals. Agosta is a subsidiary of DCN.

Two French magistrates, Marc Trevidic and Yves Jannier, who were looking into the case on behalf of the victims, said kickbacks ended up in the campaign funds of Edouard Balladur, then the French prime minister and a rival of Jacques Chirac in the 1995 presidential election. The current French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, was Balladur's campaign manager as well as budget minister when the contract for the subs was signed.

Although Sarcozy and Balladur have both denied any wrongdoing, a top-secret memo turned up in October 2008 from DCN, which was state-owned at the time of the alleged kickbacks. Copies of the memo were shown on French television. The memo reportedly said France had stopped paying the bribes after Chirac won the 1995 elections despite requests by Pakistani officials for several years afterwards. Eventually, according to the story, the Pakistanis eventually lost patience and orchestrated the bus attack on the Agosta engineers in retaliation. The third submarine ordered and leased by Malaysia was an Agosta.

Another case involves the French company Thales, formerly Thompson-CSF, which sold six DCN-built La Fayette-class 'stealth' frigates to Taiwan in 1992 for US$2.8 billion. The warships, designated Kan Ding by Taiwan, were delivered between 1996 and 1998. The website DefenseNews reported that Taiwan is seeking US$882 million, down from US$1.12 billion on its claim against Thales, according to documents filed with the French market regulator Authorité des Marches Financiers. The update was made to its reference document submitted on April 12.

Taiwan's claim, the website said, is based on allegations that Thales wrongfully paid commissions to agents in the sale of the frigates. Thales said in the filing that it and its industrial partner have consistently contested the claim. A Thales spokesman declined to comment to Reuters beyond the information contained in the filing. Thales was prime contractor on the sale of the frigates, which were built by DCN. If Taiwan won the case, Thales would be liable for 30 percent of the claim, the filing said.

French judges have been investigating corruption allegations arising from the Taiwan contract over a number of years but have made no arrests, notably because documents are protected by defense secrecy laws, which the government refuses to lift. Nonetheless, it is widely believed that at least some of the alleged kickbacks were used as political campaign funds in the French 1995 elections.

At least six people connected with the case have died under suspicious circumstances, including a Taiwan naval captain, Yin Ching-feng, who was found floating off the country's coast, a victim of foul play. Yin is believed to have been killed because he planned to go to the authorities about the case. His nephew, who was also pursuing the case, a Thomson employee in Taiwan and a French intelligence agent were also among the dead. It gradually emerged that some $600 million in commissions had been paid into various Swiss accounts set up by Andrew Wang Chuan-pu, the Taiwan agent forThomson-CSF. In October 2008 a French judge finally ruled that no one could be prosecuted because of lack of evidence.

Peres is a small man, not Richard Goldstone

President Shimon Peres considers Richard Goldstone a "small man, devoid of any sense of justice, a technocrat with no real understanding of jurisprudence." Same to you, we used to say when we were kids. Indeed, it's amazing to see how aptly these harsh remarks describe Peres himself, a small man, devoid of any sense of justice.

A president who tongue-lashes an internationally acclaimed jurist, a senior representative of the United Nations, mainly attests to his own character. The attacks on Goldstone have devolved; they have become personal and unbridled. When they are uttered by the president, in a meeting with his esteemed Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva no less, it shows we have completely lost our way. Peres fulminated in the name of us all. This is not only a matter of personal etiquette, at which Peres normally excels. This is about the image of a country whose number-one citizen speaks so rudely against a global emissary. That is Peres' "PR mission" that everyone here is cheering.

Goldstone has already chalked up one impressive achievement: We will now think twice or even three times before sending Israeli soldiers out on another brutal attack like Operation Cast Lead. His report will echo in the ears of politicians and generals before they give the order to move out. Perhaps the brutality is not over; certainly this is not a farewell to arms, but there will be new considerations and restraint. Without our admitting it, Goldstone has become the developer of the Israel Defense Forces' new ethics code.

Israel should be grateful to him for this. Unlike the president, the IDF is taking the Goldstone report a bit more seriously: Last week the military advocate general ordered an investigation into 12 incidents in the report. After all, even based on the IDF's greatly lowballed figures, nearly one-third of those killed in Gaza were innocent civilians. Also, the IDF cannot deny bombing flour mills, chicken runs, water and sewage systems, police stations, a school and a hospital. Goldstone told us about it. The call to establish an investigative panel following the report has come only because of Goldstone. The president's sense of justice, in contrast, has not even led him to call for an investigation into incidents the IDF has admitted to.

In the contest over "whose is bigger," Peres will certainly wind up far behind in second place. Peres decried the sense of justice and understanding of jurisprudence of the former justice of South Africa's Constitutional Court, the head of the board of the Human Rights Institute of South Africa, the chief prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, a member of the committee that probed Nazi activity in Argentina and chairman of the International Independent Inquiry on Kosovo. That criticism of Goldstone comes from a man who has never opened his mouth to condemn human-rights violations in his own country brings Israeli temerity to new heights. Another sorry new record: The president has called for Goldstone to be investigated.

The sense of justice of Peres, who travels the world as an elder statesman and international man of peace, is certainly far less well-honed than Goldstone's. Goldstone has a proven track record. Peres does not. He keeps silent. He always has. Peres does not know what really happened in Gaza. Goldstone was there and interviewed close to 200 eyewitnesses. He may or may not have exaggerated a bit in his report, but Peres' silence over what happened is much more shameful.

Peres is our beautiful and misleading face. Equipped with the ability to delude, one of the founders of the settlement movement has turned into Israel's Mr. Peace. He travels the world, generating admiration for his physical stamina, scattering empty promises and slogans. He calls on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas not to resign, when he knows that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu contributed to this resignation by his rejectionist attitude. He calls on Bashar Assad to come to the negotiating table, knowing that the Syrian president is practically begging for peace. A call by the president for the prime minister to freeze settlements or respond to the Syrian challenge? Of course not. That might make someone angry. He only preaches morality to the whole world. A small man? Peres' words.

Gideon Levy, Haaretz.con

Airbus rides the Chinese dragon

TIANJIN, July 1 — In the time it takes to complete the paper work for planning permission in Britain, a factory in Tianjin has been built and is producing passenger jets.

Once a month, an Airbus A320 passenger jet rolls out of an airy hangar on the outskirts of northern port city of Tianjin, China’s window to Western ideas for a century and a half. Within two years these US$72 million (RM255 million) twin-engine jets will be emerging once a week.

The number of French, German, British, and Spanish engineers “shadowing” the local work force will be down to a handful.

By then production of identical models of the A320 workhorse will be tapering off slowly at the Airbus sister plants in Hamburg and Toulouse, starting with a cut from 36 to 34 this autumn.

The Chinese engineers learn fast. This factory kicked off nine months ago, a nanosecond in aviation time. It takes longer in Britain to complete the paper-work for planning permission.

“It’s a miracle,” said Lan Xinguo, head of Sichuan Airlines as he took delivery last week of the first Chinese A320 — splendidly adorned in red with dragons — to the sound of the Star Wars film track.

“What’s been done is beyond our imagination a few years ago.”

Lawrence Barron, head of Airbus China, said Tianjin jets are geared to voracious demand from local airlines, at least — and here comes the kicker — “in the early years”. There is no reason why an Indian, Australian, or European airline should not buy a Tianjin jet one day.

It is an odd arrangement. The Tianjin plant is a joint venture with China’s Aviation Industry Corp (AVIC), the 430,000-strong spearhead of China’s drive to be an aeronautics superpower.

AVIC in turn holds a stake in the Commercial Aircraft Corp of China (COMAC) which has already launched its own Chinese-designed regional jet, the 90-seat ARJ-21.

Under the Communist Party’s 13th “Five-Year Plan”, it now aims to challenge the West head on with a 180-seat jet. “We believe after six to eight years development, our aircraft will overtake Boeing and Airbus,” said COMAC chairman Zhang Qinqwei last year.

Airbus is taking a big gamble. It is clearly sharing technology with an octopus-like network of state-led enterprises (some linked to the military) that openly boast rival ambitions.

Yet it is a risk that Europe’s planemaker believes it must take to win the aviation jackpot of the next twenty years, an estimated market for 2,800 big jets and 470 freighters worth US$300 billion.

“There is no co-operaration without technology transfer,” said Tom Enders, Airbus chief. “We are protecting what matters most. And whatever happens, I have no doubt that a great and ambitious nation like China — that is already able to send men to space and bring them back home safely — is one day going to build its own aircraft anyway,” he said.

Safeguarding secrets is not easy. The aging A320 dates back to the late 1980s, but China is also insisting on a 5 per cent share of the new A350 XWB. Chinese engineers are working on advanced composite materials in Beijing.

For now, Airbus in enjoying the downpayment on this deal — a cascade of fresh orders for 410 jets worth US$36bn from China’s aviation authority — although Boeing is pulling in Chinese orders, too, and many are wide-body jets with a higher value.

The Americans are watching the Airbus venture uneasily from the sidelines. Boeing buys parts from Chinese suppliers but has stopped short of full assembly. But then the Americans have been burned before. McDonnell Douglas came awry on its venture building the MD-82 in Shanghai in the early 1990s, misjudging the shifting political currents in Beijing.

Brazil’s Embraer came to grief too. Richard Aboulafia from Teal Group consultants said Airbus China risks the same fate.

“The last efforts were disasters, so perhaps it’s third time lucky. I think this is a fool’s game. Anybody can assemble a jet and put their flag on it. The real value added is in the components,” he said.

As yet, the Airbus work at Tianjin is final stage assembly, putting together the fuselage, wings, engines, tails, noses, and doors imported from Europe.

“We’re talking about 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the value added,” said Maurice Chretien, a floor manager in Tianjin.

But the picture is changing fast. Rear passenger doors and the nose landing gear for the A320 family are made in Chengdu, emergency exit doors, wing ribs and edges in Shenyang, cargo doors in Shanghai, and wing boxes and brake blades in Shaanxi.

It is the Airbus “Wing Cooperation Agreement” with China that most worries workers at the UK wing plant at Broughton in North Wales. For the time being, Broughton is still “Big Brother”. The Chinese parts are sent back to Wales for refinement — a costly way to do business.

Under the next phase, the Chinese wing parts will never leave Asia. They will be equipped and tested in Tianjin instead. Enders is brutally honest.

“The UK is the supplier of wings for the Airbus family but that doesn’t mean the Chinese can’t build a good wing. As long as the UK maintains competitive working conditions, Wales is OK,” he said.

Airbus is coy about how much it pays staff in China. Chretien says cheap labour is more myth than reality.

“It is an illusion that you find well-qualified people for nothing in China. I have a laser tracker specialist who earns just 20 per cent less than his Toulouse colleague here to coach him. The cost advantage is thin,” he said.

Airbus workers in Europe can be forgiven for harbouring doubts. The Chinese yuan is up to 50 per cent undervalued against the euro, and China is graduating 600,000 engineers each year. Unless something radical changes in the currency and trade structure of globalisation, Chinese labour will be very hard to beat for years to come.

Europe cannot buck history. China will strive to be an aeronautics powerhouse whatever Airbus does. By taking the plunge, the company can at least hope to lash its fortunes to the world’s rising force for a quarter century.

Take chances where you can. — The Daily Telegraph

How Iran Is Rule

ELECTORATE

Of a total population of about 65 million, more than 46 million people - all those over 18 - are eligible to vote. Young people constitute a large part of the electorate with about 50% of voters being under 30.

Voter turnout hit a record high at 80% in the 1997 elections which delivered a landslide victory for reformist President Mohammad Khatami. Women and young people were key to the vote.

But with disillusionment growing, only about 60% of the electorate voted in the final round of the 2005 election which brought hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.

PRESIDENT

The president is elected for four years and can serve no more than two consecutive terms. he constitution describes him as the second-highest ranking official in the country. He is head of the executive branch of power and is responsible for ensuring the constitution is implemented.

In practice, however, presidential powers are circumscribed by the clerics and conservatives in Iran's power structure, and by the authority of the Supreme Leader. It is the Supreme Leader, not the president, who controls the armed forces and makes decisions on security, defence and major foreign policy issues.

All presidential candidates are vetted by the Guardian Council, which banned hundreds of hopefuls from standing in the 2005 elections.

Conservative Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president in 2005 after he defeated former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in a second round run-off poll. Mr Ahmadinejad is Iran's first president since 1981 who is not a cleric.

Mr Ahmadinejad replaced reformist Mohammad Khatami who was elected president in May 1997 with nearly 70% of the vote. He failed to get key reforms through the Guardian Council and was hampered further after conservatives won back a majority in parliament in elections in 2004.

CABINET

Members of the cabinet, or Council of Ministers, are chosen by the president. They must be approved by parliament, which in 2005 rejected four of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's initial nominees for his hardline cabinet. Parliament can also impeach ministers.

The Supreme Leader is closely involved in defence, security and foreign policy, so his office also holds influence in decision-making. Reformist ministers under former President Khatami were heavily monitored by conservatives. The cabinet is chaired by the president or first vice-president, who is responsible for cabinet affairs.

PARLIMENT

The 290 members of the Majlis, or parliament, are elected by popular vote every four years. The parliament has the power to introduce and pass laws, as well as to summon and impeach ministers or the president.

However, all Majlis bills have to be approved by the conservative Guardian Council.

The first reformist majority was elected in 2000, but this was overturned four years later in elections in 2004. Many reformist candidates were banned from standing.

The current speaker of the parliament is Ali Larijani, a former chief nuclear negotiator.

ASSEMBLY OF EXPERT

The responsibilities of the Assembly of Experts are to appoint the Supreme Leader, monitor his performance and remove him if he is deemed incapable of fulfilling his duties. The assembly usually holds two sessions a year.

Although the body is officially based in the holy city of Qom, sessions are also held in Tehran and Mashhad. Direct elections for the 86 members of the current assembly are held every eight years and are next due in 2014.

Members are elected for an eight year term. Only clerics can join the assembly and candidates for election are vetted by the Guardian Council.

The assembly is dominated by conservatives. Its current chairman is former President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who lost the 2005 presidential election to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

GUARDIAN COUNCIL

This is the most influential body in Iran and is currently controlled by conservatives. It consists of six theologians appointed by the Supreme Leader and six jurists nominated by the judiciary and approved by parliament.

Members are elected for six years on a phased basis, so that half the membership changes every three years.

The council has to approve all bills passed by parliament and has the power to veto them if it considers them inconsistent with the constitution and Islamic law. The council can also bar candidates from standing in elections to parliament, the presidency and the Assembly of Experts.

Reformist attempts to reduce the council's vetting powers have proved unsuccessful and the council banned all but six of more than 1,000 hopefuls in the 2005 elections.

Two more, both reformists, were permitted to stand after the Supreme Leader intervened. All the female candidates were blocked from standing.

SUPREME LEADER

The role of Supreme Leader in the constitution is based on the ideas of Ayatollah Khomeini, who positioned the leader at the top of Iran's political power structure.

The Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, appoints the head of the judiciary, six of the members of the powerful Guardian Council, the commanders of all the armed forces, Friday prayer leaders and the head of radio and TV. He also confirms the president's election. The Leader is chosen by the clerics who make up the Assembly of Experts.

Periodic tension between the office of the Leader and the office of the president has often been the source of political instability. It increased during former president reformist Mohammad Khatami's term in office - a reflection of the deeper tensions between religious rule and the democratic aspirations of many Iranians.

HEAD OF JUDICIARY

The Iranian judiciary has never been independent of political influence. Until early last century it was controlled by the clergy. The system was later secularised, but after the revolution the Supreme Court revoked all previous laws that were deemed un-Islamic. New laws based on Sharia - law derived from Islamic texts and teachings - were introduced soon after.

The judiciary ensures that the Islamic laws are enforced and defines legal policy. It also nominates the six lay members of the Guardian Council. The head of the judiciary, currently Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi, is appointed by, and reports to, the Supreme Leader.

In recent years, the hardliners have used the judicial system to undermine reforms by imprisoning reformist personalities and journalists and closing down reformist papers.

ARMED FORCES

The armed forces comprise the Revolutionary Guard and the regular forces. The two bodies are under a joint general command.

All leading army and Revolutionary Guard commanders are appointed by the Supreme Leader and are answerable only to him.

The Revolutionary Guard was formed after the revolution to protect the new leaders and institutions and to fight those opposing the revolution.

The Revolutionary Guard has a powerful presence in other institutions, and controls volunteer militias with branches in every town.

EXPEDIENCY COUNCIL

The Council is an advisory body for the Leader with an ultimate adjudicating power in disputes over legislation between the parliament and the Guardian Council. The Supreme Leader appoints its members, who are prominent religious, social and political figures.

In October 2005, the Supreme Leader gave the Expediency Council "supervisory" powers over all branches of government - delegating some of his own authority as is permitted in the constitution.

It is not clear exactly how much this will affect the Council's influence, although observers say it is likely to strengthen the position of its present chairman, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was defeated in the 2005 presidential elections by Mahmoud Amadinejad.

Souce: BBC News, 9 June 2009

Keberanian

Oleh: M Anis Matta

Saudara yang paling dekat dari naluri kepahlawanan adalah keberanian. Pahlawan sejati selalu merupakan seorang pemberani sejati. Tidak akan pernah seseorang disebut pahlawan, jika ia tidak pernah membuktikan keberaniannya. Pekerjaan-pekerjaan besar atau tantangan-tantangan besar dalam sejarah selalu membutuhkan kadar keberanian yang sama besarnya dengan pekerjaan dan tantangan itu. Sebab, pekerjaan dan tantangan besar itu menyimpan resiko. Dan, tak ada keberanian tanpa resiko.

Naluri kepahlawanan adalah akar dari pohon kepahlawanan. Akan tetapi, keberanian adalah batang yang menegakkannya. Keberanian adalah kekuatan yang tersimpan dalam kehendak jiwa, yang mendorong seseorang untuk maju menunaikan tugas, baik tindakan maupun perkataan, demi kebenaran dan kebaikan, atau untuk mencegah suatu keburukan dan dengan menyadari sepenuhnya semua kemungkinan resiko yang akan diterimanya.

Coba perhatikan ayat-ayat jihad dalam Al-Qur’an. Perintah ini hanya dapat terlaksana di tangan para pemberani. Coba perhatikan betapa Al-Qur’an memuji ketegaran dalam berperang, dan sebaliknya membenci para pengecut dan orang-orang yang takut pada resiko kematian. Apakah yang dapat kita pahami dari hadits riwayat muslim ini, “Sesungguhnya pintu-pintu syurga itu berada di bawah naungan pedang”. Adakah makna lain selain dari kuatnya keberanian akan mendekatkan kita ke syurga ?. Maka, dengarlah pesan Abu Bakar kepada tentara-tentara Islam yang akan berperang, “Carilah kematian, niscaya kalian akan mendapatkan kehidupan.”

Sebagian dari keberanian itu adalah fitrah yang tertanam dalam diri seseorang. Sebagian yang lain biasanya diperoleh melalui latihan. Keberanian, baik yang bersumber dari fitrah maupun melalui latihan, selalu mendapatkan pijakan yang kokoh pada kekuatan kebenaran dan kebajikan, keyakinan dan cinta yang kuat terhadap prinsip dan jalan hidup, kepercayaan pada hari akhirat, dan kerinduan yang menderu-deru untuk bertemu Allah. Semua itu adalah mata air yang mengalirkan keberanian dalam jiwa seorang mukmin. Bahkan, meskipun kondisi fisiknya tak terlalu mendukungnya, seperti jenis keberanian Ibnu Mas’ud dan Abu Bakar. Sebaliknya, ia bisa menjadi lebih berani dengan dukungan fisik, seperti keberanian Umar, Ali dan
Kholid.

Akan tetapi, Islam hendak memadukan antara keberanian fitrah dan keberanian iman. Maka beruntunglah ajaran-ajarannya menyuruh umatnya melatih anak-anak untuk berenang, berkuda dan memanah. Dengarlah sabda Rasulullah saw, “Ajarilah anakmu berenang sebelum menulis Karena ia bisa diganti orang lain jika ida tak pandai menulis, tapi ia tidak dapat diganti orang lain jika ia tak mampu berenang.”

Dengar lagi sabdanya, “Kekuatan itu pada memanah, kekuatan itu pada memanah, kekuatan itu pada memanah,” Itu semua sekelompok ketrampilan fisik yang mendukung munculnya keberanian fitrah. Tinggal lagi keberanian iman. Maka dengarlah nasehat Umar, “Ajarkan sastra
kepada anak-anakmu, karena itu dapat mengubah anak yang pengecut menjadi pemberani.”

Dan kepada orang-orang Romawi yang berlindung di balik benteng di Kinasrin, Khalid berkata, “Andaikata kalian bersembunyi di langit, niscaya kuda-kuda kami akan memanjat langit untuk membunuh kalian. Andaikata kalian berada di perut bumi, niscaya kami akan menyelami bumi untuk membunuh kalian.” Roh keberanian itu pun memadai untuk mematikan semangat perlawanan orang-orang Romawi. Mereka takluk. Mungkinkah kita mendengar ungkapan itu lagi hari ini ?

Kurnia Kegagalan

Oleh: Anis Matta Lc

Kehidupan ini, sebenarnya lebih mirip pelangi ketimbang sebuah foto hitam putih. Setiap manusia akan merasakan begitu banyak warna kehidupan. la mungkin mencintai sebagian warna tersebut. Tapi yang pasti ia tidak akan mencintai semua warna itu.

Demikian pula dengan perasaan kita. Semua warna kehidupan yang kita alami, akan klta respon dengan berbagai jenis perasaan yang berbeda-beda. Maka ada duka di depan suka, ada cinta di depan benci, ada harapan di depan cemas, ada gembra di depan sedih. Kita merasakan semua warna perasaan itu, sebagai respon kita terhadap berbagai peristiwa kehidupan yang kita hadapi.

Seseorang menjadi pahlawan, sebenarnya disebabkan sebagiannya oleh kemampuannya mensiasati perasaan-perasaannya sedemikian rupa, sehingga ia tetap berada dalam kondisi kejiwaan yang mendukung proses produktivitasnya.

Misalnya ketika kita menghadapi kegagalan. Banyak orang yang lebih suka mengutuk kegagalan, dan menganggapnya sebagai musibah dan cobaan hidup. Kita mungkin tidak akan melakukan itu seandainya di dalam diri kita ada kebiasaan untuk memandang berbagai peristiwa kehidupan secara objektif, ada tradisi jiwa besar, ada kelapangan dada serta pemahaman akan takdir yang mendalam.

Kegagalan, dalam berbagai aspek kehidupan, terkadang diperlukan untuk mencapai sebuah sukses. Bahkan dalam banyak cerita kehidupan yang pernah klta dengar atau baca dari orang-orang sukses, kegagalan menjadi semacam faktor pembeda dengan sukses, yang diturunkan guna menguatkan dorongan untuk sukses dalam diri seseorang. Di sela-sela itu semua, kita juga membaca sebuah cerita, tentang bagaimana kegagalan telah mengalihkan perhatian seseorang kepada kompetensi inti, atau pusat keunggulan, yang semula tidak ia ketahui sama sekali.

ltulah misalnya yang dialami oleh Ibnu Khaldun. Kita semua mengenal nama ini sebagai seorang sejarawan dan filosof sejarah. la telah menulis sebuah buku sejarah bangsa-bangsa dunia dengan sangat cemerlang. Tapi yang jauh lebih cemerlang dari buku sejarah itu adalah tulisan pengantarnya yang memuat kaidah-kaidah pergerakan sejarah, hukum-hukum kejatuhan dan kebangunan bangsa-bangsa. Tulisan pengantar itulah yang kemudian dikenal sebagai Muqoddimah Ibnu Khaldun. Di negeri kita “muqoddimah” buku sejarah ini bahkan sudah diterjemahkan, sementara buku sejarahnya sendiri belum dlterjemahkan.

Buku Muqoddimah itulah yang mengantarkan Ibnu Khaldun untuk men–duduki posisi sebagal filosof sejarah yang abadi dalam sejarah. Tapi mungkin jarang diantara kita yang tahu kalau sesungguhnya buku itu merupakan hasil perenungan selama kurang lebih empat bulan, atas kegagalannya sebagal praktisi politik.

Takdirnya adalah menjadi filosof sejarah. Bukan sebagal politisi ulung. Tapi mungkinkah ia menemukan takdir itu seandainya ia tidak melewati deretan kegagalan yang membuatnya bosan dengan politik, dan membawanya kedalam perenungan-perenungan panjang diluar pentas politik, tapi justru yang kemudian melahirkan karya monumental?