Interfaith dialog vital in dealing with religious radicalism
Interfaith dialog vital in dealing with religious radicalism
Late last week, prominent Muslim scholars from Southeast Asia
gathered in Jakarta to attend a meeting organized by the
International Center for Islam and Pluralism (ICIP). Among the
conclusions of the meeting was that spreading Islamic teachings
(dakwah) did not necessarily entail conversion, and could in fact
open up the possibility of interfaith dialog. The Jakarta Post's
M. Taufiqurrahman spoke with ICIP executive director M. Syafi'i
Anwar about this issue.
Question: Why is Islamic radicalism so prevalent?
Answer: There are two factors that give rise to radicalism.
The first is an underlying factor. There are people who hold the
view that suicide bombings are justified by Koranic teachings.
Their understanding of the teachings finds evidence in the
conflict in Palestine or the double standards applied by the
United States government. They want to bring the conflict and
injustice to the local context and this gives rise to
politicization of the concept of jihad.
All these concepts can be very dangerous when put in the hands
of ordinary Muslims. This warped thinking is aggravated by actual
economic and social woes. Hatred toward other religions sometimes
arises from jealousy. The construction of a church is perceived
as pervading elitism, because Christians or ethnic Chinese are
perceived as rich. Economically challenged Muslims are
psychologically prone to resorting to violence because of their
poverty and lack of education. This is what I call the triggering
factor.
How can you eliminate such radical thinking and convey the
message of pluralism?
It will be an uphill struggle and take a long time because
what we are trying to do is change the textual interpretation of
the Koran. The most immediate solution is education. Radicalism
is a process of becoming and not the process of being.
What is lacking in radical Muslims is the ability to compare
themselves and empathize with others. They claim the truth as
their own and politicize it. However, we must be cautious about
this issue, as such radical interpretations do not only enchant
the economically challenged. Those who are highly educated are
also affected.
The so-called neo-fundamentalist movement is dominated by
those who study natural sciences such as engineering, medicine
and chemistry because they tend to have a literal interpretation
of Koranic text. They are not well versed in Islamic sociology
and the history of Islam. They never learn about the context in
which the texts were revealed.
What should we do about radical groups such as the Islam
Defenders Front (FPI)?
This group should not be left in the cold, preoccupied with
themselves. We have to invite them for a dialog. We have to treat
them humanely because violence directed against them will only
strengthen their resolve. They may reject us at the outset, but
my experience suggests that over time they will be willing to
open up themselves.
When the critical left turn in Islamic teachings occurred, was
it aimed at converting others?
When Islam first arrived in the archipelago, Islam was
disseminated in a benign way through arts and culture. The
emphasis was less on Islamic law (syariah) than on universal
truth. Over time, dakwah became political when it was coupled
with the concept of Indonesia as a nation-state. Afterward,
Islamic thinking developed by radical groups such as Ikhwanul
Muslimin from the Middle East arrived in the country in the
1960s. However, the radical concept of dakwah blossomed in the
wake of the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979.
Although the radical Islamic movement is adhered to by just a
small number of Muslims, they are in fact portrayed as
representing Muslims around the world. Who is to blame for this,
Muslims themselves or the paranoid West?
Both share the blame. The media in the West plays a
significant role in stereotyping Muslim. For example, I once read
that the New York Times ran a full-page story about Laskar Jihad,
which is too much and does not represent reality. Such coverage
gives the impression that Laskar Jihad is indeed strong when it
isn't. Also, governments of Western countries can be criticized
for their security approach in dealing with radical Muslim
groups. They pin the blame on Jamaah Islamiyah and al-Qaeda for
all terrorist attacks without looking any deeper into the factors
that give rise to radicalism.
Will the rise of fundamentalism in the U.S. dim the prospects
of the East-West dialog?
Against this backdrop, we have to revive inter-faith dialog.
There is no other alternative because mutual distrust between
Islam and the West has reached alarming heights. Leaders in the
West and the Muslim world are culpable for using religious
sentiment for meeting their political ends. We must fight against
fundamentalism in all religions. Religious radicalism must be put
to an end, otherwise the world will never be free of conflict
because religion is the easiest rallying cry for anyone and
conflicts based on faith will always be bloodier. Interfaith
dialog is a must.
In the country, however, communal conflicts in Ambon and Poso
have dissuaded people from embarking on interfaith dialog. Ever
since these conflict, relations between people of different
religions have been at their lowest point. Prejudice is running
high among the public.
Days before the Nahdlatul Ulama congress kicked off, a number
of senior clerics of the NU said in a joint statement that they
did not want anyone who was a member of the Liberal Islam Network
(JIL) in their organization. What are these clerics actually
against?
The clerics think the Islamic thinking promoted by JIL strays
from the mainstream of Islamic thinking. The clerics also think
the network is too bold in its actions. I also have criticisms of
the JIL. Substance-wise, their liberal Islamic thinking is not a
problem as it has been taught by modern Muslim scholars such as
Muhammadiyah founder Ahmad Dahlan, NU patron Abdurrahman "Gus
Dur" Wahid and scholar Nurcholish Madjid. However, people in the
network should rethink their approach in presenting their views.
They should refrain from shocking the public with their views.
For people who are well educated the approach may be harmless,
but not for average Muslims.