Coping with terror, RI Muslims after Bali<\/p>\n
Jusuf Wanandi, Co-founder, Member, Board of Trustees,
\nCentre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
While the terrorist bombings in Bali have created a major
\nproblem for the Megawati administration that is ill-prepared and
\nill-equipped to deal with the situation, in the long term, the
\nmore important problem for the country is its impact on
\nIndonesian Muslims. Since they are the majority in Indonesia, the
\nworld's largest Muslim country, their attitudes and actions will
\nbe critical to Indonesia's future.<\/p>\n
There are many \"Muslims\" in Indonesian politics. Most of the
\n190 million Muslims are considered moderates in the political
\narena, because they believe that religion is a private matter.
\nThey participate in both Islamic and non-Islamic political
\nparties, and they do not think that the syariah (Islamic law)
\nshould be part of positive law.<\/p>\n
Indonesia, however, has also had many radical Muslims since
\nits independence, although they are few in number. They are
\nproponents of instilling the syariah as the positive law of
\nIndonesia, if necessary through undemocratic means. The most
\nextreme of these radicals aimed at establishing a Muslim state
\nruled by a caliphate.<\/p>\n
The attack on Bali is not likely to change the attitude and
\npolicies of such radical Muslim groups, as their frame of mind
\nand agenda are fixed. They believe, and have also fueled, the
\nidea that the United States is the culprit, because to them it is
\nonly the U.S. that has the interest and the capacity to pull off
\nsuch an attack. It was unfortunate that in the first three weeks
\nafter the blasts, the Indonesian media was also carried away by
\nthis kind of belief.<\/p>\n
Now that some of the suspects have been captured and
\ninterrogated, some sense of balance has begun to emerge. The
\nmedia is having second thoughts about the incredible theories
\nregarding U.S. involvement as espoused by \"experts\", and are
\ncorrecting themselves.<\/p>\n
The radical groups, too, have been affected by the event.
\nBefore Bali, they could get away with almost anything, including
\ncriminal acts such as destroying properties or fomenting regional
\nconflicts, without any penalty by the government or the police.
\nIn the aftermath of the Bali bombings, this will be more
\ndifficult. For instance, their efforts to impose the syariah
\nthrough unlawful actions or use of force will be unacceptable to
\nthe public, as well as law enforcement agencies.<\/p>\n
Further, although the disbanding of the two strongest radical
\ngroups, the Laskar Jihad and the Islamic Defenders' Front (FPI),
\nwere not directly related to the Bali bombings, public pressure
\nagainst their actions are surely part of the reason.<\/p>\n
It should be remembered, however, that actions taken against
\nthese radical groups by the government and the police should
\nalways be based on the rule of law. It will be counterproductive
\nto use arbitrary and repressive means as was undertaken during
\nthe Soeharto regime, which will only martyrize them and so boost
\ntheir popularity.<\/p>\n
The moderate Muslim groups have always argued that the
\ngovernment should prosecute the radicals if they trespass the
\nlaw. Yet, their voices were neither clear nor strong enough, and
\nanyhow, the government was too weak to act. In fact, some of the
\npolice and army officers were themselves involved in creating and
\ntraining some of these radical groups. It must be said, however,
\nthat the kind of anarchy and lawlessness the radicals created has
\nprovided fertile ground for terrorists.<\/p>\n
The moderate, mainstream Muslim groups, such as Nahdlatul
\nUlama (NU) and Muhammadiyah, should debate their policies and
\nattitudes towards the radical and extremist Muslim groups. They
\nhave been correct not to equate the radical or extremist groups
\nwith terrorists.<\/p>\n
They are also right in that such groups have arisen because of
\nthe repression of political Islam by Soeharto, and because they
\nwere left behind by the mainstream groups. The moderates are also
\nright in thinking that radical groups should not be isolated or
\nexcluded from the mainstream. Instead, they should be persuaded
\nto abandon their radical ideas and rejoin the mainstream.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, evidence shows that some radicals are using
\nforce, even resorting to terrorist acts, and therefore a limit
\nmust be put upon this tolerance. The moderates have been
\nreluctant so far to condemn such radicals, because they have
\nnever openly debated the issue amongst themselves, or have tried
\nto forge a consensus on what to do against them. This is also
\npartly due to a sense of solidarity towards Muslims in general.<\/p>\n
An open and democratic debate about the issue among themselves
\nis a real necessity now, in order to reach a consensus and to
\noppose these radicals and terrorists resolutely. Otherwise, the
\nmoderates will endanger their own leadership over their followers
\nand other Indonesians, and will lose credibility with the
\ninternational community, especially with their neighbors, who
\nalso have many Muslims among them.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the Bali tragedy has had a real impact on Indonesia,
\nparticularly on Indonesia's Muslims. It has limited the anarchic
\nand criminal activities of the radicals, and has pressured
\nmoderates to begin a discussion among themselves to come up with
\na clear stance, as well as real policies, in regards those
\nradicals who are also terrorists.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/coping-with-terror-ri-muslims-after-bali-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}