Islam is politically difficult to describe

Islam is politically difficult to describe

Acting chairman of Muhammadiyah, the country's second largest
Muslim organization, Ahmad Syafii Maarif, shares his views with
The Jakarta Post on Islam in politics today and the Maluku issue
which has flared religious sentiments. Here is an excerpt:

Question:How do you see the position of Islam in current
political life?

Answer: As a sociological phenomenon, Islam is just like other
religions. As a political one, it's difficult to describe. As a
doctrine, there is only one Islam. But there are many political
expressions, so it's quite likely that different Muslim groups
are in dispute with one another. That's the problem.

But that's not new, and it doesn't happen only in Indonesia.
It has been a problem throughout history. So it's not easy to
make conflicts stop immediately and avoid further generations
from inheriting the disputes.

We cannot just tell the younger generation to be devout and
respect other religions. Islam is a doctrine with no guarantee
that it is applicable in daily life. The interpretation very much
depends on the interpreters' interest. Just like in politics.

Could we say that the result of the last general election
reflects the political position of Islam in the country?

What we have from the 1999 election is a result of shock. We
have never had a real election since 1955. What we had over the
40 years since then was nothing but elections full of
"engineering".

The result cannot yet be viewed as the real portrait of the
actual power of the contesting political parties.

Why did the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI
Perjuangan) obtain 133 seats of the 462 seats contested? The
party was very much helped by the incident of July 27, 1996.

People were sympathetic to the oppressed, and PDI Perjuangan
happened to be oppressed by the government. That was more a
psychological matter than a political one.

Some say that Islam is now more radical. Your comment?

Which Islam do you mean? There are so many in Islam. As far as
I'm concerned, the radical ones are always minority groups. Major
groups (like) Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama, for example, have
never been radical.

How do you define the term "radical"?

A radical group is a group that always wants to change
things. They are usually revolutionary, too. They want to change
things quickly and sometimes they have only hollow and immature
considerations.

Can we say that the call for a jihad is a radical attitude?

You may say so. But in the case of Maluku jihad is the right
thing to do. What is not right is if it is spread to other
regions. Islam says that revenge should only be taken against the
guilty party, not others. That is not allowed and it is unfair.
But it was overflow from the late handling of Maluku; what
happened in Mataram (capital of Lombok) recently obviously had
nothing to do with what happened in Maluku.

This is exactly what we all are concerned about. Why? It was
mostly the Sundanese community from the West Java town of
Sukabumi which was chased from Maluku. Our concern is the
possibility of a riot elsewhere, like in Sukabumi, given our
paralyzed security personnel. ... They have not taken the role of
the state apparatus but are (tools) of particular individuals,
families or conglomerates ...

However, the (Mataram) case has been quickly handled. Some
have been arrested. You see, when it was Muslims (who incited the
riot), it (the government) could quickly arrest them ...

A call for jihad has emerged because Muslims think they have
been treated cruelly for too long. I have supporting data that
Muslims have suffered the most in Maluku.

The Muslim community there clearly was not ready for such an
attack. There is also evidence that the attackers have used
military weapons probably gained from RMS (the Republic of South
Maluku) group. (A high-ranking officer) who happens to be from
one of the province's islands provided me with data about the
attackers. I also obtained the same data from some Ambonese.

Is there any special requirement in order for Muslims to
conduct a jihad?

Yes, it is when we are being treated tyrannically. The Koran
says whoever is acting outlandishly, then make him or her pay as
much as what he or she has done (to you). If they destroy your
house and kill your brothers or sisters, you may also burn their
houses and kill them. Of course, it would be better if you could
forgive them.

The Maluku case also indicates that the police and the
military have failed to keep the peace. They took sides ... (non-
Muslims have also accused security personnel of siding with
Muslims -- Ed.). It's very critical. The burning of places of
worship, the killings, it's been like hell.

How has Muhammadiyah reacted?

We have repeatedly said that it's no longer enough for the
government to just make statements. They have to do something.
Thank God they finally did, by sending at least 17 battalions
there. They won't be withdrawn before a peaceful situation is
obtained there. That's very good. What Muslims are asking for is
just neutral troops. That's all.

What should the government do to guarantee troops' neutrality?

It has to be selective. If necessary only Hindu troops should
be sent there. Experience shows that the local Chief Police who
is a Hindu, gained a very good image among Muslims there because
he truly has not sided with any group.

Some said that what happened in Maluku is a legacy of sin of
the previous regime. Do you agree?

It started in the 16th century when the Portuguese, who were
Catholics, arrived, followed by the Dutch, who were Christians.

What has been happening is nothing but the abuse of religion.
Religion has been used as a political vehicle. Once religion is
abused, its basic values are betrayed.

Which party abused religion in this case?

Mostly the attackers, in this case the Christians (the same
allegations have come from non-Muslims -- Ed.) There are many
indications. One is that they (the attackers) cried out "RMS"
(Republic of South Maluku) while attacking Muslims.

They also do not like their Muslim governor although the
percentage of the Muslim population was 59.5 percent, while that
of non-Muslims was 40.5 percent. The latter comprises 35.5
percent Protestant and the rest are Catholics. Since most Muslims
have been chased from Ambon, the ratio of the Muslim and non-
Muslim community in Ambon is now maybe 35 percent to 65 percent.
Do you see the involvement of Jakarta's elite in the conflict?

It's very probable. There are three dominant groups in the
region: the Maluku Protestant Church, RMS and supporters of the
Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) who are
mostly Christian. In a recent meeting at Borobudur Hotel in
Jakarta, (TNI Chief of General Affairs and former commander of
the Wirabuana military command) Lt. Gen. Suaidi Marasabessy
provided clear elaboration on the matter. No one could deny that.

Why do you think the government has been so slow in handling
the sectarian conflict in the region?

It's because of the inability of both President Abdurrahman
Wahid and Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri. It's a new thing
for both of them to manage the state ...

Do you see a solution to the conflict?

In the short term, the sending of a large number of troops is
the best solution. Hopefully they can be a mediator to restore
peace.

In the long term, it could take one or two generations to make
all the conflicting parties really cool down. Blood relations
(among conflicting parties) no longer means anything to them.

It was initially not a problem of religion. Rather, it was a
matter of socioeconomic jealousy between Muslims and Christians,
as most Muslims were prosperous. There is also an everlasting
historical grudge; Christians have wanted to increase the ratio
of their population.

The first thing to do, therefore, is to stop the slaughter
right away. Then approaches based on tradition, religion and
economic recovery could be done eventually.

How do you see the distancing in relations between President
Abdurrahman Wahid and "reformist" Muslim leader Amien Rais?

I don't see it as a problem. It was just something that the
media blew up.

The President said the "one million" gathering of Muslims last
month, in which Amien Rais was a speaker, was part of the effort
to remove him from office.

That's just because the President didn't get complete
information about the event. He might have got it from somebody
who whispered it to him, not from a written official report.

What about growing public allegations that Amien Rais, the
former Muhammadiyah chairman and leader of the Muslim "axis
force", is sectarian?

It's an irresponsible accusation stated without clear reason.
Amien is indeed a very accommodative figure. It's a big mistake
to call him a provocateur. I'm not defending him; he is obviously
able to defend himself. Amien has always been responsible for
everything he does. He probably gave partial comments regarding
the accusation. Yet, when he sees the time has come, he will
surely provide us with a comprehensive explanation.

Regarding his outspoken remarks, could we say that Amien is
radical in the sense that he has always wanted to make change?

Radical in thinking, probably yes, but not in action. The
nation surely has to thank Amien for being radical in thinking.
Could you imagine what the nation would be if Soeharto was still
in power up to 2004? We have to differentiate between radical in
thinking and in action. Acting radically without taking into
account the existing political and social situation would only
result in destruction. I believe Amien Rais is not such a person.
(Sri Wahyuni)