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.