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.