[Nasional-e] Discourse on Islam needs more participants

[Holy Uncle]

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20030130.E02&irec=1

Discourse on Islam needs more participants

Eva K. Sundari, Lecturer, School of Economics Researcher, Center for Women 
Studies, Airlangga University, Surabaya

The registration requirement for Indonesian citizens living in the United 
States hurts this nation's dignity. America is being discriminative by 
placing Indonesia on its list of 25 countries suspected of harboring Islamic 
terrorists.

Instead of showing sympathy to Indonesia for the Bali tragedy America has 
found further evidence to fuel its suspicions of the presence of Islamic 
terrorists here. While it seems that the United States believes that 
terrorism is born out of sectarianism, developments here since 1999 have 
indeed shown the strengthening of Islamic fundamentalism or sectarianism.

To women, the course of reform has created anxiety. The 1999 general 
election, considered the most democratic since 1955, reduced the number of 
women elected as people's representatives. Many expressed concern, yet the 
quota system proposed for women was still rejected by most political parties 
and the government under President Megawati Soekarnoputri. The rejection was 
a consequence of the inclination toward marginalization of women by the 
country's Islamic sectarian forces, while the reform era, which enabled the 
more free expression of such groups, has served to intensify the process.

Following the 1999 election, despite capturing only 15 percent of the vote 
in the elections, politicians of Islamic parties dominated public discourse 
through religious rhetoric. A most interesting feature was the use of the 
issue of gender and Islam as a means of preventing Megawati's presidency -- 
a stance which was then reversed to support her national leadership.

In Poso, Central Sulawesi, Islamic parties' expressions showed support for 
the dispatch of holy war troops in the communal conflict stance. Even Amien 
Rais as speaker of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) consented to the 
violent acts of the paramilitary units, who said they were acting in 
self-defense. A number of other Muslim party leaders in the House of 
Representatives (DPR) and MPR had the same position.

The behavior of Muslim politicians and leaders of mass organizations in the 
region seems to have been derived from their superiors in Jakarta. Acts of 
vandalism by the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) or the power display by the 
Ka'bah Youth with unsheathed swords were justified and backed by religious 
figures. The successful imposition of sharia in certain provinces and 
regencies/municipalities is another example of the fundamentalists' victory.

The implementation of regional autonomy was responded to with too much zeal 
by the introduction of laws opposed to national legislation. As Indonesia is 
a unitarian state, any law in contradiction to the Constitution gives reason 
for anxiety.

As anticipated by feminists here, discrimination or marginalization of women 
has served as an easy way to show that sharia has been enforced. The night 
curfew on women, the compulsory use of Islamic wear, the shaving of 
commercial sex workers, while leaving their male customers unscathed, are 
some examples of prominent cases in several regions. The passing of 
gender-biased regional regulations is the current form of legitimized 
symbolization of Islam in Indonesia.

The absence of alternative discourse against such perspectives has led to 
the arrogance of hard-line groups. American Indonesianist William Liddle has 
even expressed concern over the absence of views on the part of Islamic 
modernists in Indonesia's discourse on contemporary politics.

We have seen how the use of religion in political practice has made people 
mute. Being sensitive, religion is utilized as a very effective means of 
controlling people. Discourse on human rights is dismissed as a western 
notion. But history has shown how a critical attitude toward religion can 
have fatal consequences. The fate of Socrates was almost experienced by Ulil 
Ab'shar Abdala for his attempt to straighten out the use of Islamic symbols.

Apart from intellectuals' silence, the government, which is supposed to 
uphold national law, has displayed an awkward position. This is likely 
because of a conflict of interests faced by several officials directly 
involved in legal affairs. It is difficult to expect Yusril Ihza Mahendra, 
the chairman of the Crescent Moon Party (PBB), which is campaigning for 
sharia, to be critical in this regard as the minister of justice and human 
rights. The same applies to Vice President Hamzah Haz of the United 
Development Party.

The process of democracy was saved when the nationalist camp managed to 
block the aggressive move of Islamic groups to promote sharia in the 
Constitution's amendment. The number of regions which have implemented 
sharia are not large enough yet to demand its enforcement nationwide.

Yet the contest against the principles of a nonreligious state will be 
increasingly tight if more regions enforce sharia.

As Sudan's Islamic thinker Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im warned, the application 
of sharia by a country will only invite a national setback. His study shows 
that the enforcement of sharia in Middle Eastern countries only ends up as 
power in the hands of a few -- the clergy and other members of the elite. 
The tendency of practicing Islam in Middle East fashion, marked by 
intolerance, lack of respect for others of different faiths and views, and 
aggressiveness, would initiate the ruin of Indonesia as a nation.

Unlike America, where the Supreme Court plays an active role in making 
judicial reviews of all the nation's legal products, we can only expect the 
activeness of civilians in slowing down the movement of militant Islam. 
De-sanctification of religion by promoting alternative thoughts against 
militant Islamic views should be intensified.

Also, there should be groups bold enough to propose that the Supreme Court 
make judicial reviews of regional rules reflecting Islamic symbolization, 
which often discriminates against women and thus opposes human rights.

Worse, the passive attitude of officials toward these new rules is often 
seen as support. The stringent stance taken by Mahathir Mohammad by 
restricting Malaysia's militant Islamic movement bought the country a credit 
point from America -- although no one wants a repeated state repression 
against militant groups as practiced under the New Order period.

Consequently, America has excluded Malaysia from its list of 25 countries 
whose citizens must report to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
despite indications that Malaysia is a training center for militants. Among 
the few officials to speak out, only East Java Governor Imam Utomo has 
explicitly stated his objection to the application of sharia in the 
Pamekasan regency.

Following the Bali blasts there were less views aired among the Islamic 
hard-liners, and their militia groups were dissolved. Nonetheless, when a 
modern Islamic view showed up, its writer was warned that his views could 
entail the death penalty under Islamic law. The Islamic hard-liner camp has 
apparently sought other ways to express that dissent is haram (not 
permitted), an attitude which would certainly endanger Indonesia's 
democratic life.

There is no smoke without fire. Although the U.S. uses a technical argument 
to defend its new immigration policy, the Sept. 11 attacks were certainly 
the trigger. America may be paranoid, but Indonesia's political conditions 
have sparked off its suspicions and prompted it to adopt the policy for the 
sake of its domestic security.

So what should we do with the fire in our camp? Only by upholding the 
principles of democracy in political life will we arrive at the best 
solution for all.




_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963