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.