Govt must focus on majority of Muslim voices

The voice of the mainstream among Muslims has not been adequately conveyed here, despite the fact that Islam in Indonesia has a tolerant face, says Azyumardi Azra, rector of the IAIN Syarif Hidayatullah Islamic Studies Institute in Jakarta. He talked to The Jakarta Post in interviews with Ati Nurbaiti and Rikza Abdullah.

Question: You've said that the U.S. must stop the violence in Afghanistan and come to the negotiating table, and that the terrorist case should be brought to an international tribunal. But President George W. Bush has said the campaign against terrorism might continue for many years. What would be the implications particularly in our society, with many Muslims expressing antipathy towards the U.S.?

Answer: The U.S. should look at both its own interests as well as its relations with countries with whom it has friendly ties, including Indonesia.

With continued military strikes the attitude on the part of moderate Muslims here has shifted (from restraint) to more emotional ... anti U.S ...even though they're not on the streets and are not supportive of the Taliban or Osama bin Laden. The (strikes) are seen to contradict the U.S. policy of developing democracy, particularly for countries in transition.

More (public) demands will be raised for the government to be more assertive towards the U.S. while no one can guarantee the protests will not turn to violence and chaos. This could lead to destabilization and we would all lose out.

There is too much to lose with continued U.S. strikes. Given such fears, what of our image as a country of "moderate" Muslims?

Leaders of the main Muslim organizations, Hasyim Muzadi of Nahdlatul Ulama and Syafii Ma'arif of Muhammadiyah, have tried to give their perspectives, that "sweeping" (intimidation and forced expulsion of Westerners) for instance, is not right, that protests should not turn into violent rioting.

Yet such voices representing the mainstream, which is to say the moderates, have not been strong enough ... (and) they would be placed in a difficult position if the U.S. strikes and confirmed casualties among civilians continue.

It is natural that people express solidarity with fellow Muslims ... and a type of "David-Goliath" feeling could develop.

President Megawati (Soekarnoputri) should meet with Islamic leaders, including the kyai (Muslim scholar/teacher) and strengthen their voice, to balance the disproportionate media attention being given to the "hardliners."

She cannot do it alone or simply leave it to the Minister of Religious Affairs; it is the responsibility of all (to convey) the fact that Islam is pluralistic, and tolerant.

There is much affinity between the stance of the government and that of the moderates among Muslims. This stance must be strengthened to give positive attention to not only mass movements, but a more calming perspective.

But how should Muslims here retain a clear perspective of our own problems while expressing solidarity with Afghans?

Muslims are taught that they must break the cycle of violence with the principles of peace; that jihad (struggle in defense of Islam), if you know it will fail, is tantamount to suicide and is prohibited ...

We should extend help where we can and this has begun with (private) and government aid to Afghanistan.

Then there are other obligations: The fardhu 'ain, the responsibility of the individual, and the fardhu kifayah, the responsibility to one's nearest environment -- meaning that if you want to better the world you must start with yourself, your household and neighborhood. Our own conflicts then, should be our first priority.

Hopefully Muslims can maintain a clear agenda, also with the help of the media, regarding problems inside the country and regarding the ukuwah Islamiyah (worldwide Islamic community). So when is war allowed according to Islamic teachings?

When negotiations are no longer possible. If there is any conflict between parties, efforts must be directed toward the achievement of peace. The efforts should be done in the form of discussions, where strong evidence can be shown. When one party is found guilty, a certain form of punishment can be determined. That means that legal procedures must be followed and the related parties are not allowed to take their own actions against the other. With our current difficulties does Indonesia, with the world's largest Muslim population, really have the potential to achieve the ideals of a "modern" Islamic society?

The image of Islam in Indonesia, and also Southeast Asia, is pluralistic and tolerant; the image of "Islam with a smiling face." But this has changed with the crisis here in the past three years, leading to a sense of deprivation among many. The majority remain moderate, regardless of emotional outbursts by a few.

Through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Megawati could revive ASEAN's "sleeping giant" to mediate with the West -- as the war is not really against Islam and we have little say in the Organization of Islamic Conference -- and strive to have the war stopped.

If not, we fear further economic and political instability in Southeast Asia may well occur.

The West must also restrain itself -- earlier media reports that the U.S. might target countries having links with al-Qaeda were not productive. Based on our studies this is unlikely.

The expressions against the U.S. are genuine, the roots are in America's handling of the Middle East problem. Will Megawati's government, based on a "nationalist-religious" coalition, be able to survive to 2004 in the current conditions?

The coalition of Megawati, representing a non-religious party, and Hamzah Haz, a major Islamic party, would likely survive -- but it would not reach its main goals such as economic recovery. The government's energy could be sapped (by focusing on the emotionally charged issue of Afghanistan).

Despite their differences Hamzah is making adjustments; the gap would not be as wide as the one that developed in the relationship between (former president) Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati.