MUI fatwas and freedom of religion in Indonesia

MUI fatwas and freedom of religion in Indonesia

Muhamad Ali
Hawaii

The fatwas (edicts) issued by the Indonesian Ulemas Council
(MUI) concerning intra and inter-religious issues in the country
have generated concerns and criticisms from other scholars and
the public, and clearly demonstrates that there is still a
semantic and intellectual gap among the religious elites
themselves about how to deal with religious diversity and
freedom. Religious freedom does not seem to have won over the
minds of many religious elites, or for that matter, the public in
general.

Prof. Abdel Fattah Amor, dean of the faculty of law at the
University of Tunis, has rightly put it, saying that each
religion has a tendency to consider that it is the sole guardian
of truth and is duty bound to behave accordingly, an attitude
which is not always conducive to inter-religious tolerance.

Furthermore, each religion may be tempted to fight against
whatever it defines as deviant either within its own faith or at
its boundaries, which is equally unlikely to encourage internal
religious tolerance.

The MUI fatwas that prohibit interfaith prayer, interfaith
marriage, interfaith inheritance, religious pluralism,
liberalism, secularism, and Ahmadiyah, are largely counter-
productive to the ideals of freedom of religion and religious
tolerance when one strand of religious interpretation has to be
introduced to public in order to attack other interpretations
existing in the community.

The edicts clearly contradict the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, one article of which states that "everyone has the
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right
includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom,
either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest this religion or belief in teaching,
practice, worship and observance."

The edicts are also against the 1945 Constitution Chapter 29,
that stipulates that the state ensures the freedom of every
citizen to adhere any religion and to perform religious duties as
required by their religion and faith. The recent edicts can also
be understood to go against the Koranic verses: "Let there be no
compulsion in religion, Truth stands out clear from Error" (Al-
Baqarah, 256).

MUI's close relationships with the government and its
perceived and actual authority among the Muslim populace gives it
strategic and important position, but this position should not be
used to monopolize religious interpretation. A fatwa can have
considerable implications for the attitude of many Muslims.
Criticisms leveled by national Muslim leaders and the public
against certain fatwas indicate that they are very much aware of
the powerful role of such edicts on the minds and behavior of the
Muslim community. A fatwa can influence followers to become
violent and vandalistic. A fatwa that encourages intolerance can
be used to justify the use of violence among religious followers.

It is regrettable that one of the MUI ulemas once said that it
was normal that some Muslims did not obey their edicts because
the Koran and the Prophetic Sunnah itself have always been
disobeyed too. Everybody knows, fatwas are opinions and not
universally binding.

So why has MUI shown such anti-pluralistic sentiments? Why has
MUI chosen to show its power rather than its reason by not
recognizing pluralism both within Islam itself and with other
religions?

Although fatwas are supposed to be flexible and can change
according to circumstances, they are always not so on issues
believed to for part of beliefs and rituals.

However, it is socio-political contexts that have actually
shaped such lack of flexibility and change. Some of the fatwas
were issued in the context of inter-religious tensions and amidst
the dilemma faced by the government in promoting religious
tolerance. Thus, for MUI, the prohibition of inter-religious
marriage, inter-faith prayer, or pluralism, has been aimed at
maintaining what they perceive to be the identity and integrity
of the Muslim community.

Many Muslims have actually welcomed such anti-pluralist
edicts. But there are quite a number of them who have not. MUI
and many others simply do not comprehend pluralism, human rights,
and freedom of expression. They have defined pluralism,
liberalism, and secularism in their own ways, without
understanding the complexity and diversity of the terms being
used among different scholars.

Thus there is still semantic gap and misunderstanding between
MUI ulemas on the one hand and Muslim and non- Muslim scholars
and institutions which have promoted pluralism, liberalism and
secularism on the other. Therefore, MUI ulemas should do more
listening and engage in more dialogue with various elements in
Muslim and non-Muslim communities alike.

Moreover, MUI should be aware of the fact that today MUI is
only one among many Muslim organizations and individuals. MUI is
not the only authoritative and influential institution in the
Muslim community. Muslims have in fact become more diverse and
plural in their understanding of religion.

Globalization in media, education, and socio-cultural
interaction has contributed to this diversification of Muslim
beliefs and practices, which should be studied and discussed
first. Any attempt to control such diversifying tendencies among
Muslims will be counter-productive to intra-Muslim relationships
and in many cases to inter-religious interactions as well.

What is more disturbing is that MUI has not learned that Islam
recognizes freedom of expression. Actually, there are some
clerics in MUI, such as former MUI chairman, Hasan Basri, who saw
religious harmony as their main priority.

In 1997 KH Hasan Basri said, for example, "Being conscious
that a harmonious condition among Indonesian citizens is expected
by many parties, MUI as the serving organization of clerics is
strongly committed to participate in realizing such a condition.
For MUI, the improvement in the harmonious life of religious
communities is one of its priorities." This is the priority that
MUI should be focusing on.

The writer is a lecturer at the State Islamic University
(UIN), Jakarta, and is now pursuing his PhD in History at the
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu under the East-West
Center Fellowship. He can be reached at muhali74@hotmail.com.