30 April, 2006

Bush : Worst President Ever

A recent article in Rolling Stone Magazine considers Bush to be the Worst President in History. Imagine that. There have been 43 Presidents so far. And some consider George to be the worst. Well, some may argue that that is merely an opinion. But here are some facts from the article:

“The monster deficits, caused by increased federal spending combined with the reduction of revenue resulting from the tax cuts, have also placed Bush's administration in a historic class of its own with respect to government borrowing. According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever - with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006. Yet Bush - sounding much like Herbert Hoover in 1930 predicting that "prosperity is just around the corner" - insists that he will cut federal deficits in half by 2009, and that the best way to guarantee this would be to make permanent his tax cuts, which helped cause the deficit in the first place!”

Pretty amazing! After receiving the largest ever budget surplus in US history from Clinton, Bush spent the whole lot and borrowed more than the previous 42 Presidents combined. And remember, that included Presidents who borrowed in order to have enough cash for 2 World Wars, recovering from the Stock market crash, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Cold War (including massive spending on nuclear weapons and the space race), and the first Gulf War. Wow! That certainly is a truly historical achievement! Who could ever forget Bush in the decades to come!


26 April, 2006

Scholars for 9/11 Truth


Scholars for 9/11 Truth

James H. Fetzer

Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth


Scholars for 9/11 Truth is a group founded by James H. Fetzer and Steven E. Jones on 15 December 2005, which currently includes some 200 experts and scholars who believe that the government's theory of the September 11, 2001 attacks cannot be sustained and functions as a cover-up for its own involvement in the crime. The non-partisan society is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about the events of 9/11 "and letting the chips fall where they may."

The group has demonstrated that investigations by FEMA and NIST about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings are inadequate and that the official account violates laws of physics and of structural engineering. They have observed that jet-fuel based fires do not attain temperatures above 1,800 degrees F under optimal conditions and that the melting point of steel is 1,000 degrees higher, which means that the steel did not melt.

They also observe that these fires were oxygen-depleted, as the billowing black clouds of smoke emanating from the building reveal, which means that they were generating heat at temperatures far below the optimum. UL certified the steel used in the construction for up to 2,000 degrees for six hours before it would even significantly weaken. The fires were neither hot enough nor long enough to have caused the steel to weaken.

The impacts of the aircraft also appear to have had negligible effect on the collapse of the buildings. Frank DeMartini, the project manager of the construction, observed that, given the sophisticated load-redistribution capacities built into the towers around its 47 massive core columns, the impact of an airplane would be like "sticking a pencil through mosquito netting," which suggests that neither the fires nor the planes brought the buildings down.

Indeed, WTC-2, which was hit second, fell first after less than an hour of exposure, while WTC-1, which was hit first, fell second after only about an hour and a half of exposure. A far more extensive fire occurred in WTC-1 on February 13, 1975, which burned at much higher temperatures for three hours and spread over 65% of the 11th floor, including the core, yet caused no significant damage to the steel structure and no trusses had to be replaced.

The scholars observe that, while dust clouds are expected to arise when a building hits the ground, in this case an immense cloud of fine dust envelops the Twin Towers as they fall from the top down! This involved pulverizing the concrete used as flooring material in the buildings and included steel beams being blow outward and even upward, which required an enormous source of energy and cannot be explained on the government's account.

In some footage of the buildings fall, tremendous explosions can be observed just before the dust cloud obscures them. This is consistent with the placement of demolitions, which may have occurred during the two weeks leading up to 9/11, when unusual "security lapses" took place and teams of "engineers" were allowed access to the buildings. Steven Jones believes that thermate, a sulfur-enhanced form of thermite, was probably used to bring them down and that it would have only required ten trips each by forty men to place the charges.

Beyond the dust cloud, which they consider to be a "smoking gun", the scholars also point to the collapse of WTC-7, a 47-story building that was hit by no aircraft, suffered only very modest fires, and yet collapsed at 5:20 PM, about eight hours after the towers fell. A taped interview with Larry Silverstein, who leased the World Trade Center, reveals that he suggested that the building be "pulled", which means be brought down by controlled demolition.

The fall of that building, like those of the towers, displays classic characteristics of controlled demolitions, including falling symmetrically and completely into its own footprint at the approximate speed of free fall, which is only possible if there is no resistence to upper portions collapsing on lower. Pools of molten metal were found in the subbasements of all three buildings for weeks thereafter, another indication that they were taken down.

The scholars point to features of the Pentagon hit that raise serious doubts about whether it could possibly have been hit by a plane of the size and mass of a Boeing 757, which weighs 100 tons with a 125-foot wingspan and tail that rises 44-feet above the ground, especially given that the initial hit point only appears to be far too small to accommodate such a large plane and there is a noticeable absence of aircraft debris, including no wings, fuselage, seats, luggage, bodies, tail, or even engines.

While some members are inclined to accept the government's version of the Pentagon hit, the evidence suggests that, whatever hit the Pentagon, it does not appear to have been a Boeing 757. Moreover, the government has been unwilling to provide photographs and films that would support its position, if it were true, raising further suspicions that it cannot release them because they would contradict the government's position. Indeed, the scholars are submitting a petition to Congress demanding the release of physical and photographic evidence.

The society has issued a series of press releases that reflect the positions of the society on basic aspects of the case and outline some of the major problems with the official account. In addition to the findings described here, other members, who are pilots, aeronautical engineers and computer scientists, have explained why the alleged hijackers would have been unable to fly these planes and why cell phone calls from them would have been impossible.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth maintains an extensive web site that is updated daily, which reflects the current state of knowledge of these events and recent developments related to their study. According to their website, "The members of S9/11T are encouraged to take an active role by devoting themselves to reporting the results of research on 9/11 to the nation and the world by means of lectures, articles, and other venues." While the society is dedicated to research and is not an activist organization, many of its members are committed to political change.


Among those included among the members of this society are:

David Ray Griffin: Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, at the Claremont School of Theology, and the author or editor of thirty books

Morgan Reynolds: A & M Professor of Economics Emeritus, former Chief Economist for the United States Department of Labor, former Director of the Criminal Justice Center

Steven E. Jones: Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and an editor of its forthcoming publication, Journal for 9/11 Studies

Robert M. Bowman: Former Director of the U.S. Advanced Space Programs Development in the Carter and Ford administrations, former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions.

James H. Fetzer: Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, author or editor of more than two dozen books and co-chair of S9/11T

Andreas Von Buelow: former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years.

Wayne Madsen: investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist with articles in The Village Voice, CounterPunch, Online Journal, Wired, In These Times, Insider Magazine, and From The Wilderness.

John McMurtry: FRSC, moral philosopher and ethicist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada and author of six books on public policy issues


Their conclusions are based on the results of their own scientific and political research. They contend that the official version of events on September 11, 2001 is one of the great hoaxes in world history, which has been used to manipulate the American people for political purposes and has led to undermining the Constitution, launching illegal wars, and subjecting the people to virtually unrestricted surveillance. Since terrorism involves the use of acts of violence and threats of violence to instill fear into a population in order to manipulate it for political purposes, their findings suggest, ironically, that the American government appears to be using terrorism to manipulate the American people.

Criticism of Scholars For 9/11 Truth

Although most activists and researchers in the 9/11 Truth Movement have been positive and excited about the formation of a scholars group and most would agree that it is an important step for the movement to take, some also express concern that members of the scholars group and its website are promoting debunked theories which discredit the movement, such as the idea that the commercial aircraft used on 9/11 were not actually involved in the attacks, but instead, were replaced by fake planes or military drones, as described by Morgan Reynolds and Leonard Spencer, among other members of the group.

This criticism overlooks an essential characteristic of scientific investigations, which requires considering all possible alternative hypotheses that might explain the data. In this case, there are photos and films that raise questions about the aircraft involved and the way in which they impacted the buildings, which are appropriate subjects for study by members of the society. To describe such theories as "debunked" is to take for granted conclusions that have yet to be established. As long as questions remain as to whether those planes they may have been military fuel tankers that could be flown by remote control, for example, it is important that members explore them until they are resolved. While the members support the positions of the society, the society does not therefore support the positions of its members and it would be irresponsible of the society to curtail research by its members.

Some 9/11 researchers have criticized the website, noting that it promotes one-sided views of issues which are debated within the movement (such as the idea that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon). Although the 'Resources' page states, "We do not necessarily endorse or concur with conclusions or opinions expressed here, but we think that they provide suggestive and stimulating resources for further contemplation," only one side of a serious and divisive debate within the 9/11 movement is presented for contemplation. Similarly, papers asserting that a plane did not hit the Pentagon are posted on the front page, but no papers asserting the opposite are posted, that a Boeing 757 did indeed hit the building as described by dozens of witnesses at the scene.

The witness testimony in this case is very much in dispute, since it is unlikely that those who were exposed to whatever flew over or hit the building were qualified to distinguish between Boeing 767s, 757s, and 737s, for example, much less other kinds of aircraft that could have been fashioned to resemble planes of those kinds. The weight of an objection like this is dependent upon the weight of the evidence, where the small impact point and large size and mass of the aircraft alleged to have hit the building create difficulties for any objective student of the case. In particular, the absence of aircraft debris of appropriated kinds and quantities — including no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail, and no engines — makes the official story very difficult to accept. Everyone knows the government's account; what requires emphasis is the powerful evidence that contradicts it. So emphasis on the data that refutes the hypothesis appears entirely appropriate.

The objection has also been raised that articles described on the web site by David Ray Griffin, Steven E. Jones, and James H. Fetzer as "peer reviewed" have not appeared in any scientific journals. These papers, however, have been extensively subjected to review by anonymous experts on these issues and are going to appear in forthcoming books. Fetzer's paper [81 KB PDF file, opens in new window], for example, was accepted for publication in a volume being edited by Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, and was subsequently also accepted in another volume being published by Elsevier, when the reorganization of the contents of the two books was being considered. He has now withdrawn it for publication in another new collection on these matters, which will include contributions from members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Indeed, the absence of journals in this specific area is being addressed by the society, which is developing a new Journal for 9/11 Studies, which will be edited by Steven Jones and Judy Wood, a professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson. Fetzer will assist in managing the journal. He and Jones have extensive editorial experience, where Fetzer, for example, founded and edited Minds and Machines: Journal for Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science for eleven years. The journal will have a distinguished Editorial Advisory Board and will provide opportunities for students and scholars to have their research processed by the procedures appropriate to academic journals, thereby formalizing what has been until now only an informal process. This should lay such concerns to rest, once and for all.

A related concern has been that the website effectively ignores the websites and original work by some of the most respected long-term researchers of the 9/11 attacks, such as CooperativeResearch.org, FromTheWilderness.com, 911Truth.org, OilEmpire.us, 911Research.WTC7.net, Ratical.org/ratville/CAH/ and WTCEO.org. These websites represent the efforts of people who have been effectively dealing with the media, victims' families, and congress members for years. The rather surprising success that Scholars for 9/11 Truth has enjoyed in reaching the American public appears to stem from the prominence of experts and scholars among its members, which establishes its credibility. But nothing that the society may achieve can ever diminish the significance of the efforts of other groups before it, to whom every student and scholar concerned with these issues is permanently indebted.

21 April, 2006

Facts and Figures about our TV Habits

A friend sent the link for these sites to me. I have often heard of many similar studies being done in the US, but many such studies are focused on specific problems, such as violence or obesity. This site gathers information from numerous sources and studies and then presents in the format given below.

If you are a parent or a teacher, then you should pay attention to the information below. There are some serious negative effects from watching too much television.

Children are just as happy, if not more happy, when playing games on the floor by themselves or with their parents. They don’t need most of what is shown on TV. They are able to play. They can have fun without watching explosions, crashes, violence, or people being murdered everyday.

Be wise. Be careful about what you allow your children to watch on TV. Just turn it off and find something else to do. Ask the children what they want to do. Sit on the floor and play. It’s more fun than watching sinetron. Guaranteed.

The information below shows the results from surveys in the USA. But here we have sinetron (soap operas), and lots of new criminal shows and “mystical” shows that are just as frightening, or even more so. America has already shown us the bad results from too much bad TV. So, why are we making the same mistakes again in Indonesia? We need to prepare children for a future where they can be creative and independent thinkers. TV has the opposite effect on them.

You may not be able to control what is shown on TV, but you can make a choice: JUST TURN IT OFF!!!

(All highlights below are mine)

Wassalamu’alaikum wr.wb.,


Source: tvturnoff.org

I. TV Undermines Family Life

1. Time per day that TV is on in an average US home: 7 hours, 40 minutes

2. Amount of television that the average American watches per day: over 4 hours

3. Time spent daily with screen media for U.S. children age six and under: about 2 hours

4. Percentage of US families with children age 0-6 with at least one television: 99

5. Percentage of US households with 3 or more TVs (2003): 50

6. Percentage of parents who say that if they have something important to do, it is likely that they will use the TV to occupy their child: 45

7. Percentage of Americans who always or often watch television while eating dinner: 40

8. Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: 49

9. Time per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 38.5 minutes

10. Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked, would rather watch TV than spend time with their fathers: 54

II. TV Harms Children and Hampers Education

1. Average number of hours per week that American one year-old children watch television: 6

2. Number of hours recommended by the American Pediatric Association for children two and under: 0

3. Average daily time American children under age two will spend in front of a screen: 2 hours, 5 minutes

4. Average time per week that the American child ages 2-17 spends watching television: 19 hours, 40 minutes

5. Hours of TV watching per week shown to negatively affect academic achievement: 10 or more

6. Hours per week that non-African-American teens (12-17) spend watching primetime TV (8-11 p.m. daily): 5:26

7. Hours per week that African-American teens spend watching primetime TV: 7:37

8. Percentage difference (African Americans vs. non-African-Americans): 40.2

9. Percentage of children ages 8-16 who have a TV in their bedroom: 56

10. Percentage of children age 6 and under who have a TV in their bedroom: 36

11. Percentage of children age 6 and under with a VCR or DVD player in their bedroom: 27

12. Percentage of those children who usually watch television in their bedroom: 30

13. Percentage of television-time that children ages 2-7 spend watching alone and unsupervised: 81

14. Percent of total television-time that children older than 7 spend without their parents: 95

15. Percentage of parents who would like to limit their children’s TV watching: 73

16. Percentage of day care centers that use TV during a typical day: 70

17. Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900

18. Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1,023

19. Percentage of self-professed educational TV that has little or no educational value: 21

20. Chance that an American parent requires children to do their homework before watching TV: 1 in 12

21. Average time per day American children spend in front of a screen of some kind: 4 hours, 41 minutes

22. Percentage of young adults who admit to postponing their bedtime for the internet or TV: 55

23. Percentage of 4-6 year olds in homes where the TV is usually or always left on who can read: 34

24. Percentage of 4-6 year olds in homes where the TV is not usually or always on who can read: 56

25. Amount of time children age 4-6 and under spend daily, on average, with screen media: 2:10 hours

26. Amount of time children age 6 and under spend daily, on average, reading or being read to: 41 minutes

III. TV Promotes Obesity

1. Adults in US technically obese: 1 in 3, or 62 million

2. Percentage of American children who were seriously overweight in 1964: 5; 2003: more than 15

3. Amount of daily moderate physical activity recommended for children: 60 minutes

4. Percentage of young people who report having had no recent physical activity: 14

5. Factor by which men who watch more than 21 hours of TV a week increase their risk of Type 2 diabetes: 2

6. Percentage chance that an overweight adolescent will become an overweight or obese adult: 70%

7. Percentage higher health cost for Kaiser Permanente members with Body Mass Index of 35 or higher: 44

8. Percentage of dollars spent on clothing for men and women’s plus sizes: 23

9. Economic cost of obesity in the United States in 2000: $117 billion

IV. TV Promotes Violence

1. Number of violent acts the average American child sees on TV by age 18: 200,000

2. Number of murders witnessed by children on television by the age 18: 16,000

3. Percentage of youth violence directly attributable to TV viewing: 10

4. Percentage of Hollywood executives who believe there is a link between TV violence and real violence: 80

5. Percentage of children polled who said they felt “upset” or “scared” by violence on television: 91

6. Percent increase in network news coverage of homicide between 1993 and 1996: 721

7. Percent reduction in the American homicide rate between 1993 and 1996: 20

8. Percent increase in number of violent scenes per hour on 10 major channels from 1992 to 1994: 41

9. Percentage of programs that show the long-term consequences of violence: 16

10. Percentage of violent programs that emphasize an anti-violence theme: 4

V. TV Squelches Political Awareness

1. Money spent on ads for the major presidential candidates between June 1, 2000 and September 13: $63 million

2. Money spent on issue ads between January 1, 1999 and August 30, 2000: over $342 million

3. Percentage of those which were attack ads: 61

4. Amount of time broadcasters must provide to candidates free of charge under the 1996 Telecommunications Act: 0

5. Value of public airwaves allocated to broadcasters at no cost under the 1996 Telecommunications Act: $70 billion

6. Amount spent on lobbying by TV broadcasters and the National Association of Broadcasters in 1996: $4 million

7. Number of network news stories about the environment in 1990: 377; 1996: 113

8. Percentage of Americans who can name The Three Stooges: 59

9. Percentage of Americans who can name three Supreme Court Justices: 17

VI. TV Promotes Over-consumption

1. Number of TV commercials viewed by American children a year: 40,000

2. Age by which children can develop brand loyalty: 2

3. Number of TV commercials seen by the average American by age 65: 2 million

4. Percentage of toy advertising dollars spent on television commercials in 1997: 92

5. Amount spent on television advertisements directed at young children in 1997: $1.3 billion

6. Percentage of local TV news broadcast time devoted to advertising: 30

7. Total amount of money spent in 1999 to advertise on broadcast television: $40 billion

8. Net worth of the typical middle-class American household after accounting for debts: less than $10,000

9. Percentage of American children age six and under who have products based on characters from TV shows or movies: 97

Source Key

I. Family Life

1) Nielsen Media Research, 2000. 2) ibid. 3) “Zero to Six: Elecontronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers,” Kaiser Family Foundation, Fall 2003 4) ibid. 5) ibid. 6) ibid. 7) National Institute on Media and the Family, 1999. 8) Fahey, Valery. “TV by the Numbers.” Health. Dec/Jan, 1992: 35. 9) American Family Research Council. “Parents Fight ‘Time Famine’ as Economic Pressures Increase.” 1990. 10) Mango, Jack. “TV in America.” The Official Couch Potato Handbook. Reprinted in Wilson Quarterly. Autumn 1993: 44.

II. Children

1) Hofferth, Sandra L. “Healthy Environments, Healthy Children.” A Report on the 1997 Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Child Development Supplement. University of Michigan, 1998. 2) American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement, August 1999. 3) “Zero to Six,” Kaiser Family Foundation. 4) Nielsen, 2000. 5) US Dept. of Education. “Strong Families, Strong Schools, Building Community Partnerships for Learning.” 1994. 6) Nielsen Media Research, 2000. 7) ibid. 8) ibid. 9) Annenberg Public Policy Center, Media in the Home 2000. 10) “Zero to Six,” Kaiser Family Foundation. 11) ibid. 12) ibid. 13) Kaiser Family Foundation. “Kids and Media @ the New Millennium.” 1999. 14) ibid. 15) US Dept. of Ed., 1994 16) Tashman, Billy. “Sorry Ernie, TV Isn’t Teaching.” New York Times. Nov 12, 1994. 17) Barber, Benjamin. Harper’s. Nov 1993: 41. 18) Nielsen, 2000. 19) Annenberg, Public Policy Center, 2000. 20) Harper’s “Index.” Sept. 1996. 21) Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2000. 22) National Sleep Foundation, Press Release, March 28, 2000. 23) “Zero to Six,” Kaiser Family Foundation. 24) ibid. 25) ibid. 26) ibid.

III. Obesity

1) “America’s Great Big Fat Challenge,” The Washington Post, November 16, 2003 2) “A Not so Minor Risk,” The Washington Post, December 2, 2003 p. F1 3) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity 2001,” 2001. 4) ibid. 5) Harvard School of Public Health. Cited by Associated Press. June 20, 1999. 6) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 7) “America’s Great Big Fat Challenge,” The Washington Post, November 16, 2003 8) ibid. 9)Department of Health and Human Services, 2001

IV. Violence

1) Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Report. “Children, Violence, and the Media.” 1999. 2) American Medical Association. “Physician Guide to Media Violence.” 1996. 3) Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Report. 4) US News and World Report. Apr 8, 1997. 5) MTV national survey. Chicago Tribune. Aug 15, 1993. 6) Budd, Craig, and Steinman. Consuming Environments. Rutgers University Press, 1999. 7) ibid. 8) Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Report. 9) Mediascope. National Television Violence Study. Studio City, CA, 1999. 10) ibid.

V. Overconsumption

1) American Academy of Pediatrics. Cited by National Institute on Media and the Family. “Children and Advertising Fact Sheet.” 2002. 2) McNeal, 1992. Cited by National Institute on Media and the Family, 2000. 3) Clark. “The Want Makers”: 195. Cited in Marketing Madness by Michael Jacobsen and Laurie Mazur: 45. 4) Lamay, Craig, and Newton Minow. Abandoned in the Wasteland: Children, Television and the First Amendment. 1995. 5) Rocky Mountain Media Watch, Denver, 1995. 6) “Children and Advertising Fact Sheet,” Natl. Institute on Media and the Family. 7) Advertising Age. “1999 U.S. Advertising Volume.” Prepared by Robert J. Coen, McCann-Erickson Worldwide. 8) Schor, Juliet. The Overspent American. Basic Books, 1998. 9) “Zero to Six,” Kaiser Family Foundation.

VI. Political Awareness

1) Brennan Center-Wisconsin Study. Political Television Advertising. 2000. 2) Annenberg Public Policy Institute. “Issue Ads @ APPC.” 2000. 3) ibid. 4) Common Cause. Channeling Influence. Washington, DC, 1997. 5) ibid. 6) ibid. 7) Center for Media and Public Affairs Factoids. 8) Washington Post Poll, Washington Post, October, 12 1995. 9) ibid.

RealVision, an initiative to raise awareness about television’s impact on us, is a project of TV-Turnoff Network, 1200 29th Street, NW, LL #1 Washington, DC 20007 P (202) 333-9220 F (202) 333-9221 www.tvturnoff.org

20 April, 2006

Hukum Mencabut Uban:

Apa hukumnya mencabut uban dan hukum mengubah warnanya (menyemirnya)? Apa pula dalilnya ?

Mencabut uban hukumnya makruh (dibenci). Demikian pula mengubah warnanya (menyemir) dengan warna hitam hukumnya makruh.

Adapun dalil larangan mencabut uban adalah sebuah hadits dari Amru bin Syu'aib dari bapaknya dari kakeknya, bahwa Nabi Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Janganlah kalian mencabut uban karena uban itu cahaya seorang muslim. Tidaklah seorang muslim tumbuh ubannya karena (memikirkan) Islam malainkan Allah tulis untuknya (dengan sebab uban tersebut) satu kebaikan, mengangkatnya (dengan sebab uban tersebut) satu derajat, dan menghapus darinya (dengan sebab uban tersebut) satu kesalahan"

[Ahmad II/179, 210 –dan ini lafalnya, Abu Dawud No. 4202]

Begitu pula hadits dari Ka'ab bin Murrah Radhiyallahu 'anhu bahwa Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Barangsiapa yang tumbuh ubannya karena (memikirkan) Islan, maka pada hari kiamat nanti dia akan mendapatkan cahaya"

[Tirmidzi No. 1634 –dan ini lafalnya-, dan Nasa'i 3144 dengan tambahan lafal 'fii sabilillah']

Adapun dalil kemakruhan mengubah warna uban dengan warna hitam adalah berdasarkan hadits dari Jabir bin Abdullah Radhiyallahu 'anhu, dia berkata, "Pada hari ditaklukannya kota Mekkah, Abu Quhafah (ayah Abu Bakar Ash-Shiddiq Radhiyallahu 'anhu) dibawa menghadap Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam sedang rambut kepalanya putih seperti kapas, maka Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Bawalah dia ke salah seorang isterinya agar mengubah warna rambutnya dengan sesuatu (bahan pewarna) dan jauhilah warna hitam"[Hadits Riwayat Jama'ah kecuali Bukhari dan Tirmidzi] [1]

Abu Dawud No. 4212 dan Nasa'i No. 5075 telah meriwayatkan sebuah hadits dan Ibnu Abbas Radhiyallahu 'anhu, ia berkata, Rasulllah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam telah bersabda.

"Artinya : Pada akhir zaman nanti akan ada suatu kaum yang menyemir dengan warna hitam seperti arang. Mereka ini tidak akan mencium bau harumnya surga".

Adapun mengubah (menyemir) rambbut dengan inai dan katam [2] maka hukumnya sunnah, dan tidak (memyemir) dengan tumbuhan waros dan za'faron [3]. Hal ini berdasarkan hadits dari Abu Dzar Radhiyallahu 'anhu, ia berkata, Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Sesungguhnya sebaik-baik bahan untuk mengubah (menyemir) uban ini adalah inai dan katam" [Ahmad V/147, 150, 154, 156, 169. Tirmidzi No. 1752. Abu Dawud No. 4205, Nasa'i No. 5062. Ibnu Majah No. 3622]

Dan dari Ibnu Abbas Radhiyallahu 'anhu, ia berkata, 'Pernah ada seorang laki-laki melewati Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam sedang rambut ubannya disemir dengan inai, maka Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Betapa bagusnya ini".

Ibnu Abbas berkata, kemudian laki-laki lain lewat sedang rambut ubannya disemir dengan inai dan katam, maka Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Ini lebih baik dari yang tadi".

Kemudian laki-laki lain lewat sedang rambut ubannya disemir dengan warna kuning, maka Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Ini adalah yang terbaik dari semuanya" [Abu Dawud No. 4211, diriwayatkan juga oleh Ibnu Majah No. 3627]

[Disalin dari kitab Al-As'ilah wa Ajwibah Al-Fiqhiyyah Al-Maqrunah bi Al-Adillah Asy-Syar'iyyah jilid I, Disalin ulang dari Majalah Fatawa 06/I/rabi'ul Awwal 1424H -2003M]
[1] Lihat shahih Muslim No. 2102, Sunan Abu Dawud No. 4206, Sunan An-Nasa'i No. 5076 dan 5242, Sunan Ibnu Majah 3642 dan Musnad Ahmad III/316
[2] Sejenis tumbuhan yang menghasilkan waran kemerah-merahan atau kekuning-kuningan, semacam pacar.
[3] Sejenis tumbuhan yang menghasilkan waran kemerahan atau kekuningan.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...