Discourse on Islam needs more participants

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.