Indonesian Islamic boarding schools shun violence: Hasyim

Indonesian Islamic boarding schools shun violence: Hasyim

Pesantren, or Islamic boarding schools, have been under the
spotlight since the arrest of a number of suspects in the Bali
and Makassar bombings with links to pesantren life. Some critics
and observers have accused the pesantren of sowing the seeds of
terrorism by preaching radicalism. So how has the issue of
terrorism tarnished the image of the pesantren? The chairman of
the 40 million-strong Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), Hasyim Muzadi, shared
his views on the issue with The Jakarta Post's Sri Wahyuni and
Damar Harsanto.

Question: What do you think of the issue?

Answer: We have to keep this matter in proportion. The
pesantren in Indonesia have never produced radicalism, much less
terrorism, because pesantren here are centers of religious study,
places where religion is taught as a way of life. The pesantren
also are centers of culture where morality and ethics are
strongly emphasized. The schools, too, are to some extent centers
of nationalism. Pesantren introduce religion as a way of life,
culture, morals, ethics, democracy and nationalism.

However, because its image has been tainted, some precautions
are necessary. All pesantren must be cautious about any
intrusions, on both the level of discourse and action.

The NU will warn all pesantren to remain true to their
original mission, because we know that only a tiny percentage of
them have been subject to intrusion. Besides, entire pesantren
have not been co-opted into a movement, just some individuals.
And such things do not only occur in pesantren but also in other
institutions, including campuses.

The NU has some 8,600 Islamic boarding schools across the
country. Most of them are concentrated in the provinces of East
Java, Central Java and Banten. In East Java alone there are some
2,500 pesantren.

Take the case of the pesantren in Lamongan (Al-Islam Ngruki,
Surakarta, Central Java) as an example. Please consider the
number of santri, or students, there and compare that to the fact
that only a few of them have been involved in violent actions.
Also consider whether or not they were still studying at the
pesantren or just living nearby, and whether the radicalism is
rooted in the teachings inside the pesantren or outside of it.
That's the right way to look at this matter.

Has the issue of terrorism had a noticeable effect on the
daily activities of the pesantren?

No, I don't think it is that serious. It's just because the
accusations are out there that we feel uncomfortable. Besides, NU
has also issued a call asking Muslims not to panic in responding
to the terrorism stigma. Just remain calm. As long as you are not
a terrorist, there is nothing to worry about. If we are emotional
in responding to the issue and feel outraged, it could provide
justification to the allegations that we could be terrorists.

How can you prevent terrorism from entering the pesantren?

We have to be careful about both the level of discourse and
curriculum. Never include things with nuances of radicalism
because it will only provide the opportunity for radicalism to
enter the pesantren. But I do think the chance of such an
intrusion is very small, given the fact that the curriculum of a
pesantren is more a way of life rather than a source of conflict.
I can assure you of that because over 98 percent of the country's
pesantren are under the control of the NU.

But many pesantren also give their students the freedom to
obtain information from a wide variety of sources. How do you
prevent them from receiving radical messages if that is the case?

In this case, we have to differentiate between Islam as a
teaching and a value, Islam as an interpretation of teaching and
as a movement. Although information is penetrating life in the
pesantren, as long as the discourse in the pesantren is open and
holistic, I don't think the students will be easily influenced by
such radicalism. It is the strength of the fortress that the
pupils are building inside themselves in the pesantren that
matters. And as far as I know, there is no record in Indonesia's
history of rebellion in the pesantren.

How would you explain the violence committed by NU supporters
to defend the position of then president Abdurrahman "Gus Dur"
Wahid. Most of those supporters were students and they felled
trees and attacked Muhammadiyah offices in East Java.

Here we must differentiate between emotional actions and a
radical movement. A radical movement is the result of a framework
of thinking, while emotional actions are only temporary and
spontaneous. They saw Gus Dur being humiliated and as ordinary
people they could not properly channel their anger, so they
became violent. But such violence disappears when the emotional
factor also disappears. This could happen to anyone, not just NU
members. An example of this was the actions of PDI Perjuangan
supporters in Surakarta (Central Java) when Megawati lost the
presidential race. Radicalism is different. It is a concept, by
design.

What about the fatwa (legal opinion) recently issued by NU
that allows Muslims to commit suicide bombings to defend Islam?

Let me explain it this way. Killing people is absolutely
forbidden according to Islamic teachings. Whoever kills someone
must receive a qishash, meaning that he or she must receive the
death penalty. But in force majeure situations or under
unforeseen circumstances, like in war, people are allowed to take
ethical alternatives. For example, when the war is unequal
uncommon actions can be carried out, including suicide bombings.

That is what is meant by the fatwa. A suicide bombing is
allowed in situations of war, such as the war against the Dutch
colonialists.

Some people feel that there has been an effort to equate Islam
with terrorism. What do you say?

We have to ask people to stop making such accusations. I've
done this every time I go abroad. I also ask the same thing of
foreign ambassadors in Jakarta. I tell them that they are not
being fair if they try to equate terrorism with Islam because all
religions are against terrorism. Someone who commits a terrorist
act basically is fighting against his or her own religion. I also
tell them that (equating terrorism with Islam) makes it even more
difficult for them to capture the real terrorists.

I believe what we have done so far has had good results,
though it can still be improved. One of the indications is that
many of the European leaders have said publicly that they are not
fighting Islam, although the statements might just be lip
service.

On the Muslim side, we must also control ourselves. When a
terrorist act is committed and it has nothing to do with
religion, please don't defend it in the name of religion. Doing
so only amounts to justifying people's accusations. It would be
much better if we defended (the accused) in a legal battle.

I believe there have been efforts by some people to use Islam
to justify the means they use to attain their own interests.
People collecting signatures, planning demonstrations and
preparing spiritual justifications to defend the defendants (in
terrorist acts) are examples. These actions are not necessary at
all. What you need to do is strengthen the legal defense to
provide a second opinion to the work the police have done.