paket umroh plus turki

Setiap tahunnya biaya naik haji baik haji reguler maupun haji khusus / plus pasti berbeda-beda, Call/Wa. 0851-00-444-682 hal ini dikarenakan adanya perubahan komponen harga untuk kebutuhan pokok naik haji seperti biaya transportasi dan akomodasi termasuk living cost yang dibutuhkan jamaah selama berada di tanah suci sangat fluktuatif. Selain menyediakan paket-paket haji onh plus, umrah dan tour muslim sebagai bentuk layanan yang tersedia, Travel Aida Tourindo Wisata juga berusaha menghadirkan mutowif (pembimbing) ibadah umroh haji yang ahli dan mendalami bidang Fiqih Islam, terutama untuk masalah ibadah umrah dan haji.

Kami berusaha memberikan bimbingan mulai sebelum berangkat, saat pelaksanaan dan setelah ibadah haji dan umroh, ini sebagai bentuk tanggung jawab moral kami kepada jamaah, bahwa ibadah yang dijalani telah sah sesuai petunjuk Allah dan Sunnah Nabi Muhammad SAW. Travel kami juga menggunakan penerbangan yang langsung landing Madinah sehingga jamaah bisa nyaman selama perjalanan umroh bersama kami. tata cara pendaftaran ibadah haji plus 2019

Mitos memang sudah melekat sejak lama di bumi Nusantara, salah satunya di Jawa. Mitos yang didefinisikan sebagai cerita prosa rakyat yang telah menceritakan kisah-kisah lama berisi penafsiran tentang alam semesta dan keberadaan makhluk di dalamnya.

Bagi sebagian masyarakat, terutama para penuturnya, Mitos ini dianggap benar-benar terjadi. Misalnya mitos keangkeran dua kabupaten, yakni Kediri dan Bojonegoro di Jawa Timur yang telah menjadi pantangan presiden RI untuk dikunjungi.

Konon, mitos yang berkembang di tengah masyarakat setempat, bila presiden RI berkunjung ke dua daerah itu bakal lengser. Entah karena kebetulan atau tidak, tapi beberapa presiden yang telah berkunjung ke Kediri--sebelum Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY)--selalu lengser.

Presiden Soekarno, BJ Habibie dan Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), lengser setelah tak lama berkunjung ke kota tahu itu. Bahkan sepanjang pemerintahannya selama 32 tahun, Soeharto tidak pernah menginjakkan kaki ke Kediri.

Dalam riwayat Babat Kadhiri, konon telah terdapat kutukan pada kerajaan Kediri tatkala terlibat dalam peperangan dengan musuh. Bunyinya, "Jika pasukan Kediri menyerang musuh di daerah lawan lebih dulu akan selalu memenangkan pertempuran, akan tetapi sebaliknya jika musuh langsung menyerang ke pusat kerajaan Kediri lebih dulu maka musuh itu akan selalu berhasil memperoleh kemenangan yang gemilang."

Barangkali karena kutukan itulah konon para presiden RI selalu menghindari untuk singgah ke kota Kediri dalam setiap perjalanan di wilayah Jawa Timur. Ada yang menafsirkan, tatkala presiden berani singgah ke Kediri, maka posisi mereka bakal mudah diserang oleh musuh atau lawan politiknya.

Namun kisah tutur masyarakat setempat telah mengaitkan kutukan itu dengan tempat, misalnya Simpang Lima Gumul di Kediri, yang dipercaya sebagai pusat Kerajaan Kediri. Sementara kisah lain mengaitkan mitos dengan kutukan Sungai Brantas yang telah menjadi tapal batas Kerajaan Kediri, yakni bila ada raja, kini disebut presiden, masuk ke Kediri melewati Sungai Berantas maka akan lengser.

Boleh percaya boleh tidak, tapi Presiden SBY juga pernah mendengar cerita itu, dan untuk menghormatinya memilih melewati jalan melingkat lewat Blitar sebelum ke Kediri menemui korban letusan Gunung Kelud.

"Kemarin saya mau ke Kediri, sms masuk luar biasa, Pak SBY jangan ke kediri nanti anda jatuh," kata Presiden SBY saat membuka Musyawarah Nasional FKPPI, di Caringin Bogor, 29 Oktober 2007.

Kabupaten yang telah memiliki mitos mirip adalah Bojonegoro. Konon, dari enam presiden di Indonesia, hanya Soekarno yang pernah menginjakkan kaki di daerah yang lekat dengan legenda Angling Dharma itu.

"Tidak ada satu presiden yang menginjakkan kakinya di sini. Tidak tahu kenapa," kata Gus Mul, salah seorang tokoh masyarakat di Bojonegoro saat berbincang Senin lalu.

Namun, dari cerita yang dia tahu, ada mitos yang beredar di kalangan masyarakat bahwa jika presiden mampir di Bojonegoro, dia akan turun dari tahta. Sebagai seorang tokoh pemuka agama, Gus Mul telah mengenyampingkan mitos tersebut. "Itu hanya mitos. Kalau mau datang ya datang saja," ujar Gus Mul.

Memang belum banyak fakta mitos ini terjadi di Bojonegoro. Namun agaknya kisah tutur masyarakat setempat memang ada, misalnya orang-orang tua dulu yang menyebut pantang dalam peperangan lebih dulu menyeberangi bengawan sore (sekarang bengawan Solo). Barang siapa yang menyeberang lebih dulu pasti bakal kalah. Kisah ini telah terbukti dalam kisah peperangan hebat di bengawan Solo yang menewaskan Arya Penangsang alias Aryo Jipang, penguasa Kadipaten Jipang.

Arya Penangsang tewas bersama kudanya si Garak Rimang, setelah dikeroyok prajurit Sultan Pajang, Sultan Hadiwijaya alias Maskarebet atau Jaka Tingkir. Dalam cerita buku Babad Tanah Jawi yang disusun oleh W.L. Olthof di Leiden, Belanda pada 1941, untuk membunuh Arya Penangsang yang pemberang itu memang sulit karena kesaktiannya tiada tanding. Namun akhirnya Arya Penangsang mati dicacah pedang dan tombak setelah dia melanggar kutukan, yakni menyerang lebih dulu dengan menyeberang bengawan.

Mitos keangkeran 2 kabupaten jadi pantangan dikunjungi presiden

WASHINGTON — The former deputy director of the C.I.A. asserts in a forthcoming book that Republicans, in their eagerness to politicize the killing of the American ambassador to Libya, repeatedly distorted the agency’s analysis of events. But he also argues that the C.I.A. should get out of the business of providing “talking points” for administration officials in national security events that quickly become partisan, as happened after the Benghazi attack in 2012.

The official, Michael J. Morell, dismisses the allegation that the United States military and C.I.A. officers “were ordered to stand down and not come to the rescue of their comrades,” and he says there is “no evidence” to support the charge that “there was a conspiracy between C.I.A. and the White House to spin the Benghazi story in a way that would protect the political interests of the president and Secretary Clinton,” referring to the secretary of state at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But he also concludes that the White House itself embellished some of the talking points provided by the Central Intelligence Agency and had blocked him from sending an internal study of agency conclusions to Congress.

Photo
 
Michael J. Morell Credit Mark Wilson/Getty Images

“I finally did so without asking,” just before leaving government, he writes, and after the White House released internal emails to a committee investigating the State Department’s handling of the issue.

A lengthy congressional investigation remains underway, one that many Republicans hope to use against Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 election cycle.

In parts of the book, “The Great War of Our Time” (Twelve), Mr. Morell praises his C.I.A. colleagues for many successes in stopping terrorist attacks, but he is surprisingly critical of other C.I.A. failings — and those of the National Security Agency.

Soon after Mr. Morell retired in 2013 after 33 years in the agency, President Obama appointed him to a commission reviewing the actions of the National Security Agency after the disclosures of Edward J. Snowden, a former intelligence contractor who released classified documents about the government’s eavesdropping abilities. Mr. Morell writes that he was surprised by what he found.

Advertisement

“You would have thought that of all the government entities on the planet, the one least vulnerable to such grand theft would have been the N.S.A.,” he writes. “But it turned out that the N.S.A. had left itself vulnerable.”

He concludes that most Wall Street firms had better cybersecurity than the N.S.A. had when Mr. Snowden swept information from its systems in 2013. While he said he found himself “chagrined by how well the N.S.A. was doing” compared with the C.I.A. in stepping up its collection of data on intelligence targets, he also sensed that the N.S.A., which specializes in electronic spying, was operating without considering the implications of its methods.

“The N.S.A. had largely been collecting information because it could, not necessarily in all cases because it should,” he says.

The book is to be released next week.

Mr. Morell was a career analyst who rose through the ranks of the agency, and he ended up in the No. 2 post. He served as President George W. Bush’s personal intelligence briefer in the first months of his presidency — in those days, he could often be spotted at the Starbucks in Waco, Tex., catching up on his reading — and was with him in the schoolhouse in Florida on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when the Bush presidency changed in an instant.

Mr. Morell twice took over as acting C.I.A. director, first when Leon E. Panetta was appointed secretary of defense and then when retired Gen. David H. Petraeus resigned over an extramarital affair with his biographer, a relationship that included his handing her classified notes of his time as America’s best-known military commander.

Mr. Morell says he first learned of the affair from Mr. Petraeus only the night before he resigned, and just as the Benghazi events were turning into a political firestorm. While praising Mr. Petraeus, who had told his deputy “I am very lucky” to run the C.I.A., Mr. Morell writes that “the organization did not feel the same way about him.” The former general “created the impression through the tone of his voice and his body language that he did not want people to disagree with him (which was not true in my own interaction with him),” he says.

But it is his account of the Benghazi attacks — and how the C.I.A. was drawn into the debate over whether the Obama White House deliberately distorted its account of the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens — that is bound to attract attention, at least partly because of its relevance to the coming presidential election. The initial assessments that the C.I.A. gave to the White House said demonstrations had preceded the attack. By the time analysts reversed their opinion, Susan E. Rice, now the national security adviser, had made a series of statements on Sunday talk shows describing the initial assessment. The controversy and other comments Ms. Rice made derailed Mr. Obama’s plan to appoint her as secretary of state.

The experience prompted Mr. Morell to write that the C.I.A. should stay out of the business of preparing talking points — especially on issues that are being seized upon for “political purposes.” He is critical of the State Department for not beefing up security in Libya for its diplomats, as the C.I.A., he said, did for its employees.

But he concludes that the assault in which the ambassador was killed took place “with little or no advance planning” and “was not well organized.” He says the attackers “did not appear to be looking for Americans to harm. They appeared intent on looting and conducting some vandalism,” setting fires that killed Mr. Stevens and a security official, Sean Smith.

Mr. Morell paints a picture of an agency that was struggling, largely unsuccessfully, to understand dynamics in the Middle East and North Africa when the Arab Spring broke out in late 2011 in Tunisia. The agency’s analysts failed to see the forces of revolution coming — and then failed again, he writes, when they told Mr. Obama that the uprisings would undercut Al Qaeda by showing there was a democratic pathway to change.

“There is no good explanation for our not being able to see the pressures growing to dangerous levels across the region,” he writes. The agency had again relied too heavily “on a handful of strong leaders in the countries of concern to help us understand what was going on in the Arab street,” he says, and those leaders themselves were clueless.

Moreover, an agency that has always overvalued secretly gathered intelligence and undervalued “open source” material “was not doing enough to mine the wealth of information available through social media,” he writes. “We thought and told policy makers that this outburst of popular revolt would damage Al Qaeda by undermining the group’s narrative,” he writes.

Instead, weak governments in Egypt, and the absence of governance from Libya to Yemen, were “a boon to Islamic extremists across both the Middle East and North Africa.”

Mr. Morell is gentle about most of the politicians he dealt with — he expresses admiration for both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama, though he accuses former Vice President Dick Cheney of deliberately implying a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq that the C.I.A. had concluded probably did not exist. But when it comes to the events leading up to the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq, he is critical of his own agency.

Mr. Morell concludes that the Bush White House did not have to twist intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s alleged effort to rekindle the country’s work on weapons of mass destruction.

“The view that hard-liners in the Bush administration forced the intelligence community into its position on W.M.D. is just flat wrong,” he writes. “No one pushed. The analysts were already there and they had been there for years, long before Bush came to office.”

Ex-C.I.A. Official Rebuts Republican Claims on Benghazi Attack in ‘The Great War of Our Time’

Artikel lainnya »