Harga Paket Ibadah Umroh Bersama Mamah Dedeh di Jakarta Barat Hubungi 021-9929-2337 atau 0821-2406-5740 Alhijaz Indowisata adalah perusahaan swasta nasional yang bergerak di bidang tour dan travel. Nama Alhijaz terinspirasi dari istilah dua kota suci bagi umat islam pada zaman nabi Muhammad saw. yaitu Makkah dan Madinah. Dua kota yang penuh berkah sehingga diharapkan menular dalam kinerja perusahaan. Sedangkan Indowisata merupakan akronim dari kata indo yang berarti negara Indonesia dan wisata yang menjadi fokus usaha bisnis kami.

Harga Paket Ibadah Umroh Bersama Mamah Dedeh di Jakarta Barat Alhijaz Indowisata didirikan oleh Bapak H. Abdullah Djakfar Muksen pada tahun 2010. Merangkak dari kecil namun pasti, alhijaz berkembang pesat dari mulai penjualan tiket maskapai penerbangan domestik dan luar negeri, tour domestik hingga mengembangkan ke layanan jasa umrah dan haji khusus. Tak hanya itu, pada tahun 2011 Alhijaz kembali membuka divisi baru yaitu provider visa umrah yang bekerja sama dengan muassasah arab saudi. Sebagai komitmen legalitas perusahaan dalam melayani pelanggan dan jamaah secara aman dan profesional, saat ini perusahaan telah mengantongi izin resmi dari pemerintah melalui kementrian pariwisata, lalu izin haji khusus dan umrah dari kementrian agama. Selain itu perusahaan juga tergabung dalam komunitas organisasi travel nasional seperti Asita, komunitas penyelenggara umrah dan haji khusus yaitu HIMPUH dan organisasi internasional yaitu IATA. Harga Paket Ibadah Umroh Bersama Mamah Dedeh di Jakarta Barat
Ma nyo angku,angku,niniak mamak nan gadang basa batuah , sarato bapak kami silang nan bapangka karajo nan bapokok, dek ado nan manjadi ujuik jo mukasuik sarato buah rundiangan di kami taradok bapak kami silang nan bapangka karajo nan bapokok,alah koh bana kami katangahkan. (lah bananyoh) sungguahpun kapado angku,ampun diminta kapado Allah, maaf dipinto bakeh niniak mamak nan gadang basa batuah, iyo juo bak pituah rang tuo, kok tasabuik ambo di nan senteang nak dibilai kok kurang nak ditukuak.jikok nyo salah minta diasak ka nan bana, sipi nak dikatangahkan, kok tasabuik di nan bukan minta diasak ka nan iyo. kok lah iyo nan dalam pariyokan bapak kami nan baduo batigo. sambah ambo sambah baririk diparirikan diateh rumah gadang nangko. salam sa ujuik nan jo simpuah, ibarat bungka nan piawai,naraco luruih main, daun indak basibak jo basisieh indak babateh jo bahinggo. salam kapado niniak mamak nan gadang basa batuah, sandi andiko dalam kampuang tampuak jo tangkai dinagari, pusek jalo pumpunan ikan kapai tampek rang batanyo kapulang tampek babarito.Nan bak kayu gadang di tangah koto, ba urek balimbago matan, badahan cupak jo gantang, barantiang barih jo balabeh, badaun rimbun jo adat, babungo mungkin jo patuik, babuah kato nan bana. Buliah baselo di ureknyo, dapek basanda di batangnyo gantungan cupak nan duo, partamo cupak usali, kaduo cupak buatan. Salam kapado bapak kami,urang nan arih bijaksano ibaraik payuang panji marewa alam,tingginyo mannalauangi, lebanyo manyalimuti pulang pasambahan bakeh bapak kami silang sapangka karajo nan bapkok .manyo bapak kami aratinyo lah pituah di nan tuo sajak samulo rantiang bapatah ,sumue bakali,aie basauak, pangulu badiri dalam nagari.jalan duo nan baturuik kato duo nan bapakai. kok dikaji jalan nan duo, partamu jalan adaik kaduo jalan syarak. mangaji kito sapanjang jalan adaik iyolah babarih babalabeh bacupak bagantang,basuri batauladan,bajanjang naiak batango turun magaji kito sapanjang jalan syarak iyolah mangatahui iman,islam,tauhid,makrifah,sah jo bata,halal jo haram,sunaik jo paradu,haruih jo mukaruah. manyo kato nan duo,partamu kato buek,kaduo kato pusako. buek bana kadipakai pusako bana ka dirunggusi. lampisan kaji dalam nantun,nan lazim nyenyo adaik,nan bana nyenyo syarak,nan laku nyenyo kitabullah.adaik basandikan syarak syarak basandi kitabullah balampisan pulo kaji dalam nantun,bak pituah adih malayu;urang arih mangarek kuku,dikarek jo pisau sirauk,sirauik parauik batuangtuo.tuonyo elok kalantai. adaik nagari babilang suku,suku bablilang buah paruik,itulah barih nan bapahek ,ico nan bapakai. mangko dinamokan urang nan salapan indu. nagari dibari barajo,luhak di bari bapangulu. guno nagari dibari barajo;sakik bakeh maimbaukan ,mati bakeh marapuikan. guno luhak bari barajo;pai bakeh mangadu,pulang tampek babarito. diateh gadang babingkah tanah basa balingkuang aue,supayo a itu,supayo nak maharuihkan sumando manyumando dari suku lain ka bagadang lain. di nan bak sakarang nangko,lah tumbuah sumando saparti wak kami kabagadang Korong rang koto sumando nangko balarauh pulo tantangannyo. a nyo nan manjadi larauhnyo,pihak nan tadaulu alah,nan takamudian lay. dipiihak nan tadaulu alah,baiak sahari duo hari,sapakan duo pakan,alah babulan bataun lambek maso nyo. dek Allah ta'ala mantakadiekan.lah manaruah baliau anak sikabaikan. anak si kabaikkan ko duo pulo wajah nan dikanduang nyo. partamu anak sikabaikan silaki laki,kaduo anak sikabaikan si parampuan. kok mangaji kito sapanjang anak sikabaikan silaki laki iyolah, ketek dibaok kasumue,di aja mandi,di asok ,di asuah,dibari makan,dibari bagombak limo. kaganti cincin dikalngkiang kaganti ameh dalam puro, pamenan ibu jo baponyo,cahayo kampuang jo hilaman. paga nagari sumarak tapian.kok tingginyo lah bak ditambak,gadangnyo lah bak di anjuang itulah manko diambiak sariak drancuang talang,talang bak raso kabaungo. dari ketek di nanti gadang,gadang lah tau ereang jo gendeang,lah tau malu j raso ,tau di raso jo pareso,lah tau di manih aie tabu,tau dipakek tangguli. tau mamahek jo maukie,tau dirancak ragi bungo.tau di awa jo akie pakarajaan nangko, iyo lah biaso nan kadijapuik ka dijangkau urang nan kamamakai nan sapanjang adaik. tumbuah di anak sikabaikan si parampuan baitupulolah tantangannyo, ketek dibaok kasumue,di aja mandi,di asok ,di asuah,dibari makan,dibari baambuik panjang. kaganti cincin dikalngkiang kaganti ameh dalam puro, pamenan ibu jo baponyo,cahayo kampuang jo hilaman. limpapeh rumah gadang. kok tingginyo lah bak ditambak,gadangnyo lah bak di anjuang itulah manko diambiak sariak drancuang talang,talang bak raso kabaungo. dari ketek di nanti gadang,gadang lah tau ereang jo gendeang,lah tau malu j raso ,tau di raso jo pareso, tau di awa jo akie pakarajaan nangko. iyo lah nan biaso kadijauikan kadijangkaukan urang nan kamandirikan nan sapanjang adaik. di nan bak sakarang nangko,lah tumbuah dikami anak sikabaikan si parampuan kok tingginyo lah bak ditambak,gadangnyo lah bak di anjuang dari ketek di nanti gadang,gadang lah tau ereang jo gendeang,lah tau malu j raso ,tau di raso jo tau mangarok,jo malapak,tau mauleh jo mananun tau mauleh banang putuih,manbuhue indak mangasan tau di raso pareso, tau di awa jo akie pakarajaan nangko.iyo lah nan biaso kadijauikan kadijangkaukan urang namun disakarang nangko,ibaraik siriah balun bajunjuang ibaaik ayam balun barindu,itulah mangko di carikn ka junjuangan nyo adopun maso daulunyo, bapisuruah kami kabakh amai kami bacapek kaki barinngan tangan.manampuah rumah gadang nangko,dek hari kolah nan elok kutiko kolah nan baiak,ditarimo dek bundo kanduang limpapeh rumah gadang nangko, tasbuik bundo kanduang uarng nan arih bijaksno limpaeh rumah nan gadang sumarak anjuang paranginan, , badantiang lega caranonyo rancak susun siriahnyo,sikalek manih namo pinangmudonyo Ujuik kato buah rundingan, sakiro paham di kahandaki, bahubuang jo maso nan ditampuah, dek maliek di ateh rupo, basiang ateh nan tumbuah, manko padan alah di ukue janji alah di takuak. baiak lah dikami nan adie ditangah runmah gadang nangko, dituruik labuah nan panjang,jalan nan baliku.labuah panjang bakalalaran,labuah singkek pinteh maminteh,mangko tapinteh ka Korong kampuang nangko.lalu tibo tangah halaman,dibasuah kak i di tapak janjang lalu naiak ateh rumah manampakan muko nan janiah hati nan suci,manuruti padan nan alah diukue manapati janji alah di takuak, mamnjapuik manuruik adaik sutan mudo kajadi junjungan puti bungsu dikorong kampuang kami. Balampisan kaji dalam manjapuik,manantiangkan kami adaik panjapuik,adaik panjapuik nangko kin balipek kain baliwek,kain panunang saribu nunang,siriah nan diatek ameh nan dibawah uang nan limo kupang kanamonyo. Kok lah dalam barih jo balabeh dalam cupak jo gantang kabaneran kami nan katangah iyolah nak di tarimo suko,kok banamo dilua nak di kadalamkan sakian sambah j titah kami himpunkan PASAMBAHAN MANJAPUIK MARAPULAI

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 »