To ban or not to ban, and catching up with terrorists

Ati Nurbaiti, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Death is most beautiful, and is far from terrifying -- after reading a few paragraphs of certain interpretations of the Koran. It's nothing to dread -- and it's for the defense of the underdog, like the thousands of infants killed in Iraq because of the "terrorist-like" policies of the U.S. and its allies.

Except that the resulting deaths from followers of such teachings have come from suicide bombing targeting other infants and innocents. The scriptwriters of such terror have found passages from the Koran that they say justify the targeting of civilians, even women and children, a researcher on terrorism has said.

The new government sponsored "task force" of ulema and other religious leaders and scholars are preparing to actively counter extremist teachings and even ban publications that incite violence, like the biography by Imam Samudra, the convict on death row for his role in the 2002 Bali bombings.

On jihad, for instance, extremists draw an analogy from the issues of ritual prayer, or sholat. Referring to the understanding of most Muslims, they point out that a Muslim intending to perform sholat would not merely raise their hands into the air -- that is not the form of sholat that mandatory five times a day in Islam.

Similarly jihad, they point out, cannot be reduced to "the war against one's own lust", the version preached by some moderates.

Now, imagine if such views were banned from publication. There wouldn't be much protest except maybe from purist advocates of freedom of expression -- one of our hard-won liberties. Even in the United Kingdom, media regulations prohibit broadcasting content that "incites hatred". Following the bombings of London last July authorities pushed for the screening of Muslim preachers and the banning of organizations considered to be extremist.

The Governor of Maluku, during the height of the Ambon communal conflicts, also closed the radio station of Laskar Jihad and threatened to close other media too, which were considered to be factors worsening the violence.

However the mind-set of deciding to ban publications for the public good raises the New Order specter of "Big Brother knows best", as if all readers would be gullible enough to switch their understanding of Islam and condone such methods of jihad.

The publication of counter interpretations of religion by our leaders and scholars is sorely needed, and they would have to be equally convincing rather than merely reiterating that Islam is a "religion of peace". Such statements, as we've seen, only fall on deaf ears among those who have absorbed arguments discussed in books like those attempting to justify the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Further, how would our scholars, teachers and leaders know what to counter if those extremist views were banned from being published? Years ago there was an article in the London-based Index on Censorship monthly -- published by one of those fierce guardians of freedom of expression. A Jew shared his pain in reading anti-Semitic writings, but added, "If such writing was banned, how could I know what they (anti Jews) felt against me?" At least those hurtful words put him on guard, he said.

The Soeharto regime forbid the broadcasting and publication of information -- let alone opinions -- regarding differences in society, promoting the belief that the nation lived in harmony. As a consequence, the media itself started believing its own self-censored perspectives it published. The result: Utter shock among the public and also the media at all that saber swaggering, shooting and burning among civilians, apparently all running amuck once Soeharto stepped down. Ignorance led to wrong perceptions and disbelief when myths went up in smoke.

In the case of those seeking recruits to carry out acts of terror, the means of publication, extremists' websites and videos such as that shown to religious leaders by Vice President Jusuf Kalla -- have been the main tools enabling our ulema and scholars to know of the existence of what they recognize as misleading and dangerous views.

Ban them -- and the teachings will still quietly spread, as they have been spreading for years, as only now we know -- through the diligently built networks of closed "religious study" groups and pesantren (Islamic boarding schools) set up by those extremists in remote areas.

Residents in several hamlets such as in West Java and, the latest, in Hetiva in Maluku, have said they only realized the activities and intentions of their "guests" when it was too late; once police came to raid the areas, or after their neighbors' faces and identities appeared in the media following a fatal explosion.

Banning publications and screening preachers is the easier way. But the "task force" of religious leaders and scholars need to seek other ways to win this deadly catch-up game; they are just beginning to approach the pesantren and their teachers, while the masterminds continue to stealthily pluck young men, dangling heavenly pleasures, material incentives, or both, and targeting more and more innocent victims.