Free Trade

by Alan S. Blinder

For more than two centuries economists have steadfastly promoted free trade among nations as the best trade policy. Despite this intellectual barrage, many “practical” men and women continue to view the case for free trade skeptically, as an abstract argument made by ivory tower economists with, at most, one foot on terra firma. These practical people “know” that our vital industries must be protected from foreign COMPETITION.

The divergence between economists’ beliefs and those of (even well-educated) men and women on the street seems to arise in making the leap from individuals to nations. In running our personal affairs, virtually all of us exploit the advantages of free trade and comparative advantage without thinking twice. For example, many of us have our shirts laundered at professional cleaners rather than wash and iron them ourselves. Anyone who advised us to “protect” ourselves from the “unfair competition” of low-paid laundry workers by doing our own wash would be thought looney. Common sense tells us to make use of companies that specialize in such work, paying them with money we earn doing something we do better. We understand intuitively that cutting ourselves off from specialists can only lower our standard of living.
ADAM SMITH ’s insight was that precisely the same logic applies to nations. Here is how he put it in 1776:
It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.. . . If a foreign country can SUPPLY us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.
Spain, South Korea, and a variety of other countries manufacture shoes more cheaply than America can. They offer them for sale to us. Shall we buy them, as we buy the services of laundry workers, with money we earn doing things we do well—like writing computer software and growing wheat? Or shall we keep “cheap foreign shoes” out and purchase more expensive American shoes instead? It is pretty clear that the nation as a whole must be worse off if foreign shoes are kept out—even though the American shoe industry will be better off.
Most people accept this argument. But they worry about what happens if another country—say, China—can make everything, or almost everything, cheaper than we can. Will free trade with China then lead to UNEMPLOYMENT for American workers, who will find themselves unable to compete with cheaper Chinese labor? The answer (see COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE), which was provided by DAVID RICARDO in 1810, is no. To see why, let us once again appeal to our personal affairs.
Some lawyers are better typists than their secretaries. Should such a lawyer fire his secretary and do his own typing? Not likely. Though the lawyer may be better than the secretary at both arguing cases and typing, he will fare better by concentrating his energies on the practice of law and leaving the typing to a secretary. Such specialization not only makes the economy more efficient but also gives both lawyer and secretary productive work to do.
The same idea applies to nations. Suppose the Chinese could manufacture everything more cheaply than we can—which is certainly not true. Even in this worst-case scenario, there will of necessity be some industries in which China has an overwhelming cost advantage (say, toys) and others in which its cost advantage is slight (say, computers). Under free trade the United States will produce most of the computers, China will produce most of the toys, and the two nations will trade. The two countries, taken together, will get both products cheaper than if each produced them at home to meet all of its domestic needs. And, what is also important, workers in both countries will have jobs.
Many people are skeptical about this argument for the following reason. Suppose the average American worker earns twenty dollars per hour while the average Chinese worker earns just two dollars per hour. Won’t free trade make it impossible to defend the higher American wage? Won’t there instead be a leveling down until, say, both American and Chinese workers earn eleven dollars per hour? The answer, once again, is no. And specialization is part of the reason.
If there were only one industry and occupation in which people could work, then free trade would indeed force American wages close to Chinese levels if Chinese workers were as good as Americans. But modern economies are composed of many industries and occupations. If America concentrates its employment where it does best, there is no reason why American wages cannot remain far above Chinese wages for a long time—even though the two nations trade freely. A country’s wage level depends fundamentally on the PRODUCTIVITY of its labor force, not on its trade policy. As long as American workers remain more skilled and better educated, work with more capital, and use superior technology, they will continue to earn higher wages than their Chinese counterparts. If and when these advantages end, the wage gap will disappear. Trade is a mere detail that helps ensure that American labor is employed where, in Adam Smith’s phrase, it has some advantage.
Those who are still not convinced should recall that China’s trade surplus with the United States has been widening precisely as the wage gap between the two countries, while still huge, has been narrowing. If cheap Chinese labor was stealing American jobs, why did the theft intensify as the wage gap fell? The answer, of course, is that Chinese productivity was growing at enormous rates. The remarkable upward march of Chinese productivity both raised Chinese wages relative to American wages and turned China into a world competitor. To think that we can forestall the inevitable by closing our borders is to participate in a cruel self-deception. Nor should there be any worry about failing to forestall the inevitable. The fact that another country becomes wealthier does not mean that Americans must become poorer.
Americans should appreciate the benefits of free trade more than most people, for we inhabit the greatest free-trade zone in the world. Michigan manufactures cars; New York provides banking; Texas pumps oil and gas. The fifty states trade freely with one another, and that helps them all enjoy great prosperity. Indeed, one reason why the United States did so much better economically than Europe for more than two centuries is that America had free movement of goods and services while the European countries “protected” themselves from their neighbors. To appreciate the magnitudes involved, try to imagine how much your personal standard of living would suffer if you were not allowed to buy any goods or services that originated outside your home state.
A slogan occasionally seen on bumper stickers argues, “Buy American, save your job.” This is grossly misleading for two main reasons. First, the costs of SAVING jobs in this particular way are enormous. Second, it is doubtful that any jobs are actually saved in the long run.
Many estimates have been made of the cost of “saving jobs” by PROTECTIONISM. While the estimates differ widely across industries, they are almost always much larger than the wages of the protected workers. For example, one study in the early 1990s estimated that U.S. consumers paid $1,285,000 annually for each job in the luggage industry that was preserved by barriers to imports, a sum that greatly exceeded the average earnings of a luggage worker. That same study estimated that restricting foreign imports cost $199,000 annually for each textile worker’s job that was saved, $1,044,000 for each softwood lumber job saved, and $1,376,000 for every job saved in the benzenoid chemical industry. Yes, $1,376,000 a year!
While Americans may be willing to pay a price to save jobs, spending such enormous sums is plainly irrational. If you doubt that, imagine making the following offer to any benzenoid chemical worker who lost his job to foreign competition: we will give you severance pay of $1,376,000—not annually, but just once—in return for a promise never to seek work in the industry again. Can you imagine any worker turning down the offer? Is that not sufficient evidence that our present method of saving jobs is mad?
But the situation is actually worse, for a little deeper thought leads us to question whether any jobs are really saved overall. It is more likely that protectionist policies save some jobs by jeopardizing others. Why? First, protecting one American industry from foreign competition imposes higher costs on others. For example, quotas on imports of semiconductors sent the prices of memory chips skyrocketing in the 1980s, thereby damaging the computer industry. Steel quotas force U.S. automakers to pay more for materials, making them less competitive.
Second, efforts to protect favored industries from foreign competition may induce reciprocal actions in other countries, thereby limiting American access to foreign markets. In that case, export industries pay the price for protecting import-competing industries.
Third, there are the little-understood, but terribly important, effects of trade barriers on the value of the dollar. If we successfully restrict imports, Americans will spend less on foreign goods. With fewer dollars offered for sale on the world’s currency markets, the value of the dollar will rise relative to that of other currencies. At that point unprotected industries will start to suffer because a higher dollar makes U.S. goods less competitive in world markets. Once again, America’s ability to export is harmed.
On balance the conclusion seems clear and compelling: while protectionism is sold as job saving, it probably really amounts to job swapping. It protects jobs in some industries only by destroying jobs in others.
________________________________________
About the Author
Alan S. Blinder is the Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics at Princeton University. He wrote, from 1985 to 1992, a regular economics column for Business Week and is the coauthor of one of the best-selling textbooks on economics. He has served as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors and as a member of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers.
________________________________________
Further Reading
Baldwin, Robert E. The Political Economy of U.S. Import Policy. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985.
Bhagwati, Jagdish. In Defense of Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Blinder, Alan S. Hard Heads, Soft Hearts: Tough-Minded Economics for a Just Society. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1987.
Destler, I. M. American Trade Politics. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 2005.
Dixit, Avinash. “How Should the U.S. Respond to Other Countries’ Trade Policies?” In Robert M. Stern, ed., U.S. Trade Policies in a Changing World Economy. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987.
Hufbauer, Gary C., and Kimberly A. Elliott. Measuring the Costs of Protection in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1994.
Irwin, Douglas A. Free Trade Under Fire. 2d ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Lawrence, Robert Z., and Robert E. Litan. Saving Free Trade. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1986.

Free Market

by Murray N. Rothbard
”Free market” is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. These two individuals (or agents) exchange two economic goods, either tangible commodities or nontangible services. Thus, when I buy a newspaper from a newsdealer for fifty cents, the newsdealer and I exchange two commodities: I give up fifty cents, and the newsdealer gives up the newspaper. Or if I work for a corporation, I exchange my labor services, in a mutually agreed way, for a monetary salary; here the corporation is represented by a manager (an agent) with the authority to hire.

Both parties undertake the exchange because each expects to gain from it. Also, each will repeat the exchange next time (or refuse to) because his expectation has proved correct (or incorrect) in the recent past. Trade, or exchange, is engaged in precisely because both parties benefit; if they did not expect to gain, they would not agree to the exchange.
This simple reasoning refutes the argument against FREE TRADE typical of the “mercantilist” period of sixteenth- to eighteenth-century Europe and classically expounded by the famed sixteenth-century French essayist Montaigne. The mercantilists argued that in any trade, one party can benefit only at the expense of the other—that in every transaction there is a winner and a loser, an “exploiter” and an “exploited.” We can immediately see the fallacy in this still-popular viewpoint: the willingness and even eagerness to trade means that both parties benefit. In modern game-theory jargon, trade is a win-win situation, a “positive-sum” rather than a “zero-sum” or “negative-sum” game.
How can both parties benefit from an exchange? Each one values the two goods or services differently, and these differences set the scene for an exchange. I, for example, am walking along with money in my pocket but no newspaper; the newsdealer, on the other hand, has plenty of newspapers but is anxious to acquire money. And so, finding each other, we strike a deal.
Two factors determine the terms of any agreement: how much each participant values each good in question, and each participant’s bargaining skills. How many cents will exchange for one newspaper, or how many Mickey Mantle baseball cards will swap for a Babe Ruth, depends on all the participants in the newspaper market or the baseball card market—on how much each one values the cards as compared with the other goods he could buy. These terms of exchange, called “prices” (of newspapers in terms of money, or of Babe Ruth cards in terms of Mickey Mantles), are ultimately determined by how many newspapers, or baseball cards, are available on the market in relation to how favorably buyers evaluate these goods—in shorthand, by the interaction of their SUPPLY with the DEMAND for them.
Given the supply of a good, an increase in its value in the minds of the buyers will raise the demand for the good, more money will be bid for it, and its price will rise. The reverse occurs if the value, and therefore the demand, for the good falls. On the other hand, given the buyers’ evaluation, or demand, for a good, if the supply increases, each unit of supply—each baseball card or loaf of bread—will fall in value, and therefore the price of the good will fall. The reverse occurs if the supply of the good decreases.
The market, then, is not simply an array; it is a highly complex, interacting latticework of exchanges. In primitive societies, exchanges are all barter or direct exchange. Two people trade two directly useful goods, such as horses for cows or Mickey Mantles for Babe Ruths. But as a society develops, a step-by-step process of mutual benefit creates a situation in which one or two broadly useful and valuable commodities are chosen on the market as a medium of indirect exchange. This money-commodity, generally but not always gold or silver, is then demanded not only for its own sake, but even more to facilitate a reexchange for another desired commodity. It is much easier to pay steelworkers not in steel bars but in money, with which the workers can then buy whatever they desire. They are willing to accept money because they know from experience and insight that everyone else in the society will also accept that money in payment.
The modern, almost infinite latticework of exchanges, the market, is made possible by the use of money. Each person engages in specialization, or a division of labor, producing what he or she is best at. Production begins with NATURAL RESOURCES, and then various forms of machines and capital goods, until finally, goods are sold to the consumer. At each stage of production from natural resource to consumer good, money is voluntarily exchanged for capital goods, labor services, and land resources. At each step of the way, terms of exchanges, or prices, are determined by the voluntary interactions of suppliers and demanders. This market is “free” because choices, at each step, are made freely and voluntarily.
The free market and the free price system make goods from around the world available to consumers. The free market also gives the largest possible scope to entrepreneurs, who risk capital to allocate resources so as to satisfy the future desires of the mass of consumers as efficiently as possible. SAVING and INVESTMENT can then develop capital goods and increase the PRODUCTIVITY and wages of workers, thereby increasing their standard of living. The free competitive market also rewards and stimulates technological INNOVATION that allows the innovator to get a head start in satisfying consumer wants in new and creative ways.
Not only is investment encouraged, but perhaps more important, the price system, and the profit-and-loss incentives of the market, guide capital investment and production into the proper paths. The intricate latticework can mesh and “clear” all markets so that there are no sudden, unforeseen, and inexplicable shortages and surpluses anywhere in the production system.
But exchanges are not necessarily free. Many are coerced. If a robber threatens you with, “Your money or your life,” your payment to him is coerced and not voluntary, and he benefits at your expense. It is robbery, not free markets, that actually follows the mercantilist model: the robber benefits at the expense of the coerced. Exploitation occurs not in the free market, but where the coercer exploits his victim. In the long run, coercion is a negative-sum game that leads to reduced production, saving, and investment; a depleted stock of capital; and reduced productivity and living standards for all, perhaps even for the coercers themselves.
Government, in every society, is the only lawful system of coercion. TAXATION is a coerced exchange, and the heavier the burden of taxation on production, the more likely it is that ECONOMIC GROWTH will falter and decline. Other forms of government coercion (e.g., PRICE CONTROLS or restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market) hamper and cripple market exchanges, while others (prohibitions on deceptive practices, enforcement of contracts) can facilitate voluntary exchanges.
The ultimate in government coercion is SOCIALISM. Under socialist central planning the socialist planning board lacks a price system for land or capital goods. As even socialists like Robert Heilbroner now admit (see SOCIALISM), the socialist planning board therefore has no way to calculate prices or costs or to invest capital so that the latticework of production meshes and clears. The experience of the former Soviet Union, where a bumper wheat harvest somehow could not find its way to retail stores, is an instructive example of the impossibility of operating a complex, modern economy in the absence of a free market. There was neither incentive nor means of calculating prices and costs for hopper cars to get to the wheat, for the flour mills to receive and process it, and so on down through the large number of stages needed to reach the ultimate consumer in Moscow or Sverdlovsk. The investment in wheat was almost totally wasted.
Market socialism is, in fact, a contradiction in terms. The fashionable discussion of market socialism often overlooks one crucial aspect of the market: When two goods are exchanged, what is really exchanged is the property titles in those goods. When I buy a newspaper for fifty cents, the seller and I are exchanging property titles: I yield the ownership of the fifty cents and grant it to the newsdealer, and he yields the ownership of the newspaper to me. The exact same process occurs as in buying a house, except that in the case of the newspaper, matters are much more informal and we can avoid the intricate process of deeds, notarized contracts, agents, attorneys, mortgage brokers, and so on. But the economic nature of the two transactions remains the same.
This means that the key to the existence and flourishing of the free market is a society in which the rights and titles of private property are respected, defended, and kept secure. The key to socialism, on the other hand, is government ownership of the means of production, land, and capital goods. Under socialism, therefore, there can be no market in land or capital goods worthy of the name.
Some critics of the free market argue that PROPERTY RIGHTS are in conflict with “human” rights. But the critics fail to realize that in a free-market system, every person has a property right over his own person and his own labor and can make free contracts for those services. Slavery violates the basic property right of the slave over his own body and person, a right that is the groundwork for any person’s property rights over nonhuman material objects. What is more, all rights are human rights, whether it is everyone’s right to free speech or one individual’s property rights in his own home.
A common charge against the free-market society is that it institutes “the law of the jungle,” of “dog eat dog,” that it spurns human cooperation for COMPETITION and exalts material success as opposed to spiritual values, philosophy, or leisure activities. On the contrary, the jungle is precisely a society of coercion, theft, and parasitism, a society that demolishes lives and living standards. The peaceful market competition of producers and suppliers is a profoundly cooperative process in which everyone benefits and where everyone’s living standard flourishes (compared with what it would be in an unfree society). And the undoubted material success of free societies provides the general affluence that permits us to enjoy an enormous amount of leisure as compared with other societies, and to pursue matters of the spirit. It is the coercive countries with little or no market activity—the notable examples in the last half of the twentieth century were the communist countries—where the grind of daily existence not only impoverishes people materially but also deadens their spirit.
________________________________________
About the Author
Murray N. Rothbard, who died in 1995, was the S. J. Hall Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas. He was also the leading Austrian economist of the last half of the twentieth century. This article was edited slightly to reflect the demise of various communist countries.
________________________________________
Further Reading
Ballve, Faustino. Essentials of Economics. Irvington-on-Hudson: Foundation for Economic Education, 1963.
Hazlitt, Henry. Economics in One Lesson. 1946. San Francisco: Fox and Wilkes, 1996.
Mises, Ludwig von. Economic Freedom and Intervention. Edited by Bettina Greaves. Irvington-on-Hudson: Foundation for Economic Education, 1990.
Rockwell, Llewellyn Jr., ed. The Economics of Liberty. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1990.
Rockwell, Llewellyn Jr., ed. The Free Market Reader. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1988.
Rothbard, Murray N. Power and Market: Government and the Economy. 2d ed. Kansas City: Sheed, Andrews and Mcmeel, 1977.
Rothbard, Murray N. What Has Government Done to Our Money? 4th ed. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1990.

Jalan Yang Lurus

Segala puji bagi Allah yang telah menunjukkan jalan yang lurus dan mengangkat hamba terkasih-Nya sebagai pemandu menuju-Nya. Salawat dan salam semoga tercurah kepada Muhammad sebaik-baik nabi dan utusan, dan juga bagi para sahabat serta pengikutnya yang setia hingga akhir zaman. Amma ba’du.

Ayat-ayat al-Qur’an yang begitu indah dan menakjubkan, memberikan kepada kita gambaran yang jelas mengenai karakter dan hakekat jalan yang lurus. Jalan yang setiap hari kita mohon kepada Allah untuk ditunjuki kepadanya. Jalan yang akan mengantarkan penempuhnya menuju surga dan kebahagiaan, serta melemparkan orang yang melenceng darinya menuju neraka dan kesengsaraan.
Memadukan antara ilmu dan amal

Allah ta’ala berfirman (yang artinya), “Yaitu jalannya orang-orang yang Engkau beri nikmat atas mereka, bukan jalan orang-orang yang dimurkai dan bukan pula jalan orang-orang yang tersesat.” (QS. al-Fatihah: 7).

Syaikh as-Sa’di rahimahullah menerangkan bahwa hakekat jalan yang lurus itu akan diperoleh dengan cara mengenali kebenaran dan mengamalkannya (lihat Taisir al-Karim ar-Rahman, hal. 39). Syaikh Ibnu Utsaimin rahimahullah berkata, “Dengan ucapan anda ‘Ihdinash shirathal mustaqim’ itu artinya anda telah meminta kepada Allah ta’ala ilmu yang bermanfaat dan amal yang saleh.” (Tafsir Juz ‘Amma, hal. 12).

Syaikh Abdurrazzaq al-Badr hafizhahullah berkata, “Maka orang yang diberi nikmat atas mereka yaitu orang yang berilmu sekaligus beramal. Adapun orang-orang yang dimurkai yaitu orang-orang yang berilmu namun tidak beramal. Sedangkan orang-orang yang tersesat ialah orang-orang yang beramal tanpa landasan ilmu.” (Tsamrat al-’Ilmi al-’Amalu, hal. 14). Ibnul Qayyim rahimahullah menjelaskan bahwa penyebab orang terjerumus dalam kesesatan ialah rusaknya ilmu dan keyakinan. Sedangkan penyebab orang terjerumus dalam kemurkaan ialah rusaknya niat dan amalan (lihat al-Fawa’id, hal. 21)

Memadukan antara tauhid dan ketaatan

Allah ta’ala berfirman memberitakan ucapan Nabi ‘Isa ‘alaihis salam (yang artinya), “Maka bertakwalah kalian kepada Allah dan taatilah aku. Sesungguhnya Allah adalah Rabbku dan Rabb kalian, maka sembahlah Dia. Inilah jalan yang lurus.” (QS. Ali Imran: 50-51, lihat juga QS. Az-Zukhruf: 63-64).

Syaikh as-Sa’di rahimahullah berkata, “Inilah, yaitu penyembahan kepada Allah, ketakwaan kepada-Nya, serta ketaatan kepada rasul-Nya merupakan ‘jalan lurus’ yang mengantarkan kepada Allah dan menuju surga-Nya, adapun yang selain jalan itu maka itu adalah jalan-jalan yang menjerumuskan ke neraka.” (Taisir al-Karim ar-Rahman, hal. 132). Ibnul Qayyim rahimahullah berkata, “…Sesungguhnya kebenaran itu hanya satu, yaitu jalan Allah yang lurus, tiada jalan yang mengantarkan kepada-Nya selain jalan itu. Yaitu beribadah kepada Allah tanpa mempersekutukan-Nya dengan apapun, dengan cara menjalankan syari’at yang ditetapkan-Nya melalui lisan Rasul-Nya shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, bukan dengan [landasan] hawa nafsu maupun bid’ah-bid’ah…” (at-Tafsir al-Qayyim, hal. 116-117)

Dalam surat Maryam, Allah ta’ala juga memberitakan ucapan Isa ‘alaihis salam tersebut (yang artinya), “Dan sesungguhnya Allah adalah Rabbku dan Rabb kalian, maka sembahlah Dia. Inilah jalan yang lurus.” (QS. Maryam: 36).

Syaikh as-Sa’di rahimahullah menerangkan, bahwa makna ‘sembahlah Dia’ adalah: ikhlaskan ibadah kepada-Nya, bersungguh-sungguhlah dalam inabah (taubat dan semakin taat) kepada-Nya. Di dalam ungkapan ‘Sesungguhnya Allah adalah Rabbku dan Rabb kalian maka sembahlah Dia’ terkandung penetapan tauhid rububiyah dan tauhid uluhiyah, serta berargumentasi dengan tauhid yang pertama (rububiyah) untuk mewajibkan tauhid yang kedua (uluhiyah) (lihat Taisir al-Karim ar-Rahman, hal. 493)

Bahkan, Allah sendiri telah menegaskan bahwa tauhid dan ketaatan kepada-Nya inilah jalan yang lurus itu, bukan penyembahan dan ketaatan kepada syaitan. Allah ta’ala berfirman (yang artinya), “Bukankah Aku telah berpesan kepada kalian, wahai keturunan Adam; Janganlah kalian menyembah syaitan. Sesungguhnya dia adalah musuh yang nyata bagi kalian. Dan sembahlah Aku. Inilah jalan yang lurus.” (QS. Yasin: 60-61). Syaikh as-Sa’di rahimahullah menerangkan, bahwa yang dimaksud ‘mentaati syaitan’ itu mencakup segala bentuk kekafiran dan kemaksiatan. Adapun jalan yang lurus itu adalah beribadah kepada Allah, taat kepada-Nya, dan mendurhakai syaitan (lihat Taisir al-Karim ar-Rahman, hal. 698)

Perlu diingat, bahwa ketaatan kepada Rasul pada hakekatnya merupakan ketaatan kepada Allah, tidak bisa dipisahkan satu dengan yang lainnya. Allah ta’ala berfirman (yang artinya), “Barangsiapa yang taat kepada rasul itu, sesungguhnya dia telah taat kepada Allah.” (QS. an-Nisaa’: 80). Ayat ini menunjukkan bahwa semua orang yang taat kepada Rasulullah dalam hal perintah dan larangannya sesungguhnya telah taat kepada Allah ta’ala. Karena rasul tidaklah memerintah dan melarang kecuali dengan perintah dari Allah, dengan syari’at dan wahyu dari-Nya. Sehingga hal ini menunjukkan ‘ishmah/keterpeliharaan diri Rasul shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam. Karena Allah memerintahkan taat kepada beliau secara mutlak (lihat Taisir al-Karim ar-Rahman, hal. 189)

Kata Kunci

Dari pemaparan di atas, dapat disimpulkan bahwa ada empat kata kunci agar seorang hamba bisa berjalan di atas jalan yang lurus, yaitu:

1. Ilmu, karena dengan ilmu ini maka dia akan bisa membedakan mana yang benar dan mana yang salah, mana tauhid mana syirik, mana sunnah mana bid’ah, mana taat mana maksiat, dst.
2. Amal, karena dengan mengamalkan ilmunya dia akan terbebas dari kemurkaan Allah, bahkan dia akan mendapatkan tambahan petunjuk karenanya. Allah ta’ala berfirman (yang artinya), “Orang-orang yang mengikuti petunjuk itu, maka Allah akan menambahkan kepada mereka petunjuk dan Allah berikan kepada mereka ketakwaan mereka.” (QS. Muhammad: 17). Di dalam ayat yang mulia ini Allah menjanjikan dua balasan bagi orang yang mengikuti petunjuk (baca: mengamalkan ilmunya), yaitu: ilmu yang bermanfaat dan amal yang saleh (lihat Taisir al-Karim ar-Rahman, hal. 787)
3. Tauhid, karena dengan memahami dan melaksanakan tauhid maka seorang hamba telah mewujudkan tujuan hidupnya dan berada di atas jalan yang akan mengantarkannya ke surga, jika dia istiqomah di atasnya hingga ajal tiba.
4. Taat, karena dengan menjalankan perintah dan menjauhi larangan berarti dia telah menunjukkan penghambaannya kepada Allah dan kepatuhannya kepada Rasulullah, sehingga dia akan mendapatkan keberuntungan -di dunia maupun di akherat- sebagaimana yang dijanjikan oleh Allah kepada hamba-hamba-Nya yang taat kepada-Nya. Allahu a’lam

Tiga Pokok Kebahagiaan

Ibnul Qayyim rahimahullah berkata,

“Ada tiga pokok yang menjadi pondasi kebahagiaan seorang hamba, dan masing-masingnya memiliki lawan. Barangsiapa yang kehilangan pokok tersebut maka dia akan terjerumus ke dalam lawannya. [1] Tauhid, lawannya syirik. [2] Sunnah, lawannya bid’ah. Dan [3] ketaatan, lawannya adalah maksiat. Sedangkan ketiga hal ini memiliki satu musuh yang sama yaitu kekosongan hati dari rasa harap di jalan [ketaatan kepada] Allah dan keinginan untuk mencapai balasan yang ada di sisi-Nya serta ketiadaan rasa takut terhadap-Nya dan hukuman yang dijanjikan di sisi-Nya.” (al-Fawa’id, hal. 104)
Tauhid Mengantarkan Menuju Bahagia

Allah ta’ala berfirman (yang artinya), “Orang-orang yang beriman dan tidak mencampuri iman mereka dengan kezaliman/syirik, mereka itulah yang akan mendapatkan keamanan dan mereka itulah orang-orang yang diberikan petunjuk.” (QS. al-An’aam: 82). Rasulullah shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam bersabda, “Sesungguhnya Allah mengharamkan neraka atas orang yang mengucapkan la ilaha illallah dengan ikhlas mengharapkan wajah Allah.” (HR. Bukhari dan Muslim). Abdullah Ibnu Mubarak rahimahullah berkata, “Betapa banyak amalan kecil menjadi besar karena niat (yang ikhlas), dan betapa banyak amalan besar menjadi kecil karena niat (yang tidak ikhlas).”

Syirik Mengantarkan Menuju Sengsara

Allah ta’ala berfirman (yang artinya), “Sesungguhnya barangsiapa yang mempersekutukan Allah maka sungguh Allah haramkan atasnya surga dan tempat tinggalnya adalah neraka, dan tiada seorang penolongpun bagi orang-orang yang zalim itu.” (QS. al-Maa’idah: 72). Rasulullah shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam bersabda, “Barangsiapa yang berjumpa dengan Allah dalam keadaan mempersekutukan Allah dengan sesuatu apapun maka dia pasti masuk neraka.” (HR. Muslim).

Sunnah Mengantarkan Menuju Bahagia

Allah ta’ala berfirman (yang artinya), “Katakanlah (Muhammad); Jika kalian mencintai Allah, maka ikutilah aku, niscaya Allah akan mencintai kalian dan mengampuni dosa-dosa kalian.” (QS. Ali Imran: 31). Rasulullah shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam bersabda, “Islam itu datang dalam keadaan asing dan akan kembali menjadi asing sebagaimana datangnya, maka beruntunglah orang-orang yang asing.” (HR. Muslim). Imam Malik rahimahullah berkata, “Sunnah adalah [laksana] bahtera Nabi Nuh, barangsiapa yang menaikinya akan selamat, dan barangsiapa yang tertinggal akan tenggelam.”

Bid’ah Mengantarkan Menuju Sengsara

Allah ta’ala berfirman (yang artinya), “Barangsiapa yang menentang rasul setelah jelas baginya petunjuk dan dia justru mengikuti selain jalan orang-orang beriman, niscaya akan Kami biarkan dia terombang-ambing dalam kesesatannya dan Kami pun akan memasukkannya ke dalam Jahannam, dan sesungguhnya Jahannam itu adalah seburuk-buruk tempat kembali.” (QS. an-Nisaa’: 115). Rasulullah shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam bersabda, “Sejelek-jelek urusan adalah yang diada-adakan -dalam agama-, [dan setiap yang diada-adakan itu adalah bid'ah] dan setiap bid’ah pasti sesat [dan setiap kesesatan di neraka].” (HR. Muslim, tambahan dalam kurung dalam riwayat Nasa’i)

Ketaatan Mengantarkan Menuju Bahagia

Allah ta’ala berfirman (yang artinya), “Barangsiapa yang taat kepada Allah dan rasul-Nya sungguh dia akan mendapatkan keberuntungan yang sangat besar.” (QS. al-Ahzab: 71). Rasulullah shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam bersabda, “Semua umatku pasti masuk surga, kecuali yang enggan.” Para sahabat pun bertanya, “Siapakah orang yang enggan itu wahai Rasulullah?”. Beliau menjawab, “Barangsiapa mentaatiku masuk surga dan barangsiapa yang mendurhakaiku maka dialah orang yang enggan itu.” (HR. Bukhari). Ibnu Abbas radhiyallahu’anhuma berkata, “Allah menjamin bagi siapa saja yang membaca al-Qur’an dan mengamalkan ajaran yang ada di dalamnya bahwa dia tidak akan sesat di dunia dan tidak akan celaka di akherat.”

Kemaksiatan Mengantarkan Menuju Sengsara

Allah ta’ala berfirman (yang artinya), “Barangsiapa yang durhaka kepada Allah dan rasul-Nya sungguh dia telah tersesat dengan kesesatan yang amat nyata.” (QS. al-Ahzab: 36). Rasulullah shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam bersabda, “Surga diliputi dengan perkara-perkara yang tidak disenangi nafsu (ketaatan) sedangkan neraka diliputi dengan perkara-perkara yang disenangi nafsu (kemaksiatan).” (HR. Bukhari dan Muslim)

Hilangnya Harapan dan Rasa Takut

Sementara ketiga hal di atas -tauhid, sunnah, dan ketaatan- memiliki satu musuh yang sama yaitu ketiadaan rasa harap dan rasa takut. Yaitu ketika seorang hamba tidak lagi menaruh harapan atas apa yang Allah janjikan dan tidak menyimpan rasa takut terhadap ancaman yang Allah berikan. Akibat ketiadaan harap dan takut ini maka timbul berbagai dampak yang membahayakan. Di antara dampaknya adalah; [1] terlena dengan curahan nikmat sehingga lalai dari mensyukurinya, [2] sibuk mengumpulkan ilmu namun lalai dari mengamalkannya, [3] cepat terseret dalam dosa namun lambat dalam bertaubat, [4] terlena dengan persahabatan dengan orang-orang saleh namun lalai dari meneladani mereka, [5] dunia pergi meninggalkan mereka namun mereka justru senantiasa mengejarnya, [6] akherat datang menghampiri mereka namun mereka justru tidak bersiap-siap untuk menyambutnya. Ibnul Qayyim rahimahullah menerangkan bahwa ketiadaan rasa harap dan takut ini bersumber dari lemahnya keyakinan. Lemahnya keyakinan itu timbul akibat lemahnya bashirah/pemahaman. Dan lemahnya bashirah itu sendiri timbul karena jiwa yang kerdil dan rendah (lihat al-Fawa’id, hal. 170).

Bersihkan Jiwamu!

Jiwa yang kerdil dan rendah akan merasa puas dengan perkara-perkara yang hina, sementara jiwa yang besar dan mulia tentu hanya akan puas dengan perkara-perkara yang mulia (lihat al-Fawa’id, hal. 170). Allah ta’ala berfirman (yang artinya), “Sungguh berbahagia orang yang menyucikan jiwanya dan sungguh merugi orang yang mengotorinya.” (QS. asy-Syams: 9-10). Syaikh as-Sa’di rahimahullah berkata, “Yaitu orang yang menyucikan jiwanya dari dosa-dosa dan membersihkannya dari aib-aib, lalu dia meninggikannnya dengan ketaatan kepada Allah serta memuliakannya dengan ilmu yang bermanfaat dan amal saleh.” (Taisir al-Karim ar-Rahman, hal. 926). Syaikh Ibnu Utsaimin rahimahullah berkata, “Yang dimaksud penyucian di sini ialah dia menyucikan dirinya dengan cara membebaskannya dari syirik dan noda-noda maksiat, sehingga jiwanya menjadi suci dan bersih.” (Tafsir Juz ‘Amma, hal. 165)

Dari sinilah, kita menyadari betapa besar peran ilmu yang diamalkan. Oleh sebab itu, Rasulullah shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam mengajarkan kepada kita untuk senantiasa berdoa seusai sholat Subuh dengan doa yang sangat indah, Allahumma inni as’aluka ‘ilman nafi’an wa rizqan thayyiban wa ‘amalan mutaqabbalan. Yang artinya; “Ya Allah, aku memohon kepada-Mu ilmu yang bermanfaat, rezki yang baik, dan amalan yang diterima.” (HR. Ahmad dan Ibnu Majah). Rasulullah shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam juga bersabda, “Barangsiapa yang dikehendaki baik oleh Allah niscaya akan dipahamkan dalam urusan agamanya.” (HR. Bukhari dan Muslim). Sedangkan ilmu dan pemahaman seorang hamba tentang agamanya diukur dengan rasa takutnya kepada Allah. Allah ta’ala berfirman (yang artinya), “Sesungguhnya yang merasa takut kepada Allah di antara hamba-hamba-Nya hanyalah orang-orang yang berilmu.” (QS. Fathir: 28). Ibnu Mas’ud radhiyallahu’anhu berkata, “Cukuplah rasa takut kepada Allah sebagai bukti ilmu -seseorang-.”

Sunnahnya sholat Ied di tanah lapang

KELUAR MENUJU MUSHALLA
(Tanah Lapang Yang Digunakan Untuk Shalat Ied)

Dari Abu Said Al Khudri Radliallahu 'anhu, ia berkata : (Yang artinya) : “ Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam biasa keluar menuju mushalla (tanah lapang) pada hari Idul Fitri dan Idul Adha, maka pertama kali yang beliau lakukan adalah shalat ..." [Hadits Riwayat Bukhari 956, Muslim 889 dan An-Nasaa'i 3/187]
Berkata Al-Alamah Ibnul Hajj Al Maliki :

"Sunnah yang telah berlangsung dalam pelaksanaan shalat Idul Fitri dan Idul Adha adalah di mushalla (tanah lapang), karena Nabi Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda :
(Yang artinya) : “ Shalat di masjidku ini (masjid Nabawi -pen) lebih utama dari seribu shalat yang dilaksanakan di masjid lainnya kecuali masjid Al-Harram". [Hadits Riwayat Bukhari 1190 dan Muslim 1394]
Kemudian, walaupun ada keutamaan yang besar seperti ini, beliau Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam tetap keluar ke mushalla (tanah lapang) dan meninggalkan masjidnya. [Al-Madkhal 2/283].

Imam Ibnu Qudamah Al-Maqdisi menyatakan, [Al-Mughni 2/229-230] :
"Sunnah untuk melaksanakan shalat Id di tanah lapang, Ali Radliallahu 'anhu memerintahkan yang demikian dan dianggap baik oleh Al-Auza'i dan Ashabur Ra'yi. Inilah ucapan Ibnul Mundzir.” ( Untuk mengetahui dalil-dalil permasalahan ini secara mendetail, disertai bantahan terhadap syubhat orang-orang yang menyelisihi, silakan merujuk pada tulisan Syaikh Ahmad Syakir rahimahullah dalam "Syarhu Sunan Tirmidzi " (2/421-424). Dan Ustadz kami Al-Albani memiliki risalah tersendiri yang berjudul "Shalat Al-Iedain fii Mushalla Kharijal Balad Hiya Sunnah" cetakan Damaskus, silakan melihatnya, karena risalah tersebut sangat berharga.) [ ]

Siapa yang tidak mampu untuk keluar ke tanah lapang karena sakit atau umur tua, boleh shalat di masjid dan tidak ada dosa baginya Insya Allah. [Al-Mughni 2/229-230].

Di sini harus diberikan peringatan bahwa tujuan dari pelaksanaan Shalat Id di tanah lapang adalah agar terkumpul kaum muslimin dalam jumlah yang besar di satu tempat.

Namun yang kita lihat pada hari ini di banyak negeri berbilangannya mushalla (tanah lapang yang digunakan untuk shalat Id) meski tidak ada kebutuhan. Ini merupakan perkara makruh yang telah diperingatkan oleh ulama. [Lihat Nihayah Al Muhtaj 2/375 oleh Ar-Ramli].

Bahkan sebagian mushalla telah menjadi mimbar-mimbar hizbiyyah untuk memecah belah persatuan kaum muslimin.

Tiada daya upaya kecuali dengan pertolongan Allah.

(Dikutip dari Ahkaamu Al' Iidaini Fii Al-Sunnah Al-Muthahharah, edisi Indonesia Hari Raya Bersama Rasulullah, oleh Syaikh Ali bin Hasan bin Ali Abdul Hamid Al-Halabi Al-Atsari, Pustaka Al-Haura', penerjemah Ummu Ishaq Zulfa Hussein)