Selasa, Oktober 09, 2007

Be an Editor Data

Menjadi data editor merupakan suatu improve bagi saya setelah sekian kali terlibat dalam beberapa penelitian sebagai surveyor/enumerator. Lembaga tempat saya bernaung kali ini adalah PSKK (pusat studi kependudukan dan kebijakan). Kerjasama dengan Bank Dunia (World Bank), mencoba untuk mengevaluasi bgaimana kinerja pemerintah terhadap implementasi program dan kebijakan dalam pembangunan, khususnya pasca diberlakukannya UU Otonomi Daerah 22, di beberapa sektor. Entah itu mengenai utilitas sarana dan prasarana wilayah, pendidikan, kesehatan, keamanan, layanan publik dan kemiskinan wilayah.

Tim kami, Provinsi NTT1 terdiri dari 15 enumerator dan 3 data editor. Tim besar tersebut kemudian di split lagi menjadi 3 tim kecil yang nantinya akan mencakup wilayah kecamatan dan desa. Sebagai data editor, saya berkewajiban untuk menjaga kualitas data, termasuk di dalamnya adalah keakuratan informasi dan editing yang harus dilakukan. Hihi, itu yang ada di dalam SOP nya lhoh... alias Standard Operational Procedure... (But, the fact are... whua hahaha...!!!) >> mawuuutt ;). Kacau balau.. bin amburadul.. bin overlap.. binti malaria tropicana...

Berangkat dari Adisucipto, through Juanda Airport, go onto El Tari, Kupang. Saya, bersama dengan Mr. Alkaf dan Mr. Rondhi tiba di El Tari pukul 21.00, bukannya disambut dengan gendhing jawa gamelan atau tari sambutan gitoe kek (kebiasaan di djogdja)... tpi yg saya dengan malah teriakan dan cacian dari orang2 di Bandara... (wuih, ternyata ada beberapa pengunjung yang tidak puas dengan layanan porter, karena luggage mereka dilempar/dibanting ) >> HEI BABI, TARUH DIMANA LU punya MATA ...??? Pukimai... Pukara'an... (bahasa saruu org sana).

Malam itu, kami menginap di salah satu anggota tim, Silvya, orang So'e aseli. So'e merupakan salah satu wilayah di NTT yang terkenal dengan ternak sapinya. Dan Silvya ini adalah cucu dari salah satu saudagar sapi di daerah itu. Kami memanggilnya "Kak Syl", orangnya gemuk, berbibir tebal dan berambut keriting menyala... (inget Doris--Boris film kartun itu kan?? ya sperti itu orgnya..) heheh, Sorry Syl.. canda doanx...


The first place i called a heaven is DOLPHIN SEA, perairan selat Maumere menuju Larantuka, dimana laut itu begitu tenang... sejauh mata memandang yg tampak warna deep blue,ocean blue, marine blue... and a lot of cute dolphin swam over the sea... A beautiful moment to rememba'. Serasa jadi Juliet di ujung buritan waktu itu.. merentangkan tangan... menatap luas cakrawala.. menghirup udara laut yg begitu... hmmm (hard to describe). Tapi biar kalian turut merasakan apa yang saya alami waktu itu, saya suguhkan sebuah pict.

Larantuka adalah basecamp kami sebelum menjelajahi desa di atas bukit, di balik gunung dan di lembah ngarai. Kami bermalam di sebuah losmen di Lembata. Koodinasi denan Supervisor (Kang Budi) dalam satu malam, cukup memantapkan dan mengoptimalkan kerja tim di kemudian hari. Kecamatan pertama yang saya kunjungi adalah KECAMATAN OMESURI di KABUPATEN LEMBATA. Perjalanan ke Omesuri sungguh membuat PANTAT saya sakit bukan main! Naik minibus serasa mengendarai kuda liar saja.. (tuiing..tuiingg.. gedubrakkk.. ciattt !!@#@$%$...). Tim saya, Sylvia, Delmi Sibloit, Ivone, Kak Imel dan Noor bergulat dengan udara pengap minibus yang didalamnya ikut numpang juga ayam, sayur mayur, kayu, minyak tanah, bensin, beras yg dibawa oleh masyarakat adat KEDANG, tempat di mana kami turun dan bertugas. Suku Kedang adalah salah satu Suku di Lembata yang berdiam di balik gunung (y iyalah.. itu juga yg membuat saya tdk bisa dihubungi krna tdk ada sinyal..). Mereka mayoritas adalah moslem, dominasi lapangan usaha sub sektor pertanian hutan dan ladang, dan sebagian kecil adalah perdagangan dan jasa. Ketika kami turun dari bus, kami langsung disambut dengan tatapan2 aneh penduduk setempat yg tidak berani mendekat, hnya melihat kami dari kejauhan. Sekelebat saya segera mencari tahu dimana rumah kepala desa, dan meminta ijin beliau agar kami dapat tinggal di rumah salah satu penduduk, selama 1 minggu lamanya. Pak MAHDI, dirumah beliaulah kami tinggal. Pak Mahdi adalah tokoh pemuda suku Kedang yang cukup disegani oleh masyarakat setempat. Beliau beristrikan orang Jawa yg (alhamdulillah pintar memasak dan cocok dengan lidah saya), dan mempunyai seorang putri beranama ULFAH.. (kali wktu ngidam, ibu kbanyakan ngeliat Ulfa Dwiyanti.. hihi)..

Hal - hal yang berkesan di desa ini adalah sambutan luar biasa baiknya ketika kami akan berpisah karena harus melanjutkan perjalanan ke kabupaten berikutnya. Pada malam perpisahan itu, kami diundang di balai desa, happy banget, karena yg terbayang adalah pesta adat biasa, basa basi dan bingkisan kenang2an buat cinderamata ... yang
TERNYATTAA...... >>> kami dibuatkan acara pesta JOGED DANGDUT BARENG semua penduduk desa !!!!dan yg menjadi lagu kebangsaan wktu itu adalah >> Bang, sms .. siapa .. ini bank... Bang.. pesannya.. kok pake.. sayang.. sayang...nya TRIO MACAN?? (lhoh, kok..?? gubbrakk).. sampai pagi, saya digilir oleh belasan pemuda tanggung dan bapak bapak desa joged dangdut ria... disco ajojjing, bow...!!! hahahaha. mabox piesan euy..

Kenangan itu bernama "kehormatan".

2 komentar:

Unknown mengatakan...

Emm gw gak tau neh mo komentar tentang apa...Coz, memang kian hari "dongeng" ibu intan bikin pembaca ikut melalangbuana.. seolah terlibat dalam perjalanan hidup di Daerah Perantauan sana....
Cuman sayangnya, fotonya kekecilan dan dikit...kan pembaca butuh pendalaman cerita dengan melihat foto yang agak besar resolusinya....sehingga bisa mengira-ngira dari sudut pandang dan angle berlainan....barangkali ada baiknya juga ada galery foto yang menampung foto-foto lain yang tak mungkin disisipkan dalam sebuah alur cerita pengalaman ibu intan....galery foto bisa diletakkan di sisi bawah/atas, pojok kiri/kanan....dengan disertai caption dan tanggal pemotretan.....
But, btw.....gw tetap suka koq dengan blog ibu intan....mudah-mudahan tulisan ibu intan bisa memberikan inspirasi dan gambaran perjuangan seorang wanita dalam meniti karir dan mengasah ilmu...meskipun harus "terseok-seok" diperantauan.......Seperti pepatah Lain Ladang Lain Ilalang...Lain Lubuk Lain Ikannya....Betapa kita mesti mawas diri dan tak bisa mengkultuskan ego kita tanpa menyadari bahwa nun jauh di luar sana...terdapat beraneka ragam kebudayaan, adat istiadat, perilaku/ perangai atau bahkan ego yang berlainan pula...sehingga kita tetap bisa menghormati satu dengan lainnya...bisa berhubungan/ berinteraksi dengan sesama seperti yang disabdakan rasulullah SAW..agar setiap muslim untuk tetap menjalin tali silahturahmi...hablum minalloh dan minnanas......Semoga komentar ini bermanfaat dan bila ada cela mohon dimaafkan.....

KULYUBI ISMANGUN mengatakan...

Selection and/or Election

________________________________________

Question:
The Prophet Mohammad, (pbuh), upon his last
pilgrimage, appointed Hazrat Ali as his successor.
Why was he not elected later on?

Answer:
In my opinion, this is a very fundamental question.
The whole of Shi'ism can be found in the answer. In other words, it
is a very delicate issue and one should not give a brief reply. I will
try, as far as is possible, within the limitation of time and place, to
clarify the point. I just want to emphasize that this is my own
personal point of view. When we are dealing with the reality and the
Truth of religion, we must reflect more and give them careful
consideration .
This problem is really a fundamental one. When we look at the
collection of reasons which our Sunni brothers present in confirming
their point of view after the Prophet of Islam, we find many reasons
which seem true and are True. On the other hand, if we look
through the eyes of an objective scholar and take into account the
reasonings the Shi'ites give to confirm their ideas, we will conclude
that the majority of Shi'ite reasonings also seem correct, deep and
firm. Therefore, how is it possible that two groups who think in
opposite and contradictory terms which conflict with each other both
seem to be right in the arguments they use?
In general terms, the main argument of our Sunni brothers is this:
If anyone should have been appointed after the Prophet of Islam by
God, just as the Prophet was obliged to announce and teach the
verses of the Qoran clearly, carefully and in a way so that they could
not be denied, he also had a duty to show the same care and clarity in
announcing the successor who had been appointed by God in order
to prevent any plot, rejection, explanation or interpretation which
may occur in the future.

But we see that circumstances were such that, after the Prophet,
not only did the Emigrants [the people who migrated with the
Prophet from Mecca to Medina and who cast their votes for other
Caliphs as well] but also the Helpers, that is, the citizens of Medina,
gathered in Saqifoh [area belonging to the Sa'ebah tribe] to them-
selves elect the Caliph.
It becomes clear, then, that all of the Moslems in Medina felt that
they should elect the leader among themselves. That is, they should
select the Prophet's successor.
Our Sunni brothers, in order to prove their argument, also
mention the point that the Prophet, in the last moments of his life,
intended to write out a statement clarifying the matter of succession,
but because of the protests, he abandoned his intention to write such
a statement. Therefore, if he had had the mission to write such an
official decree from God, he could not have overlooked it just because
this or that person protested or argued against it and so he did not
announce that Hazrat Ali had been appointed by God as the
Prophet's successor.
Our Sunni brothers also say that although Ali did protest the
election of the Caliph and even a few months later did not officially
approve the decision, later on he did confirm it and for whatever
reason, officially accepted them.
Therefore, if the position of Ali, like that of prophecy, came from
God, in no way, form or terms could Ali give his approval to anyone
else. Thus he could not officially approve of another person as his
own successor.
But the argument of Shi'ism goes like this: The succession to the
Prophet differs from a political successor. The Prophet did not just
hold a political position, as to lead us to claim to say that he did not
have the right to appoint his successor and people should elect the
one who is to govern them, one after another. But the Prophet, as a
thinker, master, and teacher was not appointed by the people so that
his successor should also be selected by them.
The Prophet was appointed by God. Therefore, even if all of the
people do not accept that he is the Prophet and even if not one person
gave the Prophet of Islam his vote. still the Prophet of Islam ;R the
Prophet of Islam and even if all people were to give their vote to him,
his position would not be strengthened in the least way. The fact of
the matter is that the station of prophethood is not a popularly,
elective office. It is not a power which people give to a person. Thus a
Prophet is not an elected individual. It is for this reason that his
mission and the continuity of his movement must be put into the
hands of a successor who is qualified for the same type of leadership
and mission as that of the Prophet himself.
For example, in a city, the mayor of that city takes his power from
the people and is elected by them. When he dies or his term ends, the
people choose another mayor to replace him. But when a teacher has
brought a new school of thought into being where he gives a special
class, and no one else can teach that class the way he can, and he has
initiated that particular approach, when a group of his students
gather around him and have found faith in him, it is the teacher who
recognizes which of his students or friends is most worthy to continue
his teaching. A teacher or a professor is not selected from the votes of
the people. It is a teacher who selects another teacher and this is a
method that all people accept.
If an expert cardiologist is going on a trip, the people cannot hold
a referendum to choose another person as a cardiologist. People
cannot decide who is an expert in this area and they may select
someone who knows nothing about the heart. It is the cardiologist
who knows who can perform his job in his absence. It is for this
reason that the majority of people, not all of them, listen to his
recommendation and approve the person he appoints. This is true all
over the world.
Therefore, if the Prophet of Islam had only been a political power,
others could select someone as his successor. But he was a moral
power and an expert, who was not selected by the people and who
had a very special divine mission and had the right to tell the people
and appoint for them a person who is most worthy to continue his
mission and people have to obey him.
Now, taking these two arguments into consideration, which one
should you choose?
In general, Shi'ism believes that after the Prophet, the leadership
of the community should be appointed by the Prophet himself. As the
Prophet announced his mission without the permission of the people,
built his society and trained individuals, so that after him, his school
should be continued by one who is most similar to him, one carefully
trained by him, one most familiar with his thoughts and teachings.
But our Sunni brothers believe that the Prophet formed an Islamic
society, revealed the Qoran, the book of Islam, and ended his
mission. The principles and directives of the Islamic community
were fixed. Therefore, after the Prophet, we only need a political
and social leader to rule and defend the community and we will
select him according to our own discernment.
Which one of these arguments is incorrect and should be rejected?
In my opinion, neither. Both of them are logical and correct.
What a Shitite says complies with wisdom and logic. Even today it
is in accordance with social circumstances and with the Traditions of
the Prophet.
The Prophet, from the beginning of his mission up until his death,
always relied on Ali. Hundreds of cases, occasions and clear exam-
ples exist to show that the final opinion and hope of the Prophet was
with Ali and his family to continue his mission.
On the other hand, Islam provides for decision making by council.
We see that the Prophet himself in his life-time held councils and
even, at times, preferred another's opinion over his own and he did
not impose himself upon them.
We saw with the battle of Ohod, the Prophet intended to remain
in Medina while the younger people wanted to leave Medina and
fight. After a vote, the young people won. The Prophet was in the
minority. The Prophet immediately went out and returned armed
for battle.

At the battle of Badr there were seven wells. The Prophet camped
by the first one. A soldier came and asked him, 'Did you receive a
revelation and camp here or was it your own decision ?'

The Prophet answered, 'It was my own decision.'

The soldier then said, 'It would be better for you to camp by the
seventh well so that all of the other six wells would be behind the
lines.'
The Prophet immediately said, 'You are right,' and he ordered the
camp to move to the seventh well so that the enemy would not have
tactical access to them.
In the battle of Muteh, the Prophet appointed three commanders,
Jaffar, Zeid ibn Haritha and Abdullah ibn Ravaheh so that if one
were killed, the others could take over in succession. When it turned
out that all of them were killed and the Prophet had not chosen a
fourth leader, the people chose Khaled as their commander. The
Prophet accepted the elected.
We see that even knowing the position of the Prophet, he
permitted the people to vote and express their opinions. He valued
the vote of the majority in social affairs. Thus counsel by council
(showra) in Islam is the most important principle in running society,
while leadership of a social group is a universal principle. The
Traditions (sunnah) of the Prophet show how much importance
Mohammad placed in his personal actions on counsel and on
yielding to public opinion and the votes of the majority.
On the other hand, the issue of selection by appointment (vesayat),
and the Prophet's stress upon particular persons for the continuation
of his mission, is one which cannot be denied by either side. People
may try to explain it away but no one can deny the essential fact of
it.
How can the two contradictory opinions be resolved? On the one
hand, we have the principles of the Qoran, the Traditions of the
Prophet and the spirit of Islam, reliance on people, public council
and majority votes. On the other hand, we have the person of the
Prophet himself, who with respect to the Caliphate and its successor-
ship, specified selection by appointment.
How can we explain why the Prophet, at his last battle, Tabuk,
leaves the brave warrior Ali behind in Medina and takes an old
Sheykh and the elders, who can no longer fight, with him to battle.
During the last days of his life, confined to his bed, he sent an
army beyond the north frontier, that is, the second front. He sent all
the most important Islamic figures together with his army and put
an eighteen year old youth, Osameh, the son of Zeid ibn Harithah,
as its head. This was the army and they were sent to the border. Now
it is obvious what he was saving Ali for.
The Prophet sends 65 year old men from the elders of Medina and
from amongst the Qoraish, under the command of the youth,
Osameh, while Ali, who is the greatest of officers, is kept in Medina.
What did he have in mind for Ali? What was he keeping him for?
Ali was a man of the battlefield, not of the house.
In the Prophet's last moments with all the fervour to press his
cause, he sends this army out while aware that he is dying and
knowing that Medina will be defenseless without his army. Yet, in
spite of all of this, he takes the risk. Why? For Ali to remain alive
For the battle of Tabuk, the Prophet himself, then being 62 years
old, accompanied the army. He had to go through hundreds of miles
of the most terrible desert to reach there for the second battle. All the
Emigrants and his Companions accompanied him except Ali. Ali
was kept at home.
A few days later, Ali could stand it no longer. He caught up with
the Prophet on the way and asked him, 'Why have you kept me in
Medina? People criticize me. They taunt me.
The Prophet turned to him and with particular emphasis said, 'I
have left you for what I have left. I have kept you for what I have left
behind me.' It becomes clear that Mohammad wanted Ali to remain
alive.
On the other hand, it is not logical or acceptable to think that
people who had given all they had to the Prophet, people who had
sacrificed their whole beings, wealth and prestige in the way of the
Prophet and all the Emigrants and Helpers who made so many
self-sacrifices and were devoted to the Prophet, should, then, take as
their fundamental and absolute principle, the idea of selection by
appointment.
That they would take a false principle, which does not exist and
with this false principle, destroy the clear right of another and that
all Moslems would confirm this innovation, such a thing is not
possible. Then what happened?
That which occurred and generally continued after the Prophet
consists of a universal principle that if all of this sentence be
completely understood and be made clear, my answer will be
finished. (It is something which is the same in all intellectual and
social processes.) And that is this that: in order to do away with a
right, another right will be cited.
It is always so that in order to do away with a principle in a school
of thought, another principle which is also a part of that school of
thought will be brought forward. It is not possible to turn believing
Moslems away from performing a principle of their religion.
Then how can this be done ? By directing them to another
principle which is also part of their religion. For example, if a
religious group wants to perform a social action and another group
wants to prevent them from doing so, they cannot distract the
faithful, whose whole lives have been spent in worship and pilgrim-
age with, for instance, some jazz music. They will pay absolutely no
attention to it.
What do they do? They rely on another principle which exists in
their religion and by doing so take their attention away from the first
principle.

Is this point clear or not?

It is possible to prevent spiritual struggle ( jihad ) through stress
upon the ritual prayer but not by dance. The faithful mojahed [one
engaged in spiritual struggle], will not leave his or her jihad to go off
dancing. But it is possible that they neglect the jihad in order to
perform the ritual prayer as a believer may not be aware of
neglecting one principle because of devoting too much attention to
another.

In order to prevent a social religious action, stress on an individual
religious action may stand in the way of performing that social
religious action. This is why religious people may deviate by means
of a principle which is part of their religion. This is why the
principle of selection by appointment or the right to appoint the
precise successors, after the Prophet of Islam, who should have been
appointed by the Prophet himself and were, in fact, was contradicted
by another principle which is the principle of allegiance through
popular consensus in public council. This latter principle also exists
in Islam, is present in the Qoran, can be found in the Traditions of
the Prophet and is not against the spirit of Islam but rather is
completely compatible with it.
If the principle of allegiance, counsel and election by the people
was false and forged, only five, ten or twenty charlatans would have
accepted it, only they would have sought it out, and such a principle
would never have been accepted by Islamic society and the great
Companions of the Prophet. Then why did the majority of the
people not object? Why did they accept it so easily? Because it is an
Islamic principle. How can it be then that one Islamic principle
contradicts another one? How indeed?

In law, in legal philosophy and in social issues, a principle exists
and that is this: Often one principle overrides another one. This also
holds in religious precepts. Once when the Prophet had gone on
jihad, he instructed his army in the middle of the day to break the
fast. Isn't fasting a principle and jihad a principle, as well?

At the battle of Tabuk, against the Romans, the Prophet
instructed all of his forces to be saddled up. A trickster, who used the
pretext of religion, who sensed a way of getting out of work (it seems
that this type of person has increased in Islam these days), went to
the Prophet and said, 'I have a weak point which does not allow me
to participate in this battle.'
The Prophet asked, 'What is that weak point?'
He said, 'My problem is that my sensibilities are very delicate and
I lose myself in the face of beauty. I am afraid that if I were to go off
with you to Tabuk, I would lose myself in front of all those beautiful
Roman girls and the devil might tempt me and I would lose my faith.
This is why, with your permission, I will not accompany you.'
The Prophet, angered, said, 'Get out of here. Die!' So much did
Mohammad despise those who sought to deceive the Prophet by
means of Islam.
We see that when that person wanted to get out from under a
religious duty, he tried to avoid performance of the first duty by
using another religious duty as an excuse. It is not as if he had said, 'I
can't go with you because I want to go gambling tonight.' He would
hardly have said that.
Therefore, there is always a principle which overrides another
one. This is why they show preference for a higher principle in order
to be able to adhere to a lower one, both of which are part of this
religion.
But here there is another point and that is this that the principle of
appointment by selection is the appointment of a successor by means
of a leader, in other words, the Prophet. The principle of allegiance
and a governing council is the election of a successor by means of the
people. Could these two contrary principles really stem from the
same religion? I believe they can. How? What can I cite to prove my
point ?
I must explain that Shi'ites, without any doubt, believe that the
successors to the Prophet of Islam, who were appointed by the
Prophet, are 12 people. We do not believe that there are any more
than these. But we know that the Prophet of Islam knew his religion
to be the last religion, that is, a religion which humanity would
follow forever. How is it that the Prophet first says, 'Islam is an
eternal religion' and then, when he wants to appoint a leader for his
society, he only chooses 12 people for his society? And this, not
forever? He did not say that my progeny, whoever they are and
wherever they are, would lead my society forever. He never said such
a thing. Imamate is not an endowment for his children. It is only
these 12 people in particular, successors who have been marked out
and specified by the Prophet.
Now the question arises. Let us suppose that the words and
opinions of the Prophet were realized and after the Prophet, 12
successors followed him and led and governed and guided society and
history as the Prophet wished. But then what would have happened
if no one had been designated? He speaks of no one else. Thus it
becomes clear that after the rule of the specified individuals, who
believe that their religion and leadership is eternal, we would have to
accept the second principle, that is, the principle of councilor election
and allegiance.
Thus, the issue looks like this. There are two historic phases after
the Prophet. One is a temporary phase of the 12 leaders of Islamic
society. They guide Islamic history in order to foster Islamic society.
This is organized by means of 12 particular individuals chosen by
the Prophet.
The Prophet remained silent about the second phase. Religion and
society continue. Therefore, again we should adhere to the second
principle which is also an Islamic principle, the principle of council
and allegiance.
This is the principle which today all of the intellectuals of the
third world, Latin America, Africa, Asia and especially the countries
which have most recently become independent are basing their
societies upon. They believe in this principle.
That is, they have a revolution. Through the help of their
intellectuals and thinkers, they get rid of the colonizers and they free
their society. Later, when they want to build their society, they see
that if they act according to the votes of the people and rely upon
them, these people are people who sell their vote for a nickel. They
get together a hundred votes by offering them hot soup.
In a tribe of five or ten thousand people, where all ten thousand
people have one vote, that vote belongs to the chief. If you buy out the
Khan (he can usually be bought out with a coat or a bangle), you
have 10,000 votes. Thus when the enemy is strong and a society has
not yet been shaped and it has a tribal or group pattern, someone has
influence and he fixes the votes, and in that society, there are people
with power, respect, force, wealth and influence. The individuals in
the mass of society still do not have the freedom of vote or have not
developed a political awareness. In such a society, the revolutionary
leader has done away with the colonizers and has freed society. But
the society has still not been shaped. The prior factors still exist in
addition to external enemies who encourage them. Therefore, if we
want to elect a leader by public vote, the person who is elected will
only serve the enemy.
This is why in these societies, they do not give the leadership into
the hands of the people who know nothing about leading. They keep
the revolutionary group who began the revolution. For a time, a
stage exists which is called 'revolutionary,' or 'democracy engaged in
social action,' which is ruled by the revolutionary group and the
generation after the revolutionary group chosen by the revolutionary
leader. They rule the people even without the vote of the people.
Until when? Until the time when the votes of the people are equal
to the real number of people in the population. Democracy means
leadership by means of allegiance and council by election. This is one
principle of Islam but only in societies where the leaders each have
one vote as well. But if 10,000 people watch and see what so and so
says or so and so does, these 10,000 people are not 10,000 votes.
Thus, in the society at the time of the Prophet, which had been
built in a period of 10 years, the aristocrats were still alive, the elders
were more respected than the younger men. We saw that the Prophet
promoted Zeid ibn Osameh and his martyred father. They were as
dear to him as his own eyes. He was so full of admiration for this
father and son that the Prophet did not yield under the protest of the
elders who said, 'he is only 18 years old and too young.'
This habit is still present in the 20th century and in our societies.
They say, 'It is true he is more worthy and virtuous, more willing,
more realistic, more brave and more aware, but he is too young and
does not have enough experience.
They prefer an old, weak, sick-man who can hardly move and has
to be picked up and carried over a younger man. We today still think
in the same way.
The society of Medina, at that time, was similar to the present
societies of Africa, Latin America and Asia, which are beginning
to come out of the pressure of decline, colonialism, and lack of
awareness. They have a revolutionary period during which
time a revolutionary leadership exists, not a democratic leader-
ship based on public votes.
During this temporary period, they try to arm society from the
inside and develop the society's political awareness to such an extent
as to make the members of that society independent. Political,
intellectual and ideological characteristics are in the process of being
developed in order to be able to eliminate the external enemy and
remove the internal and external agents.
After that, a progressive society is formed where each person has
an independent vote and the ability to make political distinctions.
Such a society has arrived at the stage of allegiance and council by
election. This society has reached a stage where people gather
around each other, everyone consulting with the other one, and by
recognizing the best person, not because of influence, wealth or
power of this or that one, gives an independent vote.
But a society which is still not developed, where the votes are still
tribal, clan or family, consisting of Emigrants and Companions, to
rely on such a social grouping is to rely on the enemy controlled
public vote and public life because society has not had time for
political, intellectual, social or religious development. They sell
themselves, their destiny and their future cheaply. That's the way it
is!
Thus we must accept the fact that a society, shaped within a ten
year period, cannot, from a cultural and individual point of view, be
fully formed in such a short period of time.
The Islamic society is an established community in which every
individual is an independent person, with the ability to make
distinctions and is the controller of his or her vote.
Thus after the Prophet of Islam, the ten years of his work should
have been extended to 100 years more, 150 years, 200 years. It
should have continued until Islamic society became a society where
each individual, without influence or pressure from others, could
vote and vote correctly. This is why (and certainly it is logical) that
after the Prophet, instead of the Umayyad Caliphate and the
Abbasid Caliphate, instead of Yazid, Hosein would have come.
Instead of Mo'awiyeh, Hasan would have been the successor and
would have ruled instead of Soffah, Imam Baqer, instead of Marwan,
Imam Jaffar Sadeq.
If it had taken this form, after 250 years, under their leadership,
Islamic society would have been governed by people like this. We
would have had elections. People could have chosen the most suitable
person because they would have had social growth and then the
public vote and public allegiance could not have been played with
and mocked after 30 years of Mo'awiyeh by appointing Yazid as his
hereditary Caliph.
Thus my objection is not allegiance and council by election (this is
my personal opinion), not to the principle of appointment by
selection. The principle of appointment by selection, according to
Shi'ites, is a reality which exists in history, it is a logical and rational
truth which was necessary and it should have been this way.
And allegiance and council by election, which our brothers
emphasize, from the point of view of sociology, humanity and the
seeking of freedom, is a progressive principle which exists in Islam
and in the Traditions of the Prophet.
But here I only want to say that the elections which were held
immediately after the death of the Prophet in Saqifeh, should
have taken place 250 years later.

Epilogue


WE SEE that the problem of Imamate is not only a belief in 12
pious men, but it is a belief in a human, lasting regime as
opposed to other kinds of regimes. It is not a belief in something that
merely happened and as some say, can now be discarded. We are not
looking to go back to the past and old hostilities because this would
be a betrayal of Islam, the Sunnis, the Shi'ites and to all humanity.
We are not looking to create disunity. We do not want to re-create
the spitefulness of the past, ever.
Not only do we seek to avoid creating disunity, but more impor-
tantly we are striving to establish a powerful unity so that our Sunni
brothers no longer make us out to be forgerers nor do we condemn
them as apostates.
This factor exists which gives truth to Shi'ism, but it does not exist
in a corner of Islam but rather it itself is a part of understanding the
whole of Islam and it also provides an understanding of the present
as well.