Powered By Blogger

Jumat, 21 Oktober 2011

IKPM Musi Banyuasin Yogyakarta : Memahami Islam melalui Sejarah Penyebarannya



Pada hari Rabu, tanggal 20 Oktober 2011 , terasa ada sesuatu yang berbeda di Aula Asrama Putri Randik. Asrama yang bealamat di Jl Melati Wetan No 60 Yogyakarta dan dipriorotaskan sebagai tempat tinggal bagi warga Musi Banyuasin putri yang sedang menimba ilmu dijogja ini ramai dengan kehadiran mahasiswa. Aula yang pada hari biasa gelap, hari itu menjadi terang benderang, lantai dihiasi dengan tikar membujur, aula dihias dengan  sebuah panggung komplit dengan bunga penghias, dan sebuah Tumpeng Sedang, yang rupanya symbol peringatan hari kelahiran IKPM MUBA Yogyakarta.
Di malam Kamis yang meriah itu ada sebuah pengajian yang diprakarsai oleh departemen Bimbingan mental dan Rohani (red. Bintaro) dengan ketuanya Abdul Aziz (Gradus) dan sekaligus acara  peringatan hari jadi  IKPM Musi Banyuasin Yogyakarta, yang lahir pada tanggal 5 oktober 1958. Acara tersebut dihadiri oleh mahasiswa dari berbagai penjuru Yogyakarta dengan latar belakang Universitas yang berbeda-beda, mahasiswa tersebut tentunya berasal dari daerah Musi Banyuasin Sematera Selatan, namun ada juga teman-teman dari luar MUBA yang hadir dalam acara tersebut. Oleh karenannya, acara tersebut selain sebagai wahana menimba ilmu, juag kesempatan untuk saling mengenal kawan yang bersal dari Musi Banyuasin.
Tema pengajian pada malam itu adalah (setelah penulis simpulkan sendiri, hehe) “Memahami Islam di Nusantara dari Sejarah Penyebarannya”.  Sedangkan yang menjadi nara sumber pada pengajian tersebut adalah Ahmad Muafik. Gaya beliau membawakan ceramah sungguh memikat, terbukti dengan antusiasnya teman-teman mahasiswa dalam menyimak dan merespon ceramah yang disampaikan Bapak Muafik, selain itu ada juga teman yang antusias dengan  sesi tanya jawab yang diberikan oleh sang MC. Selain sering mengisi acara pengajian Bapak Muafik juga menjadi nara sumber pada diskusi ilmuwan Eropa yang tertarik dengan perkembangan Islam di Indonesia, dimana agama Islam bisa berkembang pesat. Pada sesi tanggapan pertanyaan beliau juga menerangkan lebih rinci tentang hubungan perkembangan Islam dan budaya yang ada di Indonesia, seperti asal muasal kata puasa dan sembahyang yang sanagt familiar dikalangan umat Muslim. Singkatnya cerah yang beliau sampaikan sangat rinci, berurutan, dan mudah untuk dicerna.  Selain itu dibahas pula latar belakang munculnya aliran-aliran dalam Islam yang akhir-akhir ini makin banyak tapi dengan ajaran yang agak aneh.
Setelah usai acara pengajian yang memberikan banyak kesan tersebut, acara pada malam hari itu dilanjutkan dengan pemotongan tumpeng oleh Bapak Ahmad Taufik untuk memperingati hari jadi IKPM MUBA Yogyakarta, kemudian delanjutkan dengan acara makan bersama, tidak ketinggal pula makanan khas Sumatera Selatan, pem-pek , yang sudah siap sedia untuk disantap. Acara selesai sekitar jam 22.00. acara pengajian kali ini sungguh memberikan kesan tersendiri bagi teman-teman IKPM Musi Banyuasin Yogyakarta.

Sabtu, 15 Oktober 2011

WAS HAMLET BELIEF HIMSELF CRAZY?


            Was Hamlet belief himself crazy? No, he was not. There are some indication can be used to say whether someone is crazy or not. Firstly, someone should have mental instability and abnormal behavior. Secondly, someone who is crazy has a condition that driving to operate outside of societal norms (www.wisegeek.com). As far as I know from the play, Hamlet still uses his mind to think what he does. Hamlet did not show the indicator of insanity that I stated above. I will not say that Hamlet is totally not crazy in this play. After the death of Hamlet’s father, there are many occurrences that shaking Hamlet’s mentality.
            In the play, Hamlet is pretending to be crazy because he want to revenge his uncle, King Claudius. To show that my answer to this question is right, I will explain my reasons why I am really sure that Hamlet is not crazy and I will give the evidences to support my arguments. The first, someone will be called as crazy man if he has mental instability. It does not happen to Hamlet. In Act 1 Scene 1, Hamlet says “O, that this too too solid flesh would melt. Thaw and resolved itself into a dew! or that the everlasting had not fixed. His canon ‘gaist self-slaughter! O God! God! How weary, stale, flat and profitable. Seem to me all the uses of this world!”. 
In Hamlet’s soliloquy above, Hamlet is not a person with mental instability although he just feels the deep condolence of his father’s death. He only suppressed because he thinks that the God made as if the suicidal is legal to him and it is accepted by the God. By the condition that Hamlet has at that time, Hamlet thinks that leaving the world is better to him. To my opinion, it is a common feeling if someone suffers from a lose one that he loves then he feels depression. Moreover, the king Hamlet is a great figure to Hamlet because Hamlet is closer to his father than to his mother. It can be seen from Hamlet’s answer when Horatio comes to him to see his father’s funeral but then, Hamlet says “I think it was to see my mother’s wedding”. Hamlet says like that because he very disappointed with his mother decision to marry his uncle soon after his father’s death.
            Hamlet does not have mental instability because he only thinks about suicide. It means that Hamlet is still able to control himself and thinks normally like other people. The man with the mental instability will not think about suicide but he will do suicidal action. If Hamlet is a mental instability person certainly he will do suicide but he did not. So, Hamlet is not a crazy person because he does not qualify for the first requisite.
            The second reason for person which is crazy is abnormal behaviors. After Hamlet meets his father’s spirit that asks him to do avenge to King Claudius, Hamlet starts pretending to be a crazy man. In Act 2 Scene 2, there is a conversation between Lord Polonius and Hamlet. Hamlet speaks as if he does not know who Lord Polonius is. For example in the conversation
Lord Polonius: How does my good Lord Hamlet?
Hamlet: Well, God-a-mercy.
Lord Polonius: Do you know me, my lord?
Hamlet: Excellent well; you are a fishmonger.
Lord Polonius: Not I, my lord.
Hamlet: Then I would you were so honest a man.

According to the madness theory above Hamlet is a crazy man. The conversation above shows that Hamlet has abnormal behavior because he cannot remember who Lord Polonius is. Whereas Hamlet knows that Lord Polonius is chief minister to king Hamlet. When Lord Polonius questions Hamlet, Hamlet replays with strange answers. However, this is only Hamlet’s trick to success his revenge against his uncle. He pretends to be crazy in order to deceive people in the castle except Horatio. Horatio knows that Hamlet is not crazy and he must keep the secret. Besides Hamlet’s pretending to become a crazy man, there is something that interesting to me. It is Hamlet’s answer when Polonius asks about Hamlet’s condition. Hamlet answered “Well, God-a-mercy” just like normal people. Actually, if Lord Polonius gives attention to this answer, he will know that Hamlet is pretending to be crazy.
In Act 3 Scene 1, when Ophelia and Hamlet have a conversation. Ophelia says “O heavenly powers, restore him!”. Then Hamlet says “I have heard of your paintings too, well enough;”. Ophelia’s statement indicates that Hamlet is seriously a crazy man because of Hamlet’s abnormal talking to Ophelia. When Hamlet talks to Ophelia, he speaks so coarsely so Ophelia thinks that Hamlet really becomes a crazy man. Nevertheless, Hamlet loves Ophelia very much, he just does not want that Ophelia knows his revenge plan. To deceive Ophelia, Hamlet speaks as if he cannot control his mind. Hamlet’s love to Ophelia can be known from Hamlet’s statement in Act 5 scene 1. Hamlet says “I loved Ophelia: forty thousand brothers could not, with all their quantity of love, make up my sum”.
The third, someone will be considered as a crazy or mad person if someone has a condition that driving him/her to operate outside of societal norms. People life is surrounded by societal norms. In this play, After Hamlet hears the true story of his father’s death from the ghost. Hamlet intends to do revenge and wants to kill his uncles, Claudius.
Based on the theory above a killer is a crazy person because it can break societal norms. The problem is, did Hamlet kill Claudius based on his revenge plan?. In the beginning of Hamlet’s revenge plan, it is true that Hamlet has strong intention to kill Claudius. But, When Hamlet has the opportunity to kill Claudius, he tows it. Hamlet tows for killing Claudius because Hamlet thinks that it will be useless to kill a man after his forswearing. To my opinion, Hamlet will kill Claudius if Hamlet is a crazy man without thinking of King Claudius’s forswearing. But He still consider in murdering King Claudius. This is another evidence to prove that Hamlet is not crazy because he can control his mind.
There is also a tragic killing when Hamlet was speaking in Queen Gertrude’s bed room. Hamlet killed Lord Polonius accidentally. In Act 3 scene 4, Hamlet says “Nay, I know not: Is it the king?. It is the evidence that Hamlet does not really want to kill Lord Polonius. He thinks that Polonius is King Claudius because Lord Polonius enters his mother bed room. This killing happens as the result of Hamlet’s strong willing to kill King Claudius.
In Act 5 Scene 2, King Claudius wants to kill Hamlet by giving poisoned drink to Hamlet. Unfortunately, Queen Gertrude drunk it and she died. When the queen is dying, she said ”No, no the drink, the drink,--O my dear Hamlet,-- The drink, the drink! I am poison’d”. After hearing his mother Hamlet gets very angry and kills King Claudius. So, it can be conclude that Hamlet does not kill King Claudius based on revenge but based on his mother death.
Finally, talking about Hamlet’s madness, sometime it is confusing. At the first time Hamlet just pretends to be crazy but in Act 3 Scene 2 Hamlet says “My tongue and soul in this be hypocrites”. In this case, Hamlet confuses himself whether he is a crazy or not because what he does and what he says are different. However, to my opinion, Hamlet is not belief himself crazy. What I say is based on my explanations and also the evidences. Although, Hamlet did the violence but he did not intend to do that. Hamlet only wants to revenge the murder of his father.




Hamlet as A Tragic Hero

Hamlet as a Tragic Hero
William Shakespeare is the greatest playwright of English language. He wrote more than 30 plays along his lifetime. All of his plays can be categorized under history, comedy, or tragedy. The tragedy of Hamlet is the most popular an d greatest Shakespeare’s tragedy. The tragedy of Hamlet is very complex. It seems the displaying of Shakespeare’s genius. The tragedy of Hamlet is the most notoriously problematic of Shakespeare’s plays and questions about it still bedevil commentators after almost 400 years.
Shakespeare’s basic resource for Hamlet was the Ur-Hamlet (1588). A play on the same subject that is known to have been popular in London in the 1580s but for which no text survives. This work is believed to have been written by Thomas which was apparently derived from a tale in Francois Belleforest’s collection with the title “Histoires Traqiques” (1580). Although Shakespeare knew Belleforest’s work, he adopted a central element of Hamlet, the Ghost, from the lost work, suggests that it was Shakespeare’s chief source.
The tragedy of Hamlet by Shakespeare can be categorized as heroic tragedy because it crosses between epic and tragedy.  Hamlet was classed with the problem plays that term was first Shakespeare’s works of the early 17th century. Like others tragedies, this tragedy deals with sex and death and with the psychological and social tensions arising from these basic facts of life. Like the problem plays, Hamlet treats these issues without clear resolutions, on the contrary leaving us with complicated, highly emotional responses that cause both satisfaction and pain as in a real life.
Hamlet concerns the murder of the king of Denmark and the murdered king’s son’s quest for revenge. The main character, Hamlet, possesses a tragic flaw which obstructs his desire for revenge and finally brings about his death. This tragic flaw makes him a tragic hero, a character who is destroyed because of a major weakness, as his death at the end could possibly have been avoided were it not his tragic flaw. Hamlet’s flaw of hesitating, the uncertainty on how to act or proceed, is shown when Hamlet sees a play and the passion the actors had, after Hamlet’s third soliloquy, in Hamlet’s fourth soliloquy, and in Hamlet’s indecisive pursuit in avenging his father’s death.

First, Hamlet's flaw of irresolution is shown when he sees a play and the passion one particular actor had. A group of players has arrived and Hamlet arranges a personal viewing of The Murder of Gonzago with a small portion of his own lines inserted.  Hamlet then observes one portion of the play in which one of the players put on a great display of emotion.  Hamlet, besieged by guilt and self-contempt, remarks in his second soliloquy of Hamlet of the emotion this player showed despite the fact that the player had nothing to be emotional about. Hamlet observed that he himself had all the reason in the world to react with great emotion and sorrow, yet he failed to show any that could compare with the act of the player.  Hamlet calls himself a "rogue and peasant slave" and a "dull and muddy-mettled rascal" who, like a "John-a-dreams", can take no action. Hamlet continues his fiery speech by degrading himself and resoluting to take some sort of action to revenge his father's death.

     Next, Hamlet's flaw of irresolution is shown after his third soliloquy, the famed "To be or not to be" lines.  Hamlet directly identifies his own tragic flaw, remarking of his own inability to act. Hamlet, unsure whether or not the his uncle Claudius was responsible for his father's murder, schemes to have The Murder of Gonzago presented to the royal court, with a few minor changes, so its contents would closely resemble the circumstances behind the murder. Reflecting on his own guilt, he talks of death, referring to it as the undiscovered country, and then continues by riddling his own feelings.  He declares "conscience does make cowards of us all" and that the natural ruddy complexion of one intent, or resolute, on an action is "sicklied" over with the "pale cast of thought".  This makes an individual second guess his own actions and often times take no action at all, due to his own irresolution.  These statements not only applied to what had occurred up to that point but also foreshadowed what was to occur.

     Next, Hamlet's flaw of irresolution is shown during his fourth soliloquy. Fortinbras, the Prince of Norway, and his army have passed by Hamlet and his escorts.  Hamlet sees the action Fortinbras was taking in fighting and then examines Fortinbras's efforts and bravery in an attempt to rekindle his own desire for revenge against Claudius for his father's death.  Hamlet remarks how everything around him attempts to "spur my dull revenge", yet he takes no action. He notices how he thinks "too precisely on an event" and that he has "cause, and will, and strength, and means" to get revenge and how the evidence pointing to Claudius as his father's killer is as evident as earth itself.  Hamlet finally decides "my thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!"  He has finally decided he must take action against Claudius in some form or fashion.

     Last, Hamlet's indecisive pursuit in avenging his father's death is shown as evidence of his tragic flaw.  Hamlet encounters numerous opportunities to kill Claudius, yet he always comes up with some excuse preventing action.  After first hearing of the crime from his father's ghost, Hamlet immediately sets out to take action.  Hamlet then began to think that perhaps his father's ghost was conjured by the devil in an attempt to make Hamlet become irrational and kill Claudius, who might happen to be innocent, which would forever damn his soul. Hamlet then schemes to determine Claudius's guilt through the play.   Claudius views the play and becomes very uncomfortable with the situation to the point of stopping the play and leaving.  This confirms Claudius's guilt to Hamlet, and Hamlet again sets out to avenge his father's death.  Hamlet then catches Claudius in prayer, a rare time he will find Claudius alone.  Hamlet, again, begins to think how Claudius will have had his sins forgiven and that he wants to damn Claudius's soul.  Hamlet resolves to wait and kill Claudius at another time.  Claudius, through all of this, realizes Hamlet knows of his crime and plots to have Hamlet killed by first sending him to England and then having him murdered.  Hamlet escapes this ploy and Claudius plots again to have Hamlet killed in a fencing match.  At the fencing match, Hamlet is wounded by a poisoned strike with the foil.  Hamlet, in a dying act, kills Claudius by making him drink poison. Hamlet's flaw of irresolution essentially destroyed him, as his failure to act in previous situations led to his own death.

     Hamlet's irresolution is obvious in his actions after viewing the emotion of the actors, after his third soliloquy, in his fourth soliloquy, and in his indecisive pursuit of revenge for his father's death.  Hamlet was able to avenge his father's death, but his own death due to his irresolution labels him as a tragic hero.  The Tragedy of Hamlet masterfully shows how the inability to act, however noble the intentions, can be detrimental to character.