The fallacy of violence in religion's name

Bustanuddin Agus, Padang

Apart from acts of terrorism committed by a handful of people, there are various forms of violence perpetrated in the name of religion. The latest case was the storming and ravaging of the al Mubarok Campus in Parung, Bogor, by up to a thousand toughs grouped in what they called the Indonesian Islamic Movement. Claiming to be defenders of Islam, they attacked the headquarters of Ahmadiyah, a group they charged with teaching heresy.

Many have criticized such violent acts to settle the issue of differences in faith. Such criticism is not only based on the general opinion about love and peace, but also on the Islamic creed itself. The solution of faith differences by means of wanton violence and vandalism is opposed by the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. Various doctrines in the Koran refer to the designations of God as rahman (the compassionate) and rahim (the merciful). However, why does violence in the name of religion continue?

For the people who attacked and assaulted Ahmadiyah, the action was certainly an obligation and justifiable. Furthermore, the edict issued by the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) considers Ahmadiyah a blasphemous sect. In the view of Islam, if a Muslim follows such a deviant sect or abandons Islam, he or she becomes an apostate or bughah (rebel). According to fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), without repentance within three days, the apostate can be punished by death or assault.

The militant Islamist defenders who carried out the violence insisted that the government was not being stern enough against Ahmadiyah. They wanted the government to dissolve Ahmadiyah as a follow-up to the MUI edict.

Nonetheless, a deeper analysis of the case shows that there is in fact a fundamental error in these self-styled defenders' way of dealing with the reality of differences in beliefs. The violent action against Ahmadiyah is controversial and amounts to a blunder. Although carried out for the sake of upholding faith, any violence obviously breaks the law.

Above all, the MUI ruling itself also faces an operational constraint. Moreover, the MUI clerics' rulings no longer carry the same weight as their previous judgments. MUI is not a sacred institution. As seen by the public, MUI is today very different from, for instance, the same council under Buya Hamka in the 1970s who had strong credibility. With the declining trustworthiness of the ulema body, even individual Muslims often ignore their rulings, let alone the "neutral" government.

The demand that the government should take action against heretic schools is also polemical. The government itself will only act under formal rules such as laws and presidential instructions. Even if an instruction is issued, the process involved will be very long. The lower state apparatus often awaits the command of its superiors before combating vice.

Here the masses frequently see that the procedure for upholding the principle of amar maruf nahi mungkar (doing what is right and rejecting what is wrong) is very complicated. According to some people the government lacks the will to act, so "stern" methods are needed.

The problem is that such methods are often in the form of physical violence. They are impatient and feel like they have the right to mete out punishment. In fact, no violence is justified by society. Only the state has the right to conduct repression (in its "neutral" sense).

From the perspective of science, the emergence of violence as a solution to social and humanity issues clearly indicates the presence of a gap between aspirations (das sollen) and realities (das sein). Violence in the name of God actually also proves the existence of a gap between theological religion and socio- anthropological religion.

Nevertheless, the disparity between das sollen and das sein is certainly common. Hegel, for example, postulates the law of dialectics: thesis-antithesis-synthesis. The sociology and anthropology of religion start with the awareness of a marked contrast between aspirations and realities. Both sciences have been developing due to the many "oddities" in religious life.

It is widely understood that religion begins with conviction whereas science and philosophy cast doubt on such things. Yet in its latest development, the religion-science dichotomy is being questioned. People have even considered integrating science and religion.

Upon further examination, in the context of social phenomena the "religion" implied here covers more than the official religious creeds known to the public. The characteristics of fanatical belief are found not only in (official) religion but also in religious sects, schools, even in religious parties and organizations as well as secular ideologies. The lower the level of one's religious thought and comprehension, the narrower and more concrete his/her expression of religious fanaticism will be.

In addition, acts of violence in the name of religion is also the result of the tendency of religious observance only from a certain aspect, such as the angle of law, faith, collectivity or masses. The other facets like rationality, spiritual/mystical experience (tasauf), tends to be ignored. The time has come to embrace religion with the entire potential bestowed by God on men. God knows best!

The writer is professor of sociology at University of Andalas, Padang.