'Syariah' issue is typical of transition era: Ichlasul

'Syariah' issue is typical of transition era: Ichlasul

A new group in Yogyakarta have proposed the upholding of
Islamic law amid the controversy of including reference to the
syariah in the constitution. The Jakarta Post talked to political
observer Ichlasul Amal of the Gadjah Mada University in
Yogyakarta:

Question: There are indications of Islamic aspirations as
voiced by the Mujahidin group who have recently held their
congress and among legislators who have proposed the inclusion of
upholding the Islamic law (syariah) among believers. Your
comment?

Answer: In any country where most people are Muslim there will
always be demands to uphold the syariah or to form an Islamic
state, as reflected in the experience of Malaysia, Pakistan,
Algeria and other countries. These countries always undergo
social and political divisions, with one side considered secular
and the others oriented to the textual content of the Koran as
the only legal reference.

Politically this phenomenon is virtually only about the issue
of who takes the secular side at a certain time and who takes the
other side. Years ago, the Muslim Masyumi party saw a split
between leader M. Natsir who interpreted the Koran in a
sociological and contextual manner, and the others who took the
textual interpretation.

Groups like the Mujahidin and other "radical" Islamic
political parties are the marginalized ones, some because they
are small. The United Development Party (PPP) is large but still
politically marginalized. A marginalized position leads to a
tendency to choose a simple sectarian political symbol, which is
textual religious teachings.

Q: You mean political factors led to such movements.

A: Obviously. To seek public support they use emotional symbols.
They could also be groups using the economic and political
uncertainty by raising nostalgic and sectarian symbols.

I believe many elements of PPP were behind the recent
Mujahidin congress. They're different from the (Yogyakarta-based)
Laskar Jihad. But I don't think they have links with the (crushed
movements of) Darul Islam or the Negara Islam Indonesia although
they might use the NII as their flag.

Q: How far do you think the demands will go?

A: Historically such demands usually don't last long. Such
movements always emerge in political transitions, or during
economic and political instability. The rise of the New Order
also saw such movements but they did not gain significant public
support ...

And we should question the demands further; what's the
elaboration like, how would it be implemented; who would police
the syariah? In Iran, for instance, they had such a police;
whoever was caught not wearing a headscarf jilbab was arrested.
But in time there were so many violators of the syariah that the
prisons were full.

(In Indonesia), will those in the Mujahidin play the role of
the police; conducting raids on (places selling) alcohol drinks
and destroying (the venues) just like that? In history such
experiments always fail.

Such movements are also not popular because they are always
linked to authoritarian regimes. This is very dangerous;
upholding textual teachings does indeed require authoritarian
power.

Such movements also tend to involve the military because they
have the most effective repressive power such as in Pakistan, or
in Sudan. An exception is Algeria, where the movement to uphold
the syariah has instead become the military's enemy.

If groups like the Mujahidin have displayed their rigidity in
interpreting the teachings, the political party they may want to
establish will not gain support. The poor would not want
restrictions in daily life such as arresting women without
jilbab. Just look at Iran. It was Khatami, a moderate figure, who
was elected President. Because in the end people don't want to be
watched forever...

Q: What about demands among legislators that Pancasila in the
long run be replaced by the Jakarta Charter, an earlier concept
of Pancasila with the additional words that the syariah be made
effective for Muslims?

A: That was something in the past (the Charter was finally
dropped following debates in 1945 - Ed.) If the syariah was
included in the Constitution and the Charter made effective would
things get better? Of course not. (Proponents of the issue) also
realize that any government (of a non-Islamic state) would
accommodate such demands (of at least applying symbols) -- but
not so far as to (apply) textual teachings.

For instance it would be difficult to restrict night life
here. It was actually Soeharto who was quite keen on applying
religious teachings in school. It was he who started the reading
of "Bismillah..." (In the name of Allah...) before beginning his
addresses. Even the Masyumi figures of the 1950s did not do that
(stress formalities, symbols).

This movement clearly brings political impacts; the political
elite would accommodate such demands by showing symbols to
express they are not entirely against the "Islamic" aspirations.
Even with symbolic accommodation (the proponents) will lose their
cause.

Q: Wouldn't such demands in the MPR face the "nationalist"
parties of Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI
Perjuangan) and the National Awakening Party (PKB), leading to a
deadlock?

A: I don't think so. The issue will fade away. Now the issue is
of (Abdurrahman Wahid) Gus Dur's position, and he'll be stronger
if the groups campaigning for the syariah aim to discredit Gus
Dur who is known to be against this. If this is a political
tactic to discredit Gus Dur it's quite a mistake. Support to Gus
Dur will instead grow stronger.

Smaller parties outside Islamic parties will all support Gus
Dur in the sense that he will be the best "bumper" against the
fanatics. We know he's the most tolerant figure regarding
religion.

Q: Why are such movements resisted while most people are Muslims?

A: Before Islam came here there already was a strong cultural
identity, strong beliefs, which led to cultural adjustments. It
might have been different if Islam entered a really blank
society. It's therefore quite difficult for people to imagine
what "pure" Islam is like.

What the Muhammadiyah (second largest Islamic organization) is
doing is purifying Islam but now purification is increasingly
difficult. I think Muhammadiyah needs reorientation because
culture constantly changes including the dynamics of local
culture and Islamic teachings.

Q: Is nationalism here so strong that it can effectively check
radical religious movements?

A: There was once a clear differentiation as culturally
classified by (American anthropologist) Clifford Geertz: the
abangan, the santri and priyayi. The abangan (less "purist"
Muslims) were the nationalists while the santri were (identified
as devout followers of) Islam. Political figures like Sukarno and
Mohammad Hatta were (identified as) Muslims but also
nationalists. Among Muslim politicians there were M. Natsir and
the others.

Before independence, Islam and communists were considered as
teachings from outside... At that time nationalism became an
alternative, and nationalists based their ideology on local
values.

But with (involvement in) the market economy people no longer
saw concrete symbols in such ideologies -- whether nationalist or
Islam.

Q: There has been speculation that the Crescent Star party, the
United Development Party and groups like the Mujahidin know that
the issue of the syariah is not popular, but they continue to
raise it in the hopes it will snowball and gain wide support...

A: I don't think that (wide support) will happen ... the issue of
making the syariah effective or of establishing an Islamic state
is outdated. It was a hot topic until about the 1970s. Not
anymore, particularly now with Islamic figures already in the
corridors of power, making such movements or maneuvers unpopular.

There would be a different impact if the issue was raised
before 1965 when the Indonesian Communist Party was still around
or at the time of repression against political Islam in the
beginning of the 1970s, when the military was rather against
Islam.

But instead of a snowball, raising the issue now would make it
even more unpopular. If it's a strategy to gain more support for
the 2004 elections those parties would likely earn much less
votes. (Asip A. Hasani)