India is the land of multifaceted landscapes. Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Christianity, Jainism, Parse, Judaism as well as other isms are very much a part of the landscape. It is a multi-religious, multi-lingual, multi-cultural society. Even though Hinduism is the religion of the majority in India, but some 20 percent of the total population in India follows different other believes. Muslims are the second largest community after Hindus and followed by Sikhism and others.
The various elements of the Indian community have emerged as a single united entity that is known as India. It is very much like the Indonesian community that is varied and heterogeneous. It is not surprising that Indian community also faces problems that any other heterogeneous society is facing. So even though Indians are known to be tolerant and respectful to others, communal hiccups are, however, phenomena that cannot be missed since the beginning of India’s independence.
It was in the early 1940s that a proponent of a Hindu rightwing movement, Hindu Mahasabha, proposed a two nations theory for India, a Hindustan for the Hindus and Pakistan for the Muslims. The theory was later re-packaged and proposed by M.A. Jinnah of the Muslim League in the mid 1940s and was finally approved by the British Government for the creation of the modern day India and Pakistan.
The Indian Partition of August 1947 was the biggest mistake of history in which thousands or even millions of innocent lives fell victim to the greed and lust for power of a few individuals. The Partition bore witness to the worst communal history in the 20th century. Religious affiliations have put the Indian people in a very difficult situation in which conscience was lost and they were left to the options of to kill or to be killed. Indian Partition of 1947 was the blackest chapter in the history of the Indian sub-continent.
Moving on into the independent India, the traits of communal disharmony is very much apparent as well as communal harmony in Indian society in which several large scales of communal clashes occurred and have left thousands of innocent lives killed in the name of religion. Politics have left many of these innocent lives to suffer.
In the 1980s India witnessed Hindu – Sikh communal violence in which thousands of innocent souls departed. A larger scale of communal violence had flared up in the early 1990s when Hindu activists claimed that at the very site of a mosque in Ayodhya built by a Muslim ruler, Babar, was once the birthplace of the Hindu god Ram. Thus they had to destroy the old mosque to make way of a temple construction. Politicians from the rightwing Hindu nationalist group took advantage of this situation and ignited the anger and religious sentiments of the majority community who then targeted the Indian Muslims and branded them as the invaders of the Hindu civilization that must be expelled. The violence in Ayodhya spread as far as Mumbai in Maharashtra.
Every one thought that the Ayodhya tragedy in the 1990s was to be the last communal violence ever to have occurred in the modern day India. However, India was shocked by a seemingly choreographed communal violence in 2002 in Gujarat in which an angry mob ransacked and killed thousands of innocent people after a freak train accident had killed some 50 kar sevaks (Hindu pilgrims) in a fire that burnt the coach of a train in Godra, Gujarat.
The communal violence that erupted after this train incident was seen by many as a choreographed and sponsored violence by certain political group as a strategy to win the support of the people, a similar scenario that was used in the 1990s of Ayodhya violence.
In last week of October 2005, during the busy days of a Hindu festival of Diwali and an approaching day of Muslim festival of Eid-ul-Fitr, series of bomb blasts rocked the Capital in which more than 50 innocent people have been killed and several others have been injured. Luckily, no communal flare up arose from this incident.
Yesterday evening, another series of bomb blast rocked the very city of Hinduism: Varanasi. 12 people have been reportedly killed and several others have been injured. This attack on the heartland of Hinduism is a clear sign by certain individuals or groups to ignite some communal sentiments of the majority communities for some personal or political gain, a grim reminder of the 1990s Ayodhya violence.
The governments, both in New Delhi and the state government of Uttar Pradesh, have quickly condemned the attack as an irresponsible act of terror and appealed to the people to remain calm and cautious. Security has been beefed up throughout the country and an appeal to maintain communal harmony has come from different quarters.
It is now the need of the hour to keep vigil and cautious toward any provocative actions by certain groups or individuals who want to break the tradition of harmony and tolerance that long has been practiced in India. The communal violence that occurred in the earlier periods must be taken as hard lessons that need to be remembered and avoided in the future.
Democratic tradition in India has long been entrenched in the society and such kind of provocation should not let the conscience of the people to be replaced by anger and sentiments that are destructive. Preserving communal harmony in a heterogeneous society is an important key to build a strong and powerful society. Falling victim to communal disharmony and intolerance will only lead to destruction and disintegration.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Conflicting Democracies
There is a concept in political science that a democracy will never be at war against other democracy. Any conflict that arises between them is to be solved through dialog and mutual understanding. However, the recent confronting reaction by Israel and the West, especially the US, to the democratically elected Hamas government in Palestine has posed some doubt to this concept.
At the same time, contrary to the reactionary response by the Israeli and the US government of cutting the foreign fund to the Palestinian Authority, the less democratically elected governments in the Arab world have decided to support the Palestinian case by finding ways to provide the necessary funds needed to run the new democratically elected Palestinian government.
Israel and the US have been known for long as the champions of democracy. The governments in these countries as well as the practice of governance there have been done in accordance with the principles of democracy. However, their responses to the result of a democratic process in Palestine have given some doubts to their practice of democracy.
Immediately after the announcement of the winner of the January 25 Palestinian Elections where Hamas, a militant Islamic group that long has been branded as a terrorist group by the West and Israel, has won a landslide victory in the elections, the Israeli government rejected to accept the result and decided to sever relations with the Palestinian Authority and ruled out any negotiation with future Palestinian Authority. At the same time, the US has forced Hamas leaderships to renounce violence and threatened them with severe consequences if they fail to oblige.
These threats have been materialized this week when the Israeli Cabinet under the leadership of acting PM Ehud Olmert decided to halt the payment of customs duties it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, worth around $50 million a month as well as prevent residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from crossing into Israel for work.
At this point of time, the US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, is starting her Asian tour with the aim of building an opinion among the countries in Asia, especially in the Middle East, against the newly elected Hamas government in Palestine as well as against Iran. She will try to gather supports from the region to alienate and isolate these governments from the international communities. Iran’s defiance to call off its nuclear program has been the source of this call.
The US, Israel, Iran as well as the Palestinian Authority are all practicing democratic principles. The governments in these countries are elected through democratic processes and received the rightful mandate from the people. So, in line with the concept above, these countries are in no position to be against each other. The democratic principles adhered to by these countries should become a bonding principles for them to work together for the benefits of humanity instead of fighting against each other.
Reasons to Consider
There are three important reasons to be considered as to why these democracies are not eager to work together as a powerful entity for the improvement of the whole humanity.
The first and foremost reason of contradiction between these democracies is the constituents of the governments elected in these countries. Second is the desperate ambition by the West, especially the US, to assert its domination in this uni-polar world. The third reason is the absence of any secular, credible and egalitarian alternative for the people to turn to.
The neo-conservative dominated US government under President Bush is determined to push its agenda of world domination at any cost. In Israel, even though the current government is under the leadership of the ailing PM Ariel Sharon who has lately repositioned himself as a broad, peace minded leader, but the fact that he came and grew from a hard line party, the Likud Party, cannot erase the real face of General Ariel Sharon.
In Iran, in the failure of a moderate Islamic government of Khatami, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose to the podium of power as an Islamic hardliner. Similarly, Hamas is a militant Islamic movement that does not recognize the existence of Israel and is determined to the destruction of the Jewish state.
The differences in the compositions of the constituents of these democracies have led into a conflicting stance among them.
The fact that the US is desperate to assert its domination in the more and more uni-polar world further supports the growing conflict between these democracies. This is the second reason why these democracies are at a fix against each other. In the pretext of saving humanity from terrorist threats, the US government under President George W. Bush is desperate to control the international politics. The defiance shown by Iran is only a natural reaction from an oppressed community.
Coming to the third reason, in the absence of any secular, credible and egalitarian alternative in the society, people turned its choice to the available options. In the US, it is the neo-conservatism. In Israel, the Jewish hardliners got the biggest boost while in Iran and in Palestine Islamic virtues have been chosen as the most available alternative to cure the ailing society.
With the propaganda of the “Clash of Civilizations” continues to dominate the foreign policy of the global powers, retaliatory actions are the only natural things to be expected from the oppressed groups.
Concluding this article, the question as to why these democracies are in conflict is answered through the explanations given in the three important reasons mentioned above. The conflicting interests and the basis on which these democracies have been built are the keys as to why there is conflict among them. The absence of deep understanding on the importance of putting people’s interest above everything else and the absence of any secular, credible and egalitarian alternative in the offer, have also resulted in a conflict even between democracies. This conflicting situation becomes a proof that even the concept of social science is relative.
At the same time, contrary to the reactionary response by the Israeli and the US government of cutting the foreign fund to the Palestinian Authority, the less democratically elected governments in the Arab world have decided to support the Palestinian case by finding ways to provide the necessary funds needed to run the new democratically elected Palestinian government.
Israel and the US have been known for long as the champions of democracy. The governments in these countries as well as the practice of governance there have been done in accordance with the principles of democracy. However, their responses to the result of a democratic process in Palestine have given some doubts to their practice of democracy.
Immediately after the announcement of the winner of the January 25 Palestinian Elections where Hamas, a militant Islamic group that long has been branded as a terrorist group by the West and Israel, has won a landslide victory in the elections, the Israeli government rejected to accept the result and decided to sever relations with the Palestinian Authority and ruled out any negotiation with future Palestinian Authority. At the same time, the US has forced Hamas leaderships to renounce violence and threatened them with severe consequences if they fail to oblige.
These threats have been materialized this week when the Israeli Cabinet under the leadership of acting PM Ehud Olmert decided to halt the payment of customs duties it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, worth around $50 million a month as well as prevent residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from crossing into Israel for work.
At this point of time, the US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, is starting her Asian tour with the aim of building an opinion among the countries in Asia, especially in the Middle East, against the newly elected Hamas government in Palestine as well as against Iran. She will try to gather supports from the region to alienate and isolate these governments from the international communities. Iran’s defiance to call off its nuclear program has been the source of this call.
The US, Israel, Iran as well as the Palestinian Authority are all practicing democratic principles. The governments in these countries are elected through democratic processes and received the rightful mandate from the people. So, in line with the concept above, these countries are in no position to be against each other. The democratic principles adhered to by these countries should become a bonding principles for them to work together for the benefits of humanity instead of fighting against each other.
Reasons to Consider
There are three important reasons to be considered as to why these democracies are not eager to work together as a powerful entity for the improvement of the whole humanity.
The first and foremost reason of contradiction between these democracies is the constituents of the governments elected in these countries. Second is the desperate ambition by the West, especially the US, to assert its domination in this uni-polar world. The third reason is the absence of any secular, credible and egalitarian alternative for the people to turn to.
The neo-conservative dominated US government under President Bush is determined to push its agenda of world domination at any cost. In Israel, even though the current government is under the leadership of the ailing PM Ariel Sharon who has lately repositioned himself as a broad, peace minded leader, but the fact that he came and grew from a hard line party, the Likud Party, cannot erase the real face of General Ariel Sharon.
In Iran, in the failure of a moderate Islamic government of Khatami, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose to the podium of power as an Islamic hardliner. Similarly, Hamas is a militant Islamic movement that does not recognize the existence of Israel and is determined to the destruction of the Jewish state.
The differences in the compositions of the constituents of these democracies have led into a conflicting stance among them.
The fact that the US is desperate to assert its domination in the more and more uni-polar world further supports the growing conflict between these democracies. This is the second reason why these democracies are at a fix against each other. In the pretext of saving humanity from terrorist threats, the US government under President George W. Bush is desperate to control the international politics. The defiance shown by Iran is only a natural reaction from an oppressed community.
Coming to the third reason, in the absence of any secular, credible and egalitarian alternative in the society, people turned its choice to the available options. In the US, it is the neo-conservatism. In Israel, the Jewish hardliners got the biggest boost while in Iran and in Palestine Islamic virtues have been chosen as the most available alternative to cure the ailing society.
With the propaganda of the “Clash of Civilizations” continues to dominate the foreign policy of the global powers, retaliatory actions are the only natural things to be expected from the oppressed groups.
Concluding this article, the question as to why these democracies are in conflict is answered through the explanations given in the three important reasons mentioned above. The conflicting interests and the basis on which these democracies have been built are the keys as to why there is conflict among them. The absence of deep understanding on the importance of putting people’s interest above everything else and the absence of any secular, credible and egalitarian alternative in the offer, have also resulted in a conflict even between democracies. This conflicting situation becomes a proof that even the concept of social science is relative.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
The Need for Consistency
The elaboration given by MJ Akbar in his opinion published by The Jakarta Post on 16 February 2006 (The Answer is Mahatma Gandhi) was illuminating. It gave some profound ideas on how the tolerant behavior has been an inseparable part of the Indian society.
In his book, The Argumentative Indian, Nobel Prize holder Prof. Amartya Sen also gave a very good insight on the nature of the Indian society. Way back during the reign of Ashoka or Akbar, tolerance has been respected and practiced with some wonderful zeal.
Back to the opinion by MJ Akbar, I felt rather perplexed when after some reasonable and convincing explanation on the necessity to boycott Danish goods as a retribution for the irresponsible behavior of its press over the publication of Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) caricatures, he came to a statement, to quote:
“It is not too difficult to live without Danish cheese, or even Bang and Olufsen. One would, in fact, like to extend the logic. If you have to buy a European product, buy British. That would be a nice way of saying thank you.”
From his statement, it seemed that he was somewhat lost or diluted by the current sensibility shown by the British press for not being tempted to publish the same caricature as its Continental counterparts did.
In his best-seller book, Shadows of Sword, MJ Akbar has described the atrocities of the British government, the Blair’s government, in Iraq. Now he has suggested us to buy British products as a nice way of saying thank you.
Isn’t there any ambiguity in his statement? If he decided to suggest the boycott of Danish goods, why then at the same time he suggested us to buy British product?
In my view, the guilt of the Blair’s government for its support on Iraq invasion in 2003 led by the US is of the same amount of the indecision by the Danish Prime Minister to prevent the cartoon conflict from spreading world wide in the pretext of press freedom.
The British government under Tony Blair is responsible for the crime against humanity in Iraq in the pretext of spreading democracy.
If MJ Akbar has suggested boycotting any Danish product, he should have done the same on British product and not doing the otherwise.
Published in The Jakarta Post on 3 March 2006
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20060303.F04&irec=6
In his book, The Argumentative Indian, Nobel Prize holder Prof. Amartya Sen also gave a very good insight on the nature of the Indian society. Way back during the reign of Ashoka or Akbar, tolerance has been respected and practiced with some wonderful zeal.
Back to the opinion by MJ Akbar, I felt rather perplexed when after some reasonable and convincing explanation on the necessity to boycott Danish goods as a retribution for the irresponsible behavior of its press over the publication of Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) caricatures, he came to a statement, to quote:
“It is not too difficult to live without Danish cheese, or even Bang and Olufsen. One would, in fact, like to extend the logic. If you have to buy a European product, buy British. That would be a nice way of saying thank you.”
From his statement, it seemed that he was somewhat lost or diluted by the current sensibility shown by the British press for not being tempted to publish the same caricature as its Continental counterparts did.
In his best-seller book, Shadows of Sword, MJ Akbar has described the atrocities of the British government, the Blair’s government, in Iraq. Now he has suggested us to buy British products as a nice way of saying thank you.
Isn’t there any ambiguity in his statement? If he decided to suggest the boycott of Danish goods, why then at the same time he suggested us to buy British product?
In my view, the guilt of the Blair’s government for its support on Iraq invasion in 2003 led by the US is of the same amount of the indecision by the Danish Prime Minister to prevent the cartoon conflict from spreading world wide in the pretext of press freedom.
The British government under Tony Blair is responsible for the crime against humanity in Iraq in the pretext of spreading democracy.
If MJ Akbar has suggested boycotting any Danish product, he should have done the same on British product and not doing the otherwise.
Published in The Jakarta Post on 3 March 2006
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20060303.F04&irec=6
Friday, February 03, 2006
The Tolerance in Islam
In reference to a letter from Ahmad Qisa'i (The Jakarta Post, Jan. 26), I would like to state that I see no conflict between my statement and what the Post (Jan. 18) reported. What the Post reported that the pesantren (Islamic boarding schools) are "no hive of tolerance" should be seen within the context of this qualitative research with an in-depth interview involving members of 20 pesantren in West Java.
The context, among other things, is related with tensions amid the global accusation that pesantren are a breeding ground of terrorists, the perceived inequality between non-Muslim and Muslim countries, the perceived double-standards of the West when addressing Muslim issues and the recent edict from the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) that prohibits pluralism, secularism and liberalism.
At the same time, I also assert that there is actually a seed of tolerance in Islam that could further be developed. This was clearly stated by Prof. Machasin of Sunan Kalijaga Islamic State University of Yogyakarta during our seminar on Jan. 17-19 that Islam has actually a rich history of pluralism as it spans a long period of time and has an abundance of diverse thoughts, and many of them have sometimes been at odds with each other.
Even during the seminar, while some members of pesantren looked a bit anxious at first, the discussion was productive and at the end some of them were enthusiastic to offer their pesantren as the venue of our next training on multiculturalism.
I therefore agree with Ahmad Qisa'i that it is now homework for Indonesian Muslims to develop this seed of tolerance and enhance the moderate nature of Islam in Indonesia.
Syafi'i Anwar
Executive Director, of ICIP, (International Center for Islam and Pluralism), Jakarta
Courtesy:
The Jakarta Post, 3 February 2006
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20060203.F07&irec=6
The context, among other things, is related with tensions amid the global accusation that pesantren are a breeding ground of terrorists, the perceived inequality between non-Muslim and Muslim countries, the perceived double-standards of the West when addressing Muslim issues and the recent edict from the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) that prohibits pluralism, secularism and liberalism.
At the same time, I also assert that there is actually a seed of tolerance in Islam that could further be developed. This was clearly stated by Prof. Machasin of Sunan Kalijaga Islamic State University of Yogyakarta during our seminar on Jan. 17-19 that Islam has actually a rich history of pluralism as it spans a long period of time and has an abundance of diverse thoughts, and many of them have sometimes been at odds with each other.
Even during the seminar, while some members of pesantren looked a bit anxious at first, the discussion was productive and at the end some of them were enthusiastic to offer their pesantren as the venue of our next training on multiculturalism.
I therefore agree with Ahmad Qisa'i that it is now homework for Indonesian Muslims to develop this seed of tolerance and enhance the moderate nature of Islam in Indonesia.
Syafi'i Anwar
Executive Director, of ICIP, (International Center for Islam and Pluralism), Jakarta
Courtesy:
The Jakarta Post, 3 February 2006
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20060203.F07&irec=6
Friday, January 20, 2006
Intolerance in Pesantren?
On the basis of a recent survey by ICIP (International Center for Islam and Pluralism) on 20 odd boarding schools in Jawa Barat, it was concluded in a report by Hera Diani of The Jakarta Post that the pesantren is ‘no hive of tolerance’ ('Pesantren' no hive of tolerance: Survey, The Jakarta Post, 18 January 2006).
At the same time, the Executive Director of ICIP, Syafi’i Anwar, based on the same result of the survey, said in a seminar on “Deepening of Religious Understanding and Multiculturalism among Personalities in Pesantrens in Jawa Barat” held in Depok on 17/01/06, that respecting differences is not a new phenomenon among pesantren-based Muslims but in the current context of multiculturalism, a certain degree of conservatism is very much available among them. Thus, he concluded, to avoid the trap of a total conservatism among Muslims, this positive view over differences should be enhanced. (Perbedaan Bukan Hal Baru bagi Pesantren, Kompas, 18 January 2006)
Based on the reports quoted above, two opposite views are found in which Hera Diani clearly judged and concluded that there is no tolerance in the pesantrens while at the same time, the Executive Director of the ICIP himself acknowledged the availability of respect over differences among pesantren-based Muslims. And, he added, that it is homework for all of us to develop this tradition of openness and acceptance of differences.
In view of the current global perception of Islam as a religion of terror, such a report by The Jakarta Post will only support this proposition and further create confusion over Islam and Muslims in general.
Furthermore, this example of a partial judgment will only stir more controversy on pesantren as the breeding place of Indonesian terrorists and the misrepresentation of Islam in Indonesia. The fact that the terrorist attacks in Indonesia were conducted by a section of Indonesian Muslims cannot be used to generalize the Muslims in Indonesia in general as intolerance. Because majority of Muslims in Indonesia are known to be tolerant and opt for a moderate form of Islam in which Islam is regarded as more of a way of life than as a religion as such. Pesantren played a great role in shaping the moderate form of Islam in Indonesia.
The sufistic approach adopted by traditional pesantrens in teaching Islam to its students has resulted in their acceptance of differences in the society. The graduates of these pesantrens practice a moderate form of Islam. However, with the return of the Indonesian Muslim students from the heartlands of Islam like Saudi Arabia or Yemen, the face of Islam in Indonesia changes. These students brought home with them the conservative form of Islam. Their mission then is to purify Islam in Indonesia thus denying the Muslims in Indonesia the practice of Islam they learnt from the pesantrens.
It is now homework for the Indonesian Muslim to preserve the moderate nature of Islam in Indonesia by not succumbing to the pressure from the conservative and militant Muslims. Because if once they fail to preserve this status, then not only Muslims in general who will suffer but also other followers of different religions in Indonesia specially and in the world in general.
Thus, with the seeds of tolerance found in the pesantrens and the high need to picture Islam as a religion which is meant for humanity, a collective effort by all Muslims is necessary to fight conservatism and to promote liberalism and multiculturalism.
The following is the published form in The Jakarta Post, 26 January 2006
Intolerance in Pesantren?
On the basis of a recent survey by the International Center for Islam and Pluralism (ICIP) on 20 odd pesantren (Islamic boarding schools) in West Java, it was concluded in a report published in The Jakarta Post that the pesantren are "no hive of tolerance" ('Pesantren' no hive of tolerance: Survey, Jan. 18).
At the same time, the executive director of ICIP, Syafi'i Anwar, commenting on the results of the survey, said in a seminar titled: Deepening Religious Understanding and Multiculturalism among Personalities in Pesantren in West Java held in Depok on Jan. 17, that respecting differences was not a new phenomenon among pesantren-based Muslims but in the current context of multiculturalism, a certain degree of conservatism was prevalent among them. Thus, he concluded, to avoid the trap of a total conservatism among Muslims, this positive view over differences should be enhanced.
Based on the reports quoted above, two opposite views are found in which the Post's reporter clearly judged and concluded that there is no tolerance in the pesantren while at the same time, the executive director of the ICIP himself acknowledged that there was respect for differences among pesantren-based Muslims. And, he added, that it is homework for all of us to develop this tradition of openness and acceptance of differences.
In view of the current global perception of Islam as a religion of terror, such a report by the Post will only support this proposition and further create confusion over Islam and Muslims in general.
Pesantren have played a great role in shaping the moderate form of Islam in Indonesia. The sufistic approach adopted by traditional pesantren in teaching Islam to its students has resulted in their acceptance of differences in the society. The graduates of these pesantren practice a moderate form of Islam. However, with the return of Indonesian Muslim students from the heartland of Islam like Saudi Arabia or Yemen, the face of Islam in Indonesia has changed. These students brought home with them the conservative form of Islam.
It is now homework for the Indonesian Muslim to preserve the moderate nature of Islam in Indonesia by not succumbing to pressure from conservative and militant Muslims. Because if once they fail to preserve this status, then not only Muslims in general will suffer but so will followers of other religions in Indonesia in particular and in the world in general.
Thus, with the seeds of tolerance found in the pesantren and the high need to project Islam as a religion which is meant for humanity, a collective effort by all Muslims is necessary to fight conservatism and to promote liberalism and multiculturalism.
Published in The Jakarta Post, 26 January 2006.
Can be accessed through the following address:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20060126.F05
At the same time, the Executive Director of ICIP, Syafi’i Anwar, based on the same result of the survey, said in a seminar on “Deepening of Religious Understanding and Multiculturalism among Personalities in Pesantrens in Jawa Barat” held in Depok on 17/01/06, that respecting differences is not a new phenomenon among pesantren-based Muslims but in the current context of multiculturalism, a certain degree of conservatism is very much available among them. Thus, he concluded, to avoid the trap of a total conservatism among Muslims, this positive view over differences should be enhanced. (Perbedaan Bukan Hal Baru bagi Pesantren, Kompas, 18 January 2006)
Based on the reports quoted above, two opposite views are found in which Hera Diani clearly judged and concluded that there is no tolerance in the pesantrens while at the same time, the Executive Director of the ICIP himself acknowledged the availability of respect over differences among pesantren-based Muslims. And, he added, that it is homework for all of us to develop this tradition of openness and acceptance of differences.
In view of the current global perception of Islam as a religion of terror, such a report by The Jakarta Post will only support this proposition and further create confusion over Islam and Muslims in general.
Furthermore, this example of a partial judgment will only stir more controversy on pesantren as the breeding place of Indonesian terrorists and the misrepresentation of Islam in Indonesia. The fact that the terrorist attacks in Indonesia were conducted by a section of Indonesian Muslims cannot be used to generalize the Muslims in Indonesia in general as intolerance. Because majority of Muslims in Indonesia are known to be tolerant and opt for a moderate form of Islam in which Islam is regarded as more of a way of life than as a religion as such. Pesantren played a great role in shaping the moderate form of Islam in Indonesia.
The sufistic approach adopted by traditional pesantrens in teaching Islam to its students has resulted in their acceptance of differences in the society. The graduates of these pesantrens practice a moderate form of Islam. However, with the return of the Indonesian Muslim students from the heartlands of Islam like Saudi Arabia or Yemen, the face of Islam in Indonesia changes. These students brought home with them the conservative form of Islam. Their mission then is to purify Islam in Indonesia thus denying the Muslims in Indonesia the practice of Islam they learnt from the pesantrens.
It is now homework for the Indonesian Muslim to preserve the moderate nature of Islam in Indonesia by not succumbing to the pressure from the conservative and militant Muslims. Because if once they fail to preserve this status, then not only Muslims in general who will suffer but also other followers of different religions in Indonesia specially and in the world in general.
Thus, with the seeds of tolerance found in the pesantrens and the high need to picture Islam as a religion which is meant for humanity, a collective effort by all Muslims is necessary to fight conservatism and to promote liberalism and multiculturalism.
The following is the published form in The Jakarta Post, 26 January 2006
Intolerance in Pesantren?
On the basis of a recent survey by the International Center for Islam and Pluralism (ICIP) on 20 odd pesantren (Islamic boarding schools) in West Java, it was concluded in a report published in The Jakarta Post that the pesantren are "no hive of tolerance" ('Pesantren' no hive of tolerance: Survey, Jan. 18).
At the same time, the executive director of ICIP, Syafi'i Anwar, commenting on the results of the survey, said in a seminar titled: Deepening Religious Understanding and Multiculturalism among Personalities in Pesantren in West Java held in Depok on Jan. 17, that respecting differences was not a new phenomenon among pesantren-based Muslims but in the current context of multiculturalism, a certain degree of conservatism was prevalent among them. Thus, he concluded, to avoid the trap of a total conservatism among Muslims, this positive view over differences should be enhanced.
Based on the reports quoted above, two opposite views are found in which the Post's reporter clearly judged and concluded that there is no tolerance in the pesantren while at the same time, the executive director of the ICIP himself acknowledged that there was respect for differences among pesantren-based Muslims. And, he added, that it is homework for all of us to develop this tradition of openness and acceptance of differences.
In view of the current global perception of Islam as a religion of terror, such a report by the Post will only support this proposition and further create confusion over Islam and Muslims in general.
Pesantren have played a great role in shaping the moderate form of Islam in Indonesia. The sufistic approach adopted by traditional pesantren in teaching Islam to its students has resulted in their acceptance of differences in the society. The graduates of these pesantren practice a moderate form of Islam. However, with the return of Indonesian Muslim students from the heartland of Islam like Saudi Arabia or Yemen, the face of Islam in Indonesia has changed. These students brought home with them the conservative form of Islam.
It is now homework for the Indonesian Muslim to preserve the moderate nature of Islam in Indonesia by not succumbing to pressure from conservative and militant Muslims. Because if once they fail to preserve this status, then not only Muslims in general will suffer but so will followers of other religions in Indonesia in particular and in the world in general.
Thus, with the seeds of tolerance found in the pesantren and the high need to project Islam as a religion which is meant for humanity, a collective effort by all Muslims is necessary to fight conservatism and to promote liberalism and multiculturalism.
Published in The Jakarta Post, 26 January 2006.
Can be accessed through the following address:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20060126.F05
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Moderate Muslims and the Challenge of Terrorism
The 21st century witnesses the domination of the term ‘terrorism’ in the lexicon of international politics. The terror menace gained much of its popularity in international arena in the post 9/11 attack of the WTC in New York by the so called Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda.
Indonesia as the most populous Muslim country in the world is, however, not spared from the similar attack of this asymmetrical warfare, an attack to the unguarded targets in the society. A string of terrorist attacks has been terrorizing the peaceful coexistence of the Indonesian people.
The fact that these terrors have not even spared the Muslim community, it is then not an incorrect judgment to describe that terrorism has become a global menace that requires global efforts by all communities in the world to work together to eradicate it.
As the biggest Muslim community in the world, Muslims in Indonesia need to work very hard to explain to the international community that Islam is a true peaceful way of life and not a religion of terror. However, this task becomes a huge challenge for the Indonesian Muslims because of the fact that the terrorists who claimed to be Muslims have waged this asymmetrical warfare.
The 9/11 attack in New York, the attacks on the important offices like the embassies in various parts of the world, the series of bomb blast in India as well as the ones in Indonesia that all have claimed many innocent lives have been conducted, or allegedly conducted, by Muslim terrorists.
These acts of terror clearly showed the hijacking of religion for some personal gains. And because of these actions by irresponsible personalities, Islam has been globally perceived as a religion of terror. The Muslims, the followers of Islam, are terrorists.
The perception of Islam as a religion of terror and Muslims as terrorists has not even spared the moderate Muslims in Indonesia who put Islam as a way of life that possesses a high degree of tolerance towards other groups or followers of other religions for the sake of creating a harmonious society in the midst of disparities and differences.
The facts that the home grown Islamic militants conducted the terror attacks in Indonesia further support this generalization in the perception of Islam and Muslims even though the real culprits are small sections of the huge Muslim population.
The Role of the Nahdhatul Ulama (NU) and the Muhammadiyah
As the biggest socio-religious organizations in Indonesia (NU with more than 40 million followers and Muhammadiyah with some 30 million followers), the organizations have a very important role to play in creating a tolerant society and a better understanding of Islam in Indonesia. Even though there are differences between the two organizations in their approaches towards Islam, their difference will not become a hurdle for establishing a global framework in the fight against terrorism.
NU is known as the more traditional Muslim group in Indonesia as compared to Muhammadiyah. It uses Sufistic and liberal approaches to teach Islam to the people. The flexibility of the approach adopted by the group has resulted in the spread of Islam among the people in the rural areas thus the NU enjoys popular supports among the lower middle class Muslims in Indonesia.
On the other hand, the more progressive Muhammadiyah uses a different approach in understanding Islam. It rejects Sufistic and liberal approaches of the NU and relies more on the scriptural understanding of Islam as it is written in the Holy Qur’an and the Hadith. It invites Muslims to learn more about Islam through the study of the Holy Qur’an and the Hadith and strives to ‘purify’ Islam in Indonesia. This approach adopted by the Muhammadiyah gains more popularity among the upper middle class Muslims who are mostly educated and live in the urban areas.
The differences in their approaches and support base in Indonesia, however, do not give any diversion to the representation of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance and the Muslims in Indonesia are moderate Muslims.
The Sufistic and flexible approaches adopted by the NU give an impression to the general public of the flexibility and tolerance in Islam. At the same time, the more puritanical approach by the Muhammadiyah gives a better understanding to the core of the Islamic teachings which is full of tolerance and respect of humanity.
By combining the approaches adopted by the NU and the Muhammadiyah, there is a bigger possibility of success in picturing Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance. Thus it will enable the Muslims in Indonesia to garner more supports from the followers of Islam as well as from the followers and the leaders of other religions in Indonesia and in other parts of the world as well to represent the true face of religion.
It is now a high time for the Muslims in Indonesia to wake up and to voice loudly their concern towards Islam and Muslims in the world. With the possible success of representing Islam as a tolerant and peaceful religion, the fight against terror by Islamic militants can be started from the very backyard of Muslims.
Indonesia as the most populous Muslim country in the world is, however, not spared from the similar attack of this asymmetrical warfare, an attack to the unguarded targets in the society. A string of terrorist attacks has been terrorizing the peaceful coexistence of the Indonesian people.
The fact that these terrors have not even spared the Muslim community, it is then not an incorrect judgment to describe that terrorism has become a global menace that requires global efforts by all communities in the world to work together to eradicate it.
As the biggest Muslim community in the world, Muslims in Indonesia need to work very hard to explain to the international community that Islam is a true peaceful way of life and not a religion of terror. However, this task becomes a huge challenge for the Indonesian Muslims because of the fact that the terrorists who claimed to be Muslims have waged this asymmetrical warfare.
The 9/11 attack in New York, the attacks on the important offices like the embassies in various parts of the world, the series of bomb blast in India as well as the ones in Indonesia that all have claimed many innocent lives have been conducted, or allegedly conducted, by Muslim terrorists.
These acts of terror clearly showed the hijacking of religion for some personal gains. And because of these actions by irresponsible personalities, Islam has been globally perceived as a religion of terror. The Muslims, the followers of Islam, are terrorists.
The perception of Islam as a religion of terror and Muslims as terrorists has not even spared the moderate Muslims in Indonesia who put Islam as a way of life that possesses a high degree of tolerance towards other groups or followers of other religions for the sake of creating a harmonious society in the midst of disparities and differences.
The facts that the home grown Islamic militants conducted the terror attacks in Indonesia further support this generalization in the perception of Islam and Muslims even though the real culprits are small sections of the huge Muslim population.
The Role of the Nahdhatul Ulama (NU) and the Muhammadiyah
As the biggest socio-religious organizations in Indonesia (NU with more than 40 million followers and Muhammadiyah with some 30 million followers), the organizations have a very important role to play in creating a tolerant society and a better understanding of Islam in Indonesia. Even though there are differences between the two organizations in their approaches towards Islam, their difference will not become a hurdle for establishing a global framework in the fight against terrorism.
NU is known as the more traditional Muslim group in Indonesia as compared to Muhammadiyah. It uses Sufistic and liberal approaches to teach Islam to the people. The flexibility of the approach adopted by the group has resulted in the spread of Islam among the people in the rural areas thus the NU enjoys popular supports among the lower middle class Muslims in Indonesia.
On the other hand, the more progressive Muhammadiyah uses a different approach in understanding Islam. It rejects Sufistic and liberal approaches of the NU and relies more on the scriptural understanding of Islam as it is written in the Holy Qur’an and the Hadith. It invites Muslims to learn more about Islam through the study of the Holy Qur’an and the Hadith and strives to ‘purify’ Islam in Indonesia. This approach adopted by the Muhammadiyah gains more popularity among the upper middle class Muslims who are mostly educated and live in the urban areas.
The differences in their approaches and support base in Indonesia, however, do not give any diversion to the representation of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance and the Muslims in Indonesia are moderate Muslims.
The Sufistic and flexible approaches adopted by the NU give an impression to the general public of the flexibility and tolerance in Islam. At the same time, the more puritanical approach by the Muhammadiyah gives a better understanding to the core of the Islamic teachings which is full of tolerance and respect of humanity.
By combining the approaches adopted by the NU and the Muhammadiyah, there is a bigger possibility of success in picturing Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance. Thus it will enable the Muslims in Indonesia to garner more supports from the followers of Islam as well as from the followers and the leaders of other religions in Indonesia and in other parts of the world as well to represent the true face of religion.
It is now a high time for the Muslims in Indonesia to wake up and to voice loudly their concern towards Islam and Muslims in the world. With the possible success of representing Islam as a tolerant and peaceful religion, the fight against terror by Islamic militants can be started from the very backyard of Muslims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)