Friday, 31 October 2014

How can education systems embrace innovation?

by Dirk Van Damme
Head of the Innovation and Measuring Progress division, Directorate for Education and Skills

Innovation in education is a highly contentious issue. Talking to education ministers one quickly gets the impression that education systems in general are very reluctant to innovate, and that there is strong resistance to change among teachers. But teachers would give you the opposite idea, by telling you that there are too many changes imposed on them without much consultation and without ensuring the necessary preconditions for a successful implementation of change. In some countries, innovative change has been implemented without either the care and diligence needed or the appropriate prior testing, experimentation and evaluation.
In its recent publication, Measuring Innovation in Education, the Innovation Strategy project of the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) provides evidence that suggests that there are a lot of changes happening at various levels of the system. The widely accepted view that education professionals are change-aversive seems to be wrong. But few of the innovative changes the book documents are the result of deliberate top-down reforms. Other work in CERI, specifically in the Innovative Learning Environments (ILE) project, has revealed a huge reservoir of innovative energy at the micro-level – definitely the most relevant level where teaching and learning actually happens.

How to square these different views on innovation in education? Maybe the core of the dispute is not so much about the actual amount of change and innovation in education, but about the process - how change and innovation happen. A lot of well-intentioned innovations fail not because of a lack of quality or because their intended direction of change is wrong, but because of how they have been implemented. Teachers will be able to give you rich accounts of top-down innovations, implemented without much consultation, without taking into account the experiences and knowledge base at the point of delivery of education. Lack of trust, lack of ownership, a poor evidence base, and lack of empowerment of the key actors – these seem to be the main ingredients of the recipe for failure in changing education.

To better understand this, we need to know more about how the governance of education systems has changed. Many attempts to bring about innovative change in education do not yet seem to be based on what we already know about how education systems are governed. Decentralisation, greater complexity, multiplication of stakeholders, broader dispersion of knowledge and expertise, more levels of decision-making all make education systems more difficult to steer and to change. At least that’s the impression one gets when looking at the system from the outside. Indeed, the complexity and the multilevel nature of decision-making in education systems make top-down reform much more difficult to achieve. But complexity, in itself, does not necessarily jeopardise change through innovation.

Too often education ministers and policy makers react by tightening the screws, i.e. by reinforcing accountability, supervision and bureaucratic control systems. This may lead to short-term behavioural adjustments of the actors in the system, but very rarely to sustainable change. Work in CERI’s Governing Complex Education Systems project has shown us what makes for effective, sustainable innovation and reform: the professionalism of teachers and school leaders, strong knowledge-management frameworks and trust among all stakeholders and actors in the system. Professionals bring about innovation when they have a stake in it, when they see the evidence and the supporting knowledge base as credible, and when they trust their colleagues. In the same vein, parents will commit to innovative change when they feel involved and listened to, and when they understand the rationales and underlying evidence for change.

Does this mean that the capacity of education leaders, ministers and policy makers to steer the direction of change in education has evaporated? Have education ministers become powerless? No, definitely not. But they have to find new ways to set the course of change. Building a convincing case for change and articulating a credible narrative that appeals to both the professionalism of teachers and the interests of parents and stakeholders in the community can go a long way towards effecting change in complex systems. But change also works the other way around. The enormous reservoir of innovative energy at the micro-level can result in sustainable change if the actors involved can make a compelling case that gives direction and meaning to change.

The education community shows a great interest in better understanding these processes of change, reform and innovation in education – and the governance arrangements that support or obstruct them. That’s why some 200 policy makers and professionals will be gathering at the CERI Conference on Innovation, Governance and Reform in Education in Paris next week. The findings from CERI work in four different research projects will be shared and discussed so that we all can better understand the conditions under which sustainable and effective innovative change can be realised.

Links:
CERI Conference on Innovation, Governance and Reform in Education
CERI Conference Webcast
CERI Conference Agenda
CERI Conference Background Paper: Innovation, Governance and Reform in Education
Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective 
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI)

Follow the conference on twitter: #OECDCERI

Photo credit: Brainstorming / @Shutterstock

Wednesday, 29 October 2014

Doctorate degree holders take research skills outside academia

by Dirk Van Damme
Head of the Innovation and Measuring Progress division, Directorate for Education and Skills






The doctorate degree, or PhD, is the highest qualification included in the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED, level 8 in the ISCED 2011). It is also  unique because it bridges education with scientific research and innovation. Although the number of professional doctorates is increasing, in most cases they are qualifications acquired after several years of research leading to an original contribution to the scientific evidence base. The qualification rewards deep knowledge of  a specific field of research and mastery of research methodologies. It acknowledges the doctorate holder as a member of the scientific community and grants access to academia.

In recent years the doctorate degree has been the focus of policy initiatives, both from the higher education policy field and the policy field of science and research. Many countries have tried to radically increase the numbers of doctorates in recent years. Bursary schemes, grants and various support systems, both for individual students and for universities and research institutions, have been developed to attract more students into doctoral programmes. These policies have been very successful. The latest Education Indicators in Focus issue, based on data published in Education at a Glance 2014,  notes that between 2000 and 2012 the graduation rate among doctoral students has increased by 60% on average  across OECD countries, from 1.0% to 1.6%. That’s probably the largest increase ever observed in any qualification level in such a short period of time !

Obviously, there are huge differences among countries, both with regard to the current graduation rate and to the speed of increase since 2000, as is evident from the chart above. Ambitious countries, such as Switzerland, Sweden and Germany, have expanded doctoral programmes as part of their efforts to rapidly improve their relative position in the science and research  fields and in global university rankings. They take the lead, with graduation rates of 3.3%, 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively.    The  largest relative increases in  graduation rates among doctoral students since 2000 are found in the Slovak Republic (330% increase), Greece (420% increase, but starting from a much lower base), Denmark, Norway and Ireland.

A large and growing production of PhDs certainly contributes to the creation of new research evidence and a country’s research output. But, apart from the scientific outcomes of doctoral research, what does a doctoral degree actually contribute to the degree holder and the wider society? Surely the academic system itself – especially in an age of economic crisis and austerity – is not expanding at an equivalent rate, so employment opportunities for  PhDs in academia are limited. Many countries try to increase the return on the huge investments made in doctoral programmes, by offering more opportunities at the post-doctoral level; but despite those attempts, the prospects of successfully pursuing an academic career is not bright.

This tension between a larger number of doctoral degrees and limited employment opportunities in academic and research institutions, has triggered a debate on the purpose and utility of this qualification. Governments have developed policies to widen the scope of the doctoral degree, by including various skills sets useful for future employment in other parts of the public and private sectors, so that a  doctorate does not prepare a student exclusively for a research career. More frequently now, PhDs leave universities and research institutions to join research labs in private companies, public administrations and non-research jobs in various organisations. Some doctorate holders may regard this as a second-choice option, as research training often evolves into a university career.  At the societal level, however, an increase of highly-skilled workers with research skills can be regarded as beneficial, even if some would see it as a form of qualifications inflation and/or a threat to lower-qualified workers.

The data provided in the EDIF brief show that the employment opportunities for doctorate degree holders, outside research institutions, are very good. On average across OECD countries, the employment rate for PhDs reaches 91%, compared with 85% for bachelor’s and master’s degree holders. And, even more interesting, their employment rates in the private sector and government agencies are very significant in a number of countries. No longer are doctorate degrees simply entry tickets to the guild of university professors. Society at large increasingly benefits from the research skills and experience that these people have acquired.

Links:
Education Indicators in Focus, Issue No. 25, by Eric Charbonnier, Joris Ranchin and Laudeline Auriol
Education Indication in Focus: French version
On this topic, visit:
Education Indicators in Focus: www.oecd.org/education/indicators 
On the OECD’s education indicators, visit:
Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators: www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm
Photo credit: ©OECD

Tuesday, 28 October 2014

Maths education for innovative societies

by Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin
Senior Analyst and Project Leader, Directorate for Education and Skills

Mathematics is at the core of science, engineering and technology. Mathematic modelling of various phenomena underpins technology innovation. No wonder that mathematics education has always ranked high on the innovation policy agenda.

There is now ample evidence that preparing students for an innovative society goes well beyond preparing them for science-related professions. Given that a large share of professionals contributes in some way to innovation, the new educational imperative is to equip a critical mass of workers and citizens with the skills to thrive in innovative societies.

How can education systems meet this demand through mathematics education? First, they should improve students’ technical skills in mathematics. By technical skills, I mean the know-what (for example, the theorems) and the know-how (for example, the procedures to solve different types of problems). The 2012 results of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) show that many countries still have room for improvement. They also reveal that too many students still perceive mathematics as an educational stumbling block.

How could one possibly improve the learning outcomes in mathematics that are traditionally tested and, at the same time, develop other important skills for innovation, such as reasoning, understanding, posing (rather than just solving) problems, self-confidence, and even communication skills?

This is precisely the question that Zemira Mevarech and Bracha Kramarski address in a new OECD report entitled Critical Maths for Innovative Societies. Strong experimental and quasi-experimental research evidence points to one solution that teachers could easily adopt more systematically in their teaching: the explicit teaching of metacognitive strategies.

Meta-what? Let’s not be intimidated by scientific language. Metacognition simply means “thinking about” or “regulating” one’s thinking. While one often thinks about one’s thinking when learning, metacognitive pedagogies make students develop explicit (rather than implicit) learning and problem-solving strategies by making them systematically go through a series of questions about their learning.

Initiated by the Hungarian mathematician George Polya, these strategies have had several developers and promoters. For example, the teaching method developed by Mevarech and Kramarski, called IMPROVE, asks students to answer four types of questions when exposed to new content knowledge or when solving a problem: comprehension questions (e.g. what is the problem about?); connection questions (e.g. how does this problem relate to problems I have already solved? Please explain your reasoning); strategic questions (e.g. what kinds of strategies are appropriate for solving the problem, and why? Please explain your reasoning), and reflection questions (e.g. does the solution make sense? can the problem be solved in a different way?). These questions and their related processes then gradually become a habit of mind. Rigorous research shows that using this pedagogy, and others like it,  yields positive results on a variety of outcomes and skills that matter in innovative societies.

First, compared to traditional pedagogies, these methods lead to better learning outcomes in arithmetic, algebra and geometry, and their effectiveness increases in co-operative learning settings and when they also address learners’ emotional responses.

Second, they do not enhance only traditional learning outcomes, but also other skills for innovation. Metacognitive pedagogies help students to articulate their thinking, actively use the “mathematics language”, be more curious as they relate their learning to their interests, provide elaborated explanations, and also be involved in conflict resolutions and mutual learning. Students thus become better at mathematical reasoning, and better at regulating their emotions when confronted with mathematical problems. Students who have been taught using these pedagogies show less anxiety towards mathematics, for example.

Metacognitive pedagogies work for students in primary, secondary and tertiary education, as well as in teacher training; and some longitudinal studies show that they have a lasting effect and lead to much better retention of knowledge.

A noteworthy finding for policy makers is that metacognitive strategies are effective both for traditional and for complex, unfamiliar and non-routine math problems. Because they can be more authentic, more open, and more related to real life, these kinds of problems may arguably better prepare students to exert their creative and critical minds. An example of such a problem is the following: “several supermarkets advertised that they are the cheapest supermarket in town. Please collect information and find out which of the advertisements is correct.” Students then have to design and implement a strategy to come up with a reasoned answer. These kinds of problems may have several solutions, depending on how students interpret the problem: the students may go for a different basket of goods, or take into account qualitative differences in a different way – as we do in real life.

Some mathematics educators believe that complex, unfamiliar and non-routine problems are not “real maths” problems; but the good news is that, whatever the type of problem they prefer, metacognitive strategies will still improve their students’ learning outcomes.

Would metacognitive pedagogies have positive effects if mainstreamed in mathematics education (and possibly other disciplines)? Singapore is the only country where metacognitive strategies are now one explicit dimension of the mathematics curriculum. That means they are taught in teacher training and teachers are obliged to use them. This might partly explain why Singapore is consistently one of the top performers in mathematics, in both the PISA and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) tests.

Many educators and policy makers call for more evidence to support improvement of educational practices and reform education systems before adopting education reforms. For once, we have strong evidence. So why wait any longer to promote the use of metacognitive pedagogies in the classroom?

Links:
Critical Maths for Innovative Societies The Role of Metacognitive Pedagogies
PISA 2012 Results: Creative Problem Solving (Volume V)
PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do (Volume I)
Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective
Art for Art’s Sake? The Impact of Arts Education
The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice 
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI)
OECD Insights: Want to improve your problem solving skills? Try metacognition
Photo credit: © Aakash Nihalani (“Sum Times”)

Friday, 24 October 2014

Combatting bullying in schools

by Tracey Burns and Andrew Macintyre
Directorate for Education and Skills


"Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me". So goes the English nursery rhyme taught to children to console them if they have been called names, or teased by their friends or classmates. But no matter how often you repeat it as a child, it doesn’t really make you feel better. Why? Because it’s not true.

Being called names does hurt. A lot. So does being picked on, being pushed around, being excluded from groups – in short, being bullied. Bullying is not new – Kierkegaard, the Danish philosopher, wrote about it in 1847 and Tom Brown’s School Days (1857) brought the issue widespread attention. It has been the subject of countless  teenage coming of age books. And it regularly makes national headlines with stories of teens being pushed into desperate situations, even suicide, as a result of relentless bullying.

While bullying has been around for a long time, it has recently taken on a new form: cyber bullying. Cyber bullying includes many different forms of online bullying such as sending threatening emails, copying personal conversations and sending them to others, creating derogatory websites about a person or humiliating them repeatedly on social networks. A recent Trends Shaping Education Spotlight looked at this issue and found that estimates of the prevalence of cyber bullying vary widely but an EU-wide study indicates that on average, 6% to 9% of 16-year-olds report being bullied online.

So what can be done? First, it is important to emphasise that although cyber bullying is often represented in the media as something new, it is an extension of traditional face to face bullying. Certainly there are differences – for example, it can be especially hurtful because it can be witnessed by a much larger audience than face-to-face bullying, such as when pictures of a humiliating event or abuse are circulated and recirculated among an entire school or village. Cyber bullying is also not confined to school hours and can happen anywhere, anytime.

However these differences should not blind us to the similarities with face-to-face bullying in the damage it can cause. Bullying, in all of its forms, is no laughing matter. Bullies, motivated to enhance their status among their peers, bully in front of witnesses, whose approval (or at least tacit silence) is crucial. They tend to choose their victims from those who sit in the bottom line of the social ledger, those least able to fight back. And it works, both to raise the popularity of the bully and to hurt the victim: the research to date shows that victims of bullying do worse at school, tend to have lower self-esteem, and are more likely to attempt suicide – both during childhood and later on in life.

There is one interesting finding that also emerges from the research: the bully and victim roles can be interchangeable and related. Of the young internet users surveyed in the EU Kids Online Survey quoted above, only 4% of those who reported not bullying others had been the victim of cyber bullying themselves. For self-confessed online bullies, 47% reported being bullied in turn.

This finding is key. It shatters the myth that the bully is always an evil, swaggering strongman (or woman) who ruthlessly attacks the weaker, more vulnerable peer, so popular in comic books and superhero films. While this may be true in many circumstances, it is not uncommon that those who bully are also bullied, and vice versa. This is a useful reminder for us that the dynamics of human behaviour are complex, and not given to easy solutions. So what can be done?

Luckily, we know quite a bit about what can be done to fight bullying, both face-to-face and online. A recent systematic review of the literature has demonstrated that school-based anti-bullying programmes are often effective. The most successful interventions were in-depth work in parent trainings, improved playground supervision, use of disciplinary methods (both punitive and non-punitive), and work on classroom management and in teacher training. Programmes were also more effective when addressed to older children (age 11 or more). However, and this is important - one type of programme was associated with an increase in victimisation, and that was work with peers, for example peer mediation and peer mentoring.

These results and work on bullying more generally give policy makers a number of good options for addressing the issue in their schools and systems. Parents and teachers can and should intervene in suspect incidents. In all aspects of bullying an important role is played by the bystanders whom, by saying nothing, silently condone the practice. Schools can therefore take action both by raising awareness and by educating students and parents about their role and responsibility in its prevention. As Desmond Tutu, the Nobel Peace prize winner and South African inspiration put it: If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

Links:
Trends Shaping Education
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI)
Related blog posts:
2much 2handle? Schools, social networks, and cyber bullying
Making bullying prevention a priority in Finnish schools
Photo credit: Schoolyard bullies, boy walks away with head down / @Shutterstock


Saturday, 18 October 2014

ISLAM DAN MODERNISASI


MENYOROT MODERNISASI DALAM ISLAM

Oleh : Abu Salma

Kita dapat mengaitkan secara ideologi, bahwa gerakan modernisme Islam yang sedang marak saat ini memiliki hubungan erat dengan sekte masa lampau, yaitu Mu’tazilah yang berkembang pada abad ketiga Hijriah. Walaupun sekte ini mengklaim menerima al-Qur’an dan Sunnah, namun mereka gemar melakukan ta’wil (mengintepretasikan dengan makna yang jauh) dan berpandangan bahwa ‘aqllebih didahulukan ketimbang naql (wahyu). Pada akhirnya, sekte ini pun memudar. Gerakan modernisme Islam di zaman ini, bukanlah berevolusi dari mu’tazilah, namun keduanya memiliki prinsip yang serupa dan mirip.

Apabila dijejak, sebenarnya gerakan modernisme ini berasal dari Eropa abad pertengahan, zaman dimana metodologi saintifis mulai berkembang di Spanyol dan berpandangan bahwa apa yang diajarkan gereja tidaklah benar secara saintifis. Hal inilah yang memicu awal terjadinya revolusi.  Pandangan dasar kaum modernisme terhadap semua agama adalah “agama dapat berubah-ubah menurut situasi dan kondisi serta tidak permanen dan kebenaran absolut itu tidak ada.”

Kaum modernis Yahudi dan Nasrani, berupaya menunjukkan bahwa agama masih relevan dengan manusia. Akhirnya mereka pun membuat-buat inovasi (bid’ah) di dalam agama agar manusia tetap tertarik dengan agama. Seperti ritual menyanyi di Gereja yang diperkenalkan pada tahun 1900-an. Mereka berupaya menyatakan bahwa ketuhanan (divinitas) dan manusia dapat dicampur di dalam injil (Bible), dan bahwa bagian yang benar di dalamnya haruslah tidak ketinggalan zaman (out of date). Mereka juga berpandangan bahwa agama senantiasa berubah seiring dengan perubahan zaman dan tidak ada kebenaran mutlak (absolut) di dalam Bible.

Pada zaman tersebutlah, banyak orang Islam yang berinteraksi dan belajar di Eropa. Hal ini menyebabkan mereka harus memilih diantara tiga hal : menerima konsep barat, menolaknya atau mencampurnya (reformasi Islam). Mereka yang menerima cara ketiga ini, atau yang disebut dengan modernis Islam, mengembangkan dan menfokuskan pemikiran mereka di Turki dan Mesir. Di Turki sebab negara ini di bawah pengaruh Inggris, dan di Mesir sebab Al-Azhar merupakan pusat ilmu pengetahuan Islam. Orang-orang di dalam gerakan modernisme ini lah yang menilai Islam berdasarkan akal mereka. Beberapa kesalahan mereka dalam hal ini adalah :
  • Menggunakan akal untuk hal-hal yang tidak dapat dinalar/dicerna (masalah ghaibiyah)
  • Menjadikan akal sebagai acuan, sehingga mereka akan menerima yang selaras dengan akal dan menolaknya yang berlawanan dengan akal.
  • Menghukumi wahyu dengan akal.
Sedangkan Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah, meyakini bahwa menggunakan akal yang sehat akan mengarahkan kepada kesimpulan bahwa al-Qur’an dan Sunnah Nabi itu adalah benar, sehingga ajarannya harus didahulukan ketimbang akal murni semata.

Kenapa Gudang Modernisme Berada di Barat terutama Amerika ?

Kita tidak asing dengan pemikir-pemikir modernisme tanah air jebolan Chicago atau selainnya. Pemikiran-pemikiran mereka lebih cenderung medekonstruksi (merusak) tatanan Islam yang sudah ada dengan alasan rekonstruksi. Kenapa kiblat modernisme ini ke Barat? Menurut DR. Jamal Zarabozo karena mayoritas modernis menyatakan bahwa Barat dan dunia telah berubah menjadi civilized (beradab), dan Islam juga harus ikut ter-civilized. Modernisme lebih banyak menyebar di Barat terutama Amerika disebabkan :
  • Minimnya tokoh Islam yang membantah mereka, atau mereka memang tidak mau membantahnya karena masyarakat sendiri tidak mau mengkritik mereka.
  • Amerika mengizinkan muslim dari luar negeri untuk menjadi bagian dari masyarakat Amerika dan mereka tidak harus diakui sebagai muslim.
  • Banyaknya literatur, para ahli dan institusi di Amerika yang mengajarkan pemikiran modernis
Sebagai contoh, Yusuf Ali. Dia adalah penerjemah terkenal makna al-Qur’an. Padahal dia adalah seorang yang mengingkari apa yang tidak dapat diindera oleh akal (masalah ghaibiyah). Di dalam sebuah buku tentang Sejarah, dinyatakan bahwa Nabi Muhammad itu sebenarnya tidak berbeda dengan manusia lainnya, yaitu tidak ma’shum. Ada juga yang berpendapat bahwa sunnah itu bukanlah syariah dan kadang-kadang kita harus membuang hadits oleh sebab Alloh tidak mengoreksi kesalahan Nabi ketika beliau melakukan ijtihad. Di dalam masalah Fikih, kaum modernis menyatakan bahwa bunga bank itu halal, wanita yang mengalami menstruasi boleh sholat, dan seorang muslimah boleh menikah dengan pria kafir. Mereka juga mengatakan bahwa wajah wanita tidak pernah ditutup sampai 150 tahun setelah zaman Nabi, padahal hal ini sudah ada di zaman beliau. Mereka juga menyatakan bahwa hadits tentang tidak beruntungnya suatu kaum yang dipimpin oleh wanita adalah tidak benar dan tidak dapat diterapkan di zaman ini, juga poligami adalah terlarang. Ironisnya, semua ini mereka lakukan dengan rapi dan terorganisir, dengan segala bentuk media berupa majalah, televisi, konvensi dan literatur.

Kaum modernis, dapat mempengaruhi pemikiran umat dan metode berfikir mereka lah yang paling berbahaya bagi umat. Menurut mereka tidak ada urgensinya mempelajari aqidah sebab akal lah yang menghukumi naql. Mereka juga berupaya menyingkirkan sunnah dan mengatakan bahwa sistem ulama hadits tempo dulu tidak reliable lagi. Mereka menggunakan metodologi kritik ilmuwan nasrani terhadap Bible dan diterapkan kepada hadits dan ijma’ sahabat, dengan dalih studi kritis. Kita sebagai muslim memahami bahwa Nabi diberi petunjuk oleh Alloh dan kita bisa jadi tidak mampu memahami semua di dalam hadits dengan akal kita.

Sudah sering para modernis itu mempertanyakan peran sunnah di dalam syariah. Ada yang berpendapat bahwa sunnah itu urusan dunia bukan agama, walaupun di zaman Nabi sendiri, jadi sunnah itu adalah perkara yang berkaitan dengan musyawarah dan ijtihad. Yang lain berpendapat bahwa kita memerlukan ijtihad sendiri sebab waktu dan tempat telah berubah sehingga sunnah sudah sulit untuk diikuti. Semua ini dilakukan untuk melemahkan sunnah.

Yahudi dan Nasrani berupaya untuk membedakan manusia dari ketuhanan. Sedangkan kaum modernis berupaya untuk menunjukkan perbedaan Rasulullah sebagai seorang manusia biasa dan seorang Nabi. mereka juga menghindar dari mengikuti sunnah dengan membagi kehidupan Nabi menjadi beberapa bagian, sebagai seorang imam, hakim, pemimpin militer, pemimpin spiritual, nabi, dls. yang mana sebagiannya bukanlah merupakan ajaran ketuhanan dan bukanlah wahyu. Beberapa orang bahkan berani menyatakan bahwa setiap orang bebas untuk berijtihad, dan hukum bisa berubah walaupun dari al-Qur’an dan Sunnah.

Kesesatan Kaum Modernis

Ada beberapa hal yang menyebabkan kaum modernis terperosok ke dalam pemikiran dan pemahaman yang menyimpang, bahkan sesat. Berikut ini adalah diantaranya :

Pertama, premis dan asumsi mereka perlu disorot. Modernis melihat kepada dunia Barat dan mencoba untuk menafsirkan kembali (reinterpret) “agama lama” dengan sains modern dan zaman modern. Mereka berasumsi bahwa :

  1. Situasi zaman ini sudah maju atau berbeda (yaitu, bukan di zaman nabi lagi). Perlu diketahui, bahwa ide atau teori tentang kemajuan dan bahwa segala sesuatu adalah lebih baik sekarang merupakan ide Marxian dan Hegelian. Ide ini bertentangan dengan hadits dimana Nabi menjelaskan bahwa tiap generasi akan semakin buruk. Mereka harus membuktikan bahwa sekarang terjadi kemajuan, namun kemajuan dalam hal apa? Materil ataukah moril? Kaum modernis tidak memberikan definisi kemajuan yang dimaksudkan.  Menurut Islam, masyarakat yang maju adalah masyarakat yang semakin dekat dengan Alloh, yang memahami dan mengaplikasikan Islam dengan lebih baik, seperti para sahabat. Dan pada realitanya, masyarakat sekarang masih memiliki hal-hal yang demiliki oleh masyarakat zaman dulu (jahiliyah), seperti homoseksual, seks bebas, kriminalitas, dll.
  1. Agama itu relatif tergantung waktu dan tempat, oleh karena itu kita harus menilai Islam berdasarkan “sains modern”. Modernis mengklaim Barat sebagai ahli sains dan untuk itu Islam dinilai menurut kesesuaiannya dengan sains modern. Mereka mengira bahwa Barat adalah masyarakat yang dibangun di atas sains, namun mereka gagal memperhatikan bahwa tidak semua sains yang dikemukakan Barat itu berdasarkan fakta. Bahkan, pada realitanya, banyak sains yang diklaim oleh Barat ternyata tidak lebih dari sebuah hipotesis yang belum teruji dan terbuktikan, namun hanya sekedar klaim dan manipulasi publik dengan retorika ilmiah. Bahkan sebagiannya lagi hanyalah sekedar mitos belaka. Selain itu, perlu diketahui bahwa setiap sains itu memiliki filosofinya sendiri-sendiri, yang akan mengarah kepada kesimpulan masing-masing. Intinya, teori sains yang dikemukakan itu bukanlah kebenaran, lantas bagaimana bisa digunakan untuk menilai agama?!
  1. Cara berfikir sebuah masyarakat adalah berdasarkan lingkungannya, atau dengan kata lain cara berfikir masyarakat adalah produk dari lingkungannya. Kaum modernis menyatakan bahwa mayoritas agama berasal dari masyarakat dan lingkungannya, dan hal ini dapat dinilai di waktu kemudian. Oleh karena itu, hadits sangat tergantung hanya pada zamannya. Tidak ada bukti bagi hipotesis kaum modernis ini bahwa kebenaran agama itu relatif. Alloh sendiri menyatakan dengan tegas  bahwa al-Qur’an itu adalah al-Haq (kebenaran) yang lâ royba fîha (tidak ada keraguan di dalamnya), sedangkan kaum modernis menyatakan jika al-Qur’an tidak benar sekarang, maka al-Qur’an tidak pernah benar.
Kedua, metodologi yang mereka gunakan adalah keliru. Metodologi kaum modernis, adalah cara mereka menyesatkan orang kepada kesimpulan yang salah. Mereka mengklaim metodologinya saintifis atau ilmiah, padahal kenyataannya seringkali tidak konsisten, atau tidak berdasar dan memiliki bukti. Diantara teknik dan prinsip yang mereka gunakan termasuk :

  1. Al-Qur’an dan hadits. Mereka mengklaim al-Qur’an itu shahih/otentik dan mereka hanya mau mengikuti hadits otentik. Namun metode mereka di dalam menilai hadits berbeda dari metodologi ulama zaman dahulu yang menilai dengan kriteria ilmu yang kompleks dan metodologinya belum ada tandingannya dari agama manapun. Kaum modernis di dalam menilai keotentikan sebuah hadits hanya menggunakan akal mereka yang terbatas, padahal akal manusia itu berbeda-beda sehingga hasil produknya pun juga berbeda-beda. Oleh karena itu metodologi mereka ini tidak memiliki standar ilmiah dan rancu. Kaum modernis biasanya tidak suka dengan hadits-hadits yang memiliki makna spesifik, dan mereka lebih senang dengan hadits-hadits yang memiliki redaksi umum agar dapat dimultitafsirkan.
  1. Menggunakan hadits-hadits dha’if atau lemah untuk menyokong tujuan dan argumentasi mereka. Hadits yang lemah bisa mereka anggap shahih hanya karena selaras dengan akal dan keinginan mereka.
  1. Gemar menggunakan istilah-istilah yang rancu dan samar tanpa menjelaskan definisinya. Modernis seringkali menggunakan istilah baru seperti demokrasi, kebebasan dan kesetaraan, namun mereka tidak mendefinisikan secara jelas apa maksudnya. Bahayanya menggunakan istilah-istilah yang samar ini adalah, orang yang melemparkan kata atau konsep tersebut, berfikir bahwa mereka memaksudkannya dengan definisi yang diterima padahal kenyataannya tidak, sedangkan orang lain yang mendengarkannya bisa jadi mempercayai bahwa apa yang mereka utarakan itu benar adanya.
  1. Tidak mau membawakan semua informasi yang relevan dan terkait dengan subyek. Mereka hanya membawakan bukti yang mendukung pemahaman mereka saja.
  1. Memaksakan penafsiran mereka terhadap sebuah teks. Inilah yang dahulu dilakukan oleh kaum mu’tazilah, ketika mereka menyatakan bahwa akal lebih didahulukan daripada naql. Kaum modernis acap kali menyatakan Islam itu agama “rasional”. Ini tentu saja benar jika yang dimaksud bahwa segala sesuatunya dari Alloh tidak ada kontradiksi di dalamnya. Namun, jika yang dimaksud adalah kita dapat mempelajari segalanya di Islam dengan menilainya hanya dari akal kita aja, maka ini tidak dapat diterima. Kaum modernis juga sering kali mengatakan untuk mengikuti “ruh” Islam hanya untuk menghindar dari hukum syariat. Mereka menyatakan bahwa tidak apa-apa wanita tidak berhijab, yang penting ruh Islam masih dipegangnya di dalam hatinya. “Untuk apa berhijab fisik sedangkan hati tidak dihijabi?”, ini adalah propaganda kerdil yang sering dikatakan mereka, padahal Islam itu agama sempurna, mengatur masalah lahiriah dan batiniyah, masalah fisik dan hati.
  1. Membuka pintu ijtihad selebar-lebarnya bagi setiap orang. Padahal ijtihad ada perangkat dan syaratnya, dan tidak semua orang memiliki kapabel untuk berijtihad.
  1. Senang mengikuti pendapat yang ganjil dan tertolak. Mereka tidak segan-segan mempelajari buku-buku para ulama hanya untuk mengambil pendapat-pendapat mereka yang keliru dan ganjil, bukannya mengambil pendapat-pendapat yang selaras dengan al-Qur’an dan sunnah.
  1. Lebih condong mengikuti hawa nafsu di dalam memberikan hukum dan ‘fatwa’ tanpa ada dalil yang kuat. Tidak heran jika kita dapati mereka dengan mudah mengatakan, “musik itu mubah, karena Saya tidak mendapati ada hal yang salah dengannya. Bahkan musik itu menenangkan jiwa dan fikiran. Jikalau musik haram, niscaya dunia ini akan sepi…”. Orang seperti ini tidak menjawab dengan dalil, namun dengan perasaan dan hawa nafsunya.
Sesungguhnya, faham dan pembawa faham modernisme ini sangat berbahaya. Pondasi pemahaman mereka terhadap Islam adalah bias, tidak berdasar dan mengada-ada, bahkan mendestruksi konsep Islam yang sudah mapan dan matang. Maka merupakan kewajiban bagi setiap muslim yang mampu untuk membentengi diri, keluarga, sahabat dan kaum muslimin lainnya dari faham modernisme yang menyesatkan ini.

Sumber : diadaptasi dari Modernisme in Islam karya DR. Jamaludin Zarabozo

Terbongkar, Struktur Organisasi Jaringan ISIS


SPEKTANEWS (Irak) Gerakan kelompok pemberontak takfiri ISIS (Islamic State Of Irak and Sham) bukan merupakan kelompok asal jadi dan sembarangan. Gerakan mereka diketahui sangat terkoordinir, rapih, dan profesional. Tak heran jika baru-baru ini terbongkar struktural organisasi kelompok ISIS yang menunjukkan gerakan ISIS telah terencana sedemikian matang.



Melansir The Daily Mail, Jumat (19/9), bocoran informasi struktural organisasi ISIS ini diperoleh dari sebuah Flashdisk dari rumah milik Abu Abdul Rahman Al-Bilawi, salah satu petinggi ISIS yang telah tewas beberapa waktu lalu.

Pemimpin tertinggi kelompok ISIS, Ibrahim Awwad Al-Samarra’i alias Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi menunjuk beberapa orang kepercayaannya untuk memimpin sejumlah departemen dan divisi. Mulai dari divisi penjualan minyak hingga komunikasi internal dan keputusan tahanan mana yang akan dieksekusi dan bagaimana cara membunuhnya.

Jabatan tepat di bawah Abubakar Al-Baghdadi diduduki oleh Abu Ali Al-Anbari yang diberi kepercayaan memimpin wilayah Suriah. Sementara Abu Muslim Al-Turkmani memimpin wilayah Irak. Kedua petinggi ISIS itu membawahi masing-masing 12 gubernur.

Di bawah kepemimpinan Abubakar Al-Baghdadi juga ada Dewan Syura dan Penasihat Kabinet. Dewan Syura terdiri dari tiga pimpinan untuk masing-masing bidang.

Berikut ini bidang yang dibawahi Dewan Syura :

Ketua Divisi urusan mati syahid : Abu Suja

Ketua Divisi Logistik : Abu Kifah

Ketua Divisi Operasional Bom : Khairi Abed Mahmoud Al-Ta’ey

Menurut penelitian TRAC (Konsorsium Penelitian dan Analisis Terorisme) Abubakar Al-Baghdadi telah menunjuk tujuh orang petinggi ISIS sekelas Menteri yang bertugas sebagai penasihat kebijakan militer serta memberikan laporan langsung pada dirinya terkait kebijakan operasional di lapangan.



Ketujuh Orang Menteri-menteri ISIS itu adalah :

Menteri Sekretariat Negara : Abu Abdul Kadr

Menteri Urusan Penukaran Tawanan dan Tahanan Perang : Bashar Ismail Al-Hamdani

Menteri Pertahanan dan Keamanan : Abdul Wahid Khutnayer Ahmad

Menteri Keuangan : Abu Salah

Menteri Transportasi : Abu Hajar Al-Assafi

Menteri Imigrasi Jihadis : Abu Kasem

Panglima militer ISIS Wilayah Irak : Abu Abdul Rahman Al-Bilawi


Susunan organisasi ISIS juga memiliki tujuh dewan penting yakni, dewan keuangan (meliputi persenjataan dan penjualan minyak), kepemimpinan (menyusun aturan & kebijakan), dewan militer, dewan bantuan jihadis asing, dewan keamanan internal, dewan intelijen, dan dewan media.

Sumber : http://www.spektanews.com/2014/09/terbongkar-struktural-resmi-jaringan.html#sthash.QeSIGliO.dpuf

Tak Tahan Terus Dianiaya Pemerintah Cina, Muslim Uighur Minta Doa Rakyat Indonesia


SPEKTANEWS (Cina) Di manapun di dunia, jika Muslim menjadi minoritas maka mereka akan selalu dilanda penderitaan yang nyata. Begitu pula dengan Muslim Uighur, yang penderitaannya sangat patut menjadi perhatian umat Islam dunia. Karena apa yang dialami Muslim Uighur tidak jauh beda dengan kondisi di Gaza, Suriah, maupun Patani. 



Demikian harapan para pengungsi Uighur saat ditemui Jurnalis Islam Bersatu (JITU) di Turki, akhir September 2014.

Saat ditemui, kondisi mereka sangat memperihatinkan. Amin yang berencana hijrah ke Suriah bersama keluarganya, mengaku terpaksa keluar dari kampung halamannya karena tidak tahan kezhaliman yang terus menerus dilakukan pemerintah China.

“Kami tidak ada pilihan. Di China kami disiksa, para Ulama kami dibunuh, dan kami dilarang mendirikan sekolah,” ujar Amin bersama istri dan satu anaknya bernama Muslimah (4 tahun).

Amin menerangkan Muslim Uyghur tidak bisa menjalankan ajaran Islam sepenuhnya di China.

“Bahkan untuk memelihara jenggot saja kami dipenjara,” katanya yang menerangkan ada ribuan Ulama Uyghur dipenjara oleh pemerintah China.

JITU pun mengkonfirmasi berita bahwa muslim Uyghur dipaksa untuk berbuka puasa oleh pemerintah China. Amin pun membenarkannya. Berita itu, katanya, bukanlah isapan jempol semata.

“Berita itu benar adanya. Kami dipaksa untuk berbuka puasa di bulan Ramadhan,” ujarnya prihatin.

Saat ditanya, apakah Muslim Uyghur memiliki situs khusus agar media-media di Indonesia bisa mengakses penderitaan Muslim Uyghur, Amin menjelaskan bahwa pemerintah China melarang mereka melakukan itu.

“Banyak dari kami takut berbicara ke dunia, karena pemerintah akan memenjara kami,” terangnya.

“Karena itu, seluruh akses informasi ditutup rapat-rapat oleh pemerintah China,” tambahnya.

Hal senada juga dikatakan Abdullah. Remaja berusia 18 tahun ini memilih keluar diam-diam dari kampung halamannya untuk hijrah ke Suriah. Bukan hal mudah bagi Abdullah untuk keluar. Sebab jika pemerintah China tahu dirinya akan pergi ke Suriah, pasti akan ditangkap.

Abdullah memaparkan nestapa muslimah Uyghur saat melahirkan. Tidak sedikit dari para muslimah tersebut harus berpisah dengan anaknya karena arogansi pemerintah China.

“Saat mereka lahir, bayi mereka diambil oleh pemerintah,” terangnya dengan bahasa Arab yang cukup fasih.

Intoleransi pemerintah untuk menghambat regenerasi umat Islam tidak berhenti di sana. Abdullah menerangkan meski usianya sudah 18 tahun tapi dia belum pernah merasakan sekolah agama formal.

“Di Provinsi Xinjiang, pemerintah melarang umat Islam untuk mendirikan madrasah,” tandas Abdullah yang menerangkan sebutan Xinjiang adalah bentuk stereotype pemerintah China.

Umat Islam di Provinsi Xinjiang lebih suka disebut Muslim Uyghur.

Untuk itu, Amin berharap Indonesia sebagai negara mayoritas muslim bisa peduli terhadap nasib saudaranya di Uighur. Sebab mereka sudah tidak tahan dengan tindak kekerasan yang dilakukan pemerintah China.

“Kami berharap agar muslim Indonesia selalu memberitakan kondisi kami. Ada ribuan ulama kami yang sekarang di penjara oleh pemerintah China. Mereka disiksa dan dibunuh. Kami minta muslim Indonesia mendoakan kami,” ujarnya.

Sumber : http://www.spektanews.com/2014/10/tak-tahan-terus-dianiaya-pemerintah.html#sthash.HY3IgfVc.dpuf