Sharia defenders lose latest battle
Sharia defenders lose latest battle
The Straits Times, Asia News Network, Singapore
Indonesia passed through a moment of danger last week when
Muslim groups failed in their bid to have Islamic sharia law
introduced as an integral part of the country's Constitution. The
two parties which lobbied hardest for its introduction -- the
United Development Party of Vice-President Hamzah Haz and the
Crescent Star Party -- backed down from a demand that the
People's Consultative Assembly vote on the issue.
Their move came in the face of overwhelming opposition at the
assembly, or MPR, the country's highest legislative body. The
development was a relief given that earlier in the week, Muslim
groups increased pressure on lawmakers in Jakarta to introduce
Islamic law. Thousands took to the streets in several cities
demanding that the Sharia be incorporated in the Constitution. In
Jakarta, members and supporters of 10 Muslim groups led by
clerics, including terror suspect Abu Bakar Bashir, called on
legislators to make Islamic law applicable to all Muslims.
The episode provides a sobering commentary on Indonesian
politics. It is natural for democratization to create space for
marginal groups that seek to advance specific agendas. A case can
even be made for including them in the political process because
inclusion should temper their aspirations and methods, whereas
leaving them out of the process would create discontent. However,
when political inclusiveness impinges on an issue as basic as the
relationship between the state and religion, caution is
necessary.
It is unlikely that the demands which were advanced for the
Sharia last week will be the last. Indonesia -- which is known
for its tolerant Islam and in which the majority of Muslims
remains tolerant -- is being subjected to a pressure that is
truly global in scope. As in many other countries, radical
Muslims are trying to set the agenda for the entire community,
and react to attempts to resist them by questioning the Islamic
credentials of their opponents.
There are two answers to their strategy.
The first, which is religious and applies to Muslim thinkers,
is to engage the radicals from within the traditions of Islam, to
show that the faith is not only capable of diversity but is also
marked by a history of intellectual engagement and openness.
Islam is a single religion, but there are many kinds of Muslims.
The challenge is to show that the reality of Islam in pluralistic
Indonesia is very much a part of the diversity of Islam
internationally. The struggle is over the hearts and minds of the
silent majority of Indonesian Muslims who lean towards moderation
temperamentally but who are open to the increasing stridency of
radical manipulation.
The second answer is political, and applies to both moderate
Muslims and non-Muslims. They must realize that, whatever their
political differences, they have to unite against the radicals'
use of religion for political purposes. What confronts Indonesia
is no less than two versions of politics. One is a democracy in
which the state continues not to interfere in religious freedom.
The other is a democratic mechanism which radicals exploit to
foist their blueprint of the state on the population. Once
democracy leads to a religious state, extricating politics from
that process is arduous.
The point is not that Islam is undemocratic; it is, indeed,
compatible with democracy. However, democracy in a pluralistic
country requires a certain distance to be maintained between the
state and religion. Indonesia's founding fathers understood that
fact well. The times have not changed the basis for their
understanding.