Fighting terrorism: Between idealism and realism<\/p>\n
Mochtar Buchori, Educator, legislator, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Osama bin Laden said that the world is divided into two camps,
\nthat of the faithful and that of the infidel. The present war is
\none between the faithful, represented by Islam, and the infidel,
\nrepresented by the West. In this war every Muslim has a duty to
\ndefend Islam and fight side-by-side with his fellow Muslims. This
\nis how Osama bin Laden wants us to think about this chaos.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, George W. Bush and Tony Blair have told us
\nthat the present war is one between civility and terrorism. Every
\nman or woman who has chosen to live by the rules of civility has
\nthe duty of defending civility to resist the encroachment of
\nterrorism into our cherished way of life. Everyone must either
\nstand on the side of civility or on the side of evil. This is how
\nBush and Blair want us to think.<\/p>\n
Indonesians are divided. There are people who have immediately
\ndecided to take sides, either advocating jihad in defense of
\nIslam, or condemning any violent reaction to the present
\nsituation, such as \"sweeps\" or noisy rallies.<\/p>\n
But there are also people who seem to have been paralyzed by
\nthe debates. They have been wavering between the two stances.
\nWorse, some seem afraid to express their opinions about this big
\ncontroversy. They fear they could be attacked, verbally or
\nphysically, by those who happen to hold a different view.<\/p>\n
I see three dangerous tendencies among politicians and the
\npublic alike in the entire affair. First, many tend to overlook
\nour national interests in our efforts to deal with the issue.
\nSecond, there is the tendency to be intolerant toward those who
\nhappen to have a different stance on the issue. And third, a
\ngreat number among us clearly tend to oversimplify matters.<\/p>\n
So far the rhetoric has been over the interests of Islam and
\nMuslims, that of the West, of humanity, and so on. But what about
\nour real interests as a nation? What will and what might happen
\nif we take hostage all Westerners in this country, if we
\nnationalize Western assets and sever diplomatic relations with
\nall Western countries?<\/p>\n
What will happen if all these things happen? Can we really
\nafford to carry out such drastic measures?<\/p>\n
No single political leader has ever pondered seriously such
\nquestions. Now that the tourists have begun to leave, that our
\nhotels are almost empty, that some Western companies are at least
\ntemporarily closed down, that exports have been stalled, and so
\nmany have been out of a job, are we only beginning to realize
\nthat we have to pay dearly for our fiery rhetoric.<\/p>\n
Still, I'm afraid that there are still too many among us who
\nrefuse to look at this grand ideological and political
\ncontroversy from our national standpoint and in a realistic way.
\nOur nation could therefore be heading to an even more perilous
\nexistence, both economically and politically.<\/p>\n
The tendency to be intolerant is a social trait that has been
\nin our pluralistic society for quite some now -- which shows we
\ndo not fully realize yet what it actually means to be a
\npluralistic society.<\/p>\n
When this emotionally charged controversy broke out the
\nimmediate tendency among many was to react according to their
\nprimordial feelings. Yet not one among our political leaders has
\nseriously tried to restore calm and inject some kind of
\nrationality and clarity into the public mind.<\/p>\n
Intolerance means that we have failed in managing our various
\nbiases. The violence that has ravaged certain parts of our
\nsocieties has been caused by our intolerance, be it ethnic,
\nreligious, or political. And as long as we are still a
\npluralistic society, various kinds of prejudice will always
\nreside within each of us. And it is our obligation to manage or
\n\"domesticate\" these prejudices.<\/p>\n
Failure to do so will lead us toward a societal existence
\ncharacterized by jealousy. If trivial disputes have been capable
\nof sparking physical and psychological conflicts that have
\ndivided our nation, a highly emotional issue like the current one
\ncould eventually tear our nation apart.<\/p>\n
Do our political leaders realize this?<\/p>\n
The third tendency, that of oversimplifying an issue also has
\ndangerous consequences. An issue like the one we are facing now
\ncan never be simplified, let alone oversimplified. If we want a
\ngenuine and lasting solution to a problem, there is no choice but
\nto face the problem in its full complexity.<\/p>\n
Even if this issue really does involve the entire Western
\nworld versus the entire Islamic world it cannot be considered
\nsimple.<\/p>\n
When we talk about Islam, we actually talk about two things:
\nFaith and civilization. Islam as a faith is relatively quite
\nuniform, quite homogeneous. But Islam as a civilization is quite
\ndiverse. The reason, writes professor Bassam Tibi, is that when
\nIslam manifests itself as a revelation, it is quite universal.<\/p>\n
But when it touches ground the teaching of the faith cannot
\npossibly ignore the impact of local cultures. This is why Islamic
\ncivilization in the Middle East is not quite the same of that in
\nany other part of the world. Islamic civilization in Central Asia
\nis not quite identical to Islamic civilizations in Southeast Asia
\nor in Central Europe.<\/p>\n
Thus, while Indonesian Muslims sympathize with their Arab
\nbrethren in Palestine, their emotional immersion into this Middle
\nEastern conflict is not quite the same as that of the
\nPalestinians.<\/p>\n
In this \"West versus Islam\" issue, the emotional intensity of
\nthis problem for Muslims throughout the world is not the same,
\nand never can be the same.<\/p>\n
If all Indonesia's syuhada -- those willing and ready to
\nfight to the death for the holy cause of defending Islam -- were
\nsuccessfully mobilized and sent to Afghanistan, would we be able
\nto remove those lifestyles that separate Islam and the West, and
\nfind reconciliation between the two? I sincerely doubt it.<\/p>\n
I sympathize with the idea of lending support -- at least
\nmoral support -- to the weak and the suppressed. But it would be
\nwise to look for a balance between idealism and realism. To what
\nextent can we lend support that will really be effective? Is it
\nreally wise to assist others in their search for justice, and in
\nthe process weakening or even destroying ourselves?<\/p>\n
I do not think so. I may sound selfish. But I just want to be
\nrealistic. A realistic idealist, if you wish.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/fighting-terrorism-between-idealism-and-realism-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}