Tri Harmaji
History of Religions in Indonesia Part II: from c. 1900 to the Present
Religion, September 11, the “war on terror” and “clash of civilization”: the future of religious diversity in Indonesia; Noorhaidi Hasan, September 11 and Islamic Militancy in Post-New Order Indonesia, Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, The Impact of September 11 on Islam in Southeast Asia.
‘The clash of civilization’, like describes in the reading is a rejected theory to explain ‘the war against terrorism’ campaign led by United Stated of America with the main targets are Islamic country Afghanistan and Iraq following the September 11 attack on the two American symbols of superiority World Trade Centre and Pentagon. This theory is very dangerous to this campaign because the theory will make all ‘really’ Islamic country will not just give any support to the campaign but also will together against the campaign. But this theory, I think, is also not just like children story in bad. It perhaps has strong argumentations and reasons.
If we clean Islam from every modern (western) influence from philosophical idea such as human right declaration, gender equality etc. to material advantage such as technology, perhaps we can clearly see Islam as a really different civilization other than western civilization. To do this job now is perhaps very difficult because western modernity has profoundly penetrated Islamic world to their blood and bone. This penetration has been going on for the first time the two civilizations encountered. So many Muslim students from Islamic countries has gone to study in the western countries, learn it philosophy, ideas and technology, and then bring it back to their home countries to be implemented. What we can see liberal Islam in Indonesia for example is a kind of Islam that has already influenced by western philosophy and ideas. So what is the pure Islam then?
It is right that the Islamic version of radical fundamentalist groups perhaps is not the true and pure Islamic civilization. And perhaps there is no what is called as pure Islamic civilization anymore because Islamic world has together developed with western influences. But what is emerging from the phenomenon of fundamentalist Islam recently, perhaps, is really a sign that what is called as Islamic civilization is really exist. And this civilization is definitely different from western civilization.
If what I guessed above is right, then the theory of clash civilization is so not impossible. The well known crusade event is perhaps the first clash happened between these civilizations. Centuries later this first clash was followed by subsequent victories of the west over Islamic countries in the east by the policy of colonialism. Both clashes are definitely bloody and the second clash was ended in the nineteenth century by then ending of colonialism era. From these two clashes Islamic world had severely injured and many Muslim started to acknowledge the western superiority and went there to study. This last process has responsible for the sunk of Islamic civilization amid the powerful western civilization. Under this policy the idea or consciousness of the great Islamic civilization became more and more weaken among the Islamic communities especially Islamic people in Indonesia.
What is significant about the war against terrorism campaign of America toward Islamic countries is a wake up call for Islamic people to remember what they have lost today: their own civilization. The consciousness of Islamic civilization attacked and destroyed by western civilization then growing rapidly like mushroom in the rainy season. What is the end of this scene will be? In my opinion what is propagated by radical Islam now in Indonesia is definitely this theory, and on the other hand what is promoted by liberal Islam is the counter theory of it. And what we call as the future of religious diversity in Indonesia, in my opinion, will be decided especially by who is the winner of this struggle.
Minggu, 02 Mei 2010
The world goes to war on terror
MUCHA Q ARQUIZA
Another head hangs lowly, tied slowly to die
and the violence cause such silence
who are we mistaken
but, you see, it's not my family
in your head they are fighting...
Another mother's breaking heart has taken over
when the violence cause such silence
who are we mistaken
it’s the same old team since 1916
they are still fighting...’
[‘Zombie’, The Cranberry]
In the 60s,70s and the 80s, America waged terrible wars on terror. At first, it was Vietnam, and then, it was Afghanistan. There, the terrorist was itself, America. In its Afghan war, America harnessed international soldier-recruits to fight its holy war. The mujahideens were to reduce Afghanistan into smithereens to flush out Russian communists. Earlier, the same jihad was also fanned by American CIA in Indonesia that successfully cleansed the country off in less than a year of close to one million suspected member of the PKI and repudiated from society its future generations forever. Little did the Muslims and mujahideen in both countries knew that they were fighting a jihad not for Muslims, not for Allah, but for Uncle Sam.
In 2001, America again invested on a war on terrorism. The terrorists were the heroes it helped prop up and built-up in strength, Osama bin Laden, and Arab and Indonesian extremists. In this war America was again recruiting international allies to ‘be with us’ or else ‘you are against us’. The fight was called a crusade for ‘infinite justice’, later scaled down to ‘enduring freedom’. Little did the loyal allies knew that they were launching a crusade not for themselves, or for their gods or holy saints, but for the future of world religion – the Market – and the future god called Profit.
Ten years later now into the 2010, we have completely become and still are conscripted and embroiled into this war on terror that America has led us all. And each with his own defense to justify America’s and the West’s successes and interests as our own, this American holy war is also the world’s war. As the US, the world is to liberate Muslims from their autocratic regimes, for instance, and to democratize Islam that is not liberal enough; in the name of American ideals of liberty and freedom, the world is supposed to fight this, so it claims, 'oppressive and backward' religion of the 'illiterates' ruled by the 'savage laws of the desert nomads'. The new war doctrine says Muslims and Islam must be liberated to see the shining lights of US and Western democracy and liberal capitalistic lifestyle. The irony of all is that Muslims who have been coerced to be soldiers of this world war have been targeting its own, the women and secular intellectuals, most especially, yet perennially blind to the real instigator or the war-monger.
This war on terror, as America intends, is enduring freedom indeed, pervasively fought globally on a 24-7 basis, and worse than the previous world wars that went before us. For in this war, we fight at airports where we are made to remove our shoes, our belts, our coin purses; leave our toothpaste, shampoo and lotions and unconsumed bottled water; and if we are Muslims, in some airports, we are made to unrobe and untangle our jilbab and unhook our brassieres. The war goes to schools, too. In countries such as mine [Philippines] where Muslims are a minority, poor innocent grade-school kids with Arab sounding names get extra attention by suspicious teachers, and are demanded to narrate their ‘brief’ personal – meaning, religious – life history lest they be related, if distant, to any of the ‘terror-sounding’ names and hooded personalities. Or else, for someone declaring herself Muslim but bearing a ‘Christian-sounding’ name most likely gets into arguments where ‘curious’ [islamophobic?] school-mates are wont to investigate why, ‘but your name is Christian name, why are you a Muslim?’ -- as though being a Muslim is some sort of a disease or dreadful thing that one better stay away from. Overnight, everyone becomes self-conscious about their race and ethnicity, religion, gender and with other markers of identity that define ‘us’ and ‘they’. Suddenly, friends become enemies and fences are erected between neighbors. And when things go a little bit overheated, or overboard with too much politics, they apply the instant 'band-aid', a moral emergency kit called 'interfaith dialogue'.
The new war on terror as designed by the United States of America is a Zombie war, fought in the battlefield of emotions and intellect -- its weapons are anger and hatred stashed in hearts and fired away by fingertips and tongues; its target victims are not bodies but souls. And as the Cranberry sings the wars go on and on: ‘in your head, are their tanks, and their bombs and their guns, in your head…’
Another head hangs lowly, tied slowly to die
and the violence cause such silence
who are we mistaken
but, you see, it's not my family
in your head they are fighting...
Another mother's breaking heart has taken over
when the violence cause such silence
who are we mistaken
it’s the same old team since 1916
they are still fighting...’
[‘Zombie’, The Cranberry]
In the 60s,70s and the 80s, America waged terrible wars on terror. At first, it was Vietnam, and then, it was Afghanistan. There, the terrorist was itself, America. In its Afghan war, America harnessed international soldier-recruits to fight its holy war. The mujahideens were to reduce Afghanistan into smithereens to flush out Russian communists. Earlier, the same jihad was also fanned by American CIA in Indonesia that successfully cleansed the country off in less than a year of close to one million suspected member of the PKI and repudiated from society its future generations forever. Little did the Muslims and mujahideen in both countries knew that they were fighting a jihad not for Muslims, not for Allah, but for Uncle Sam.
In 2001, America again invested on a war on terrorism. The terrorists were the heroes it helped prop up and built-up in strength, Osama bin Laden, and Arab and Indonesian extremists. In this war America was again recruiting international allies to ‘be with us’ or else ‘you are against us’. The fight was called a crusade for ‘infinite justice’, later scaled down to ‘enduring freedom’. Little did the loyal allies knew that they were launching a crusade not for themselves, or for their gods or holy saints, but for the future of world religion – the Market – and the future god called Profit.
Ten years later now into the 2010, we have completely become and still are conscripted and embroiled into this war on terror that America has led us all. And each with his own defense to justify America’s and the West’s successes and interests as our own, this American holy war is also the world’s war. As the US, the world is to liberate Muslims from their autocratic regimes, for instance, and to democratize Islam that is not liberal enough; in the name of American ideals of liberty and freedom, the world is supposed to fight this, so it claims, 'oppressive and backward' religion of the 'illiterates' ruled by the 'savage laws of the desert nomads'. The new war doctrine says Muslims and Islam must be liberated to see the shining lights of US and Western democracy and liberal capitalistic lifestyle. The irony of all is that Muslims who have been coerced to be soldiers of this world war have been targeting its own, the women and secular intellectuals, most especially, yet perennially blind to the real instigator or the war-monger.
This war on terror, as America intends, is enduring freedom indeed, pervasively fought globally on a 24-7 basis, and worse than the previous world wars that went before us. For in this war, we fight at airports where we are made to remove our shoes, our belts, our coin purses; leave our toothpaste, shampoo and lotions and unconsumed bottled water; and if we are Muslims, in some airports, we are made to unrobe and untangle our jilbab and unhook our brassieres. The war goes to schools, too. In countries such as mine [Philippines] where Muslims are a minority, poor innocent grade-school kids with Arab sounding names get extra attention by suspicious teachers, and are demanded to narrate their ‘brief’ personal – meaning, religious – life history lest they be related, if distant, to any of the ‘terror-sounding’ names and hooded personalities. Or else, for someone declaring herself Muslim but bearing a ‘Christian-sounding’ name most likely gets into arguments where ‘curious’ [islamophobic?] school-mates are wont to investigate why, ‘but your name is Christian name, why are you a Muslim?’ -- as though being a Muslim is some sort of a disease or dreadful thing that one better stay away from. Overnight, everyone becomes self-conscious about their race and ethnicity, religion, gender and with other markers of identity that define ‘us’ and ‘they’. Suddenly, friends become enemies and fences are erected between neighbors. And when things go a little bit overheated, or overboard with too much politics, they apply the instant 'band-aid', a moral emergency kit called 'interfaith dialogue'.
The new war on terror as designed by the United States of America is a Zombie war, fought in the battlefield of emotions and intellect -- its weapons are anger and hatred stashed in hearts and fired away by fingertips and tongues; its target victims are not bodies but souls. And as the Cranberry sings the wars go on and on: ‘in your head, are their tanks, and their bombs and their guns, in your head…’
Who are Terrorists? By Nihayatul Wafiroh
Last month I watched the movie “My Name is Khan.” For me, it is a good picture about the impact of September 11 for Muslim people although they did not involve in the terrorism. The first implication from this tragedy is that people attempt to determine the term “terrorism.” Who are terrorists? United States, in my opinion, gives the wrong direction in the identification of terrorists. US direct or indirect shows in their news that terrorists are from Muslim people. Indeed, this generalization gives negative effects for Muslim in all countries. Osama bin Laden who is assumed to be the leader of terrorist is a Muslim, but it does not mean that all Muslim follow his ideas.
I remember my experiences when I used to live in Hawaii. For Indonesian-Muslim men they need at least one and half-hour to deal with immigration staff when they arrived or departed to US. The US immigration always assumes that all Muslim men from Indonesia are suspected to be “dangerous” people, so they need to make sure that they are clean from terrorism. When the first time my husband came to Hawaii, he had to transit one hour in Guam. In Guam, the immigration staff asked him with many question. As a result he missed his flight and had to wait for 10 hours in Guam for another flight. We made a joke for his case, “although your name is without Muhammad, your face is look like al-Qaida.”
In Indonesia case, as a Muslim, I understand that in my country there are many types of Muslim groups : liberal, moderat and radical. Indonesian is a unique country, so all groups can develop together. Before September 11, I seemed that all groups did not have any problem. In fact, the tension among groups did not occur. Bernard Adeney-Risakotta mentions in his article that actually the impact of September 11 started in Indonesia since Bali bombing on October 12, 2002. It means before that terrorism was unknown in Indonesia.
As people in other countries, Indonesian people began to step far away from terrorist people. The problem in Indonesia is that the majority population in Indonesia is Muslim, as a result, they distrusted each other. Because of media, Indonesian people image that terrorists are who wear one-quarter pants, long shirt, a beard and have wives who wear the veil. This image is not far from the image of Osama bin Laden. People very strong held this picture, so when they meet people like this, they prefer to stand far from them. It is unfair for them and also for other Muslim people.
I personally disagree with this perspective. This generalization takes away their right. Indeed, not all people who wear this kind of dress are terrorists. Terrorism, in my view, is people who make other people’s feeling are terrorized, and they cannot live peacefully. With this determination, I think that capitalism is the big terrorism in the world, and the leader of capitalism is United States. So who are the truly terrorists?
I remember my experiences when I used to live in Hawaii. For Indonesian-Muslim men they need at least one and half-hour to deal with immigration staff when they arrived or departed to US. The US immigration always assumes that all Muslim men from Indonesia are suspected to be “dangerous” people, so they need to make sure that they are clean from terrorism. When the first time my husband came to Hawaii, he had to transit one hour in Guam. In Guam, the immigration staff asked him with many question. As a result he missed his flight and had to wait for 10 hours in Guam for another flight. We made a joke for his case, “although your name is without Muhammad, your face is look like al-Qaida.”
In Indonesia case, as a Muslim, I understand that in my country there are many types of Muslim groups : liberal, moderat and radical. Indonesian is a unique country, so all groups can develop together. Before September 11, I seemed that all groups did not have any problem. In fact, the tension among groups did not occur. Bernard Adeney-Risakotta mentions in his article that actually the impact of September 11 started in Indonesia since Bali bombing on October 12, 2002. It means before that terrorism was unknown in Indonesia.
As people in other countries, Indonesian people began to step far away from terrorist people. The problem in Indonesia is that the majority population in Indonesia is Muslim, as a result, they distrusted each other. Because of media, Indonesian people image that terrorists are who wear one-quarter pants, long shirt, a beard and have wives who wear the veil. This image is not far from the image of Osama bin Laden. People very strong held this picture, so when they meet people like this, they prefer to stand far from them. It is unfair for them and also for other Muslim people.
I personally disagree with this perspective. This generalization takes away their right. Indeed, not all people who wear this kind of dress are terrorists. Terrorism, in my view, is people who make other people’s feeling are terrorized, and they cannot live peacefully. With this determination, I think that capitalism is the big terrorism in the world, and the leader of capitalism is United States. So who are the truly terrorists?
Terror and Religious diversity in Indonesia
by Nina Mariani Noor
September 11th 2001 tragedy has called many different responses from the world. While George Bush utilized it to start attacking Afghanistan and calling for war against terrorism, some fundamentalism Muslims see it as “the great conspiracy of Israel and US” to destruct Muslims. These different views show the clash between “the west” and “Muslims” world that has already existed for ages and still exist today.
Turning to terrorism, those two parties also have different definition on terrorism. Bush sees September 11 was committed by terrorists, particularly Muslims terrorists so that he called for global crusade against terrorists, whereas Muslims see Bush’s action in attacking Afghanistanand starting war is kind of terrorism toward Muslims world. So, who is the terrorist depends on who see and define it.
Accordingly, in Indonesia the spirit of “Jihad” grew up among Muslims in response to US’ action. Some fundamentalist Muslims eagerly sent their people to do Jihad in Afghanistan or in other way, they committed “suicide bombing” that they did in Indonesia by targeting Americans and other “white foreigners”. Unfortunately, people who were affected by those bombing actions are not only what so called ‘Americans” but also Indonesian and Muslims. Furthermore, those bombing actions bring about negative sentiment toward Muslims from others and also make the harmony among different religious communities is in critical point.
In my opinion, the actors of September 11 are terrorists, and both Bush and Muslims committing bombing in Indonesia are also terrorists since all of them have made other people suffer and also place world peace in danger. Moreover, it seems to me that those kinds of terrorism tend to continue in the future if we do not attempt to deal with it.
Therefore, in Indonesian context, our duty now is how to maintain the harmony among different religious communities in order to continue our idea in building Indonesian nation state. Doing more dialogue among different religions to be more understanding not only on the surface but in deep conversation, I think will have effective impacts on building a democratic nation state that respect all religions.
Readings: Hasan, Noorhaidi, “September 11 and Islamic Militancy in Post-New Order Indonesia”
Adeney-Risakotta, Bernard, The Impact of September 11 on Islam in Southeast Asia’.
September 11th 2001 tragedy has called many different responses from the world. While George Bush utilized it to start attacking Afghanistan and calling for war against terrorism, some fundamentalism Muslims see it as “the great conspiracy of Israel and US” to destruct Muslims. These different views show the clash between “the west” and “Muslims” world that has already existed for ages and still exist today.
Turning to terrorism, those two parties also have different definition on terrorism. Bush sees September 11 was committed by terrorists, particularly Muslims terrorists so that he called for global crusade against terrorists, whereas Muslims see Bush’s action in attacking Afghanistanand starting war is kind of terrorism toward Muslims world. So, who is the terrorist depends on who see and define it.
Accordingly, in Indonesia the spirit of “Jihad” grew up among Muslims in response to US’ action. Some fundamentalist Muslims eagerly sent their people to do Jihad in Afghanistan or in other way, they committed “suicide bombing” that they did in Indonesia by targeting Americans and other “white foreigners”. Unfortunately, people who were affected by those bombing actions are not only what so called ‘Americans” but also Indonesian and Muslims. Furthermore, those bombing actions bring about negative sentiment toward Muslims from others and also make the harmony among different religious communities is in critical point.
In my opinion, the actors of September 11 are terrorists, and both Bush and Muslims committing bombing in Indonesia are also terrorists since all of them have made other people suffer and also place world peace in danger. Moreover, it seems to me that those kinds of terrorism tend to continue in the future if we do not attempt to deal with it.
Therefore, in Indonesian context, our duty now is how to maintain the harmony among different religious communities in order to continue our idea in building Indonesian nation state. Doing more dialogue among different religions to be more understanding not only on the surface but in deep conversation, I think will have effective impacts on building a democratic nation state that respect all religions.
Readings: Hasan, Noorhaidi, “September 11 and Islamic Militancy in Post-New Order Indonesia”
Adeney-Risakotta, Bernard, The Impact of September 11 on Islam in Southeast Asia’.
Religion, September 11, the “War on Terror” and the “Clash of Civilizayions”: The Future of Religious Diversity in Indonesia
by Joko Wicoyo
I think the appearance of ‘radical’ and/or violent expressions of political Islam in Indonesia after 11 September is not simply understood as a function of the flaws of Indonesia’s post-Soeharto democracy but it can be more fruitfully understood in relation to similar historical and sociological processes intertwined with the ebb and flow of various kinds of Islamic-based movements in many parts of the world over the last half century. Much of this took place in the context of and in relation to the exigencies of the Cold War. Thus, there is an inter-relationship between developments in the international sphere and the nature of social conflict in the domestic which must be scrutinized.
I think it should be kept in mind that the political nature of Indonesian organized Islam, even at the very early stages, could never be separated from a broader international and historical milieu. At its moment of birth it was profoundly affected by the rise of anti colonial movements worldwide in the first decades of the twentieth century. Political Islam was clearly deeply influenced politically by its appearance in the context of growing nationalist and proto-nationalist sentiment in the colonial-era Dutch East Indies, and other parts of the colonized world – one manifestation of which was the Pan Islamic movement. As is well documented, the emergence of political Islam in Indonesia can be traced back at least to the early responses of the class of traders and merchants who perceived their social and economic position to be under threat within the colonial-era Dutch East Indies at the turn of the twentieth century, or thought their social mobility to be severely constrained. It is because of such a historical legacy that social justice ideals, often strongly tinged with a combination of nationalist and anti-capitalist sentiments–in whatever permutation – remain Islamic Militancy and Jihadist Activism
The complexity of the transition process following the fall of Suharto is confirmed by the act that, in tandem with the spread of democratic discourse, a number of militant Islamist groups, including the Front Pembela Islam (FPI) [Front of the Defenders of Islam], the Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) [Indonesia’s Party of Liberation], the Laskar Jihad (LJ) [Jihad Paramilitary Force], the Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI) [Indonesian Holy Warrior Council] and the Jamaah Islamiyah (JI), achieved notoriety by taking to the streets to demand the comprehensive implementation of the shari’a and by raiding cafes, discotheques, casinos, brothels and other reputed dens of iniquity. In response to the bloody communal conflicts in various trouble spots, they stated their determination to fight jihad and mobilized members and other aspirants of mujahidin to venture to the frontlines. The key to the success of the groups’ mobilizing process lay in the existing Islamist networks that had become widespread across the country in tandem with the efflorescence of Islamist ideology.
Framed in general terms, that what happens in Indonesia has very much to do with the global crisis in the Muslim world, the groups proclaimed their determination to offer the shari’a, khilafa system and jihad as the only solution to curb the continuing crises and disasters afflicting Indonesia today. Implicitly and explicitly they questioned the format of the modern nation-state and expressed their profound desire to establish an Islamic state. They asserted that only then would the Indonesian Muslim umma be protected and saved from the attacks of ‘belligerent infidels.’ Action frames developed by the militant Islamist groups could resonate widely in the public sphere of Indonesia, which is friendly to Islam. As a result of the Islamisation process over the past two decades, Islam has increasingly served as a determining variable behind political negotiations and become the most important frame of reference for many Indonesians to reflect upon the socio-political system they imagined capable of bringing about justice and attaining veritable development. According to them, by keeping pace with the growing influence of Islam on politics, Indonesia has witnessed new global forms of religious identity, whose effect is mediated by specific, historically situated, local institutions. The expansion of this so-called ‘global’ Islam appears to be correlated with the accentuation of religious symbols in the public sphere, the increase of personal religiosity as well as the proliferation of Islamic institutions and new life-styles.
In this context, in the wake of September 11, the name of Osama bin Laden came into the political arena of Indonesia. In this socially and politically ‘Islamised’ public sphere, the FPI came to the fore with a basic agenda to raid cafes, discotheques, casinos and brothels. These actions were claimed to be part of their attempts to secure Indonesia from the hegemony of a Zionist–Christian global conspiracy to undermine Islam. HTI appeared to the public to criticize the existing political system and to propose the khilafat system as an alternative to cope with all the problems facing Indonesia today. They claim that the collapse of the khilafat system was the prime cause of the crisis afflicting the Muslim world, which remains under the shadow of the Zionist–Christian hegemony.
The government and pro-democracy groups’ pressure against violent discourse and jihadist activism has gradually forced the militant Islamist groups to leave behind their high profile politics and shift to a strategy of implementing the shari’a from below. These militant groups apparently no longer see any relevance of jihad as a means to realizing the application of the shari’a. Instead, they argue that da’wa (Islamic proselytizing) is more appropriate to endorse the Indonesian Muslims’ awareness of their duty to uphold the supremacy of the shari’a. They also believe that non-violent endeavors would be more suitable to Indonesia’s current situation and crucial to defend Muslim solidarity and long-term struggle for the comprehensive application of the shari’a. In my mind, their campaign to apply the shari’a from above is considered less effective if there are no activists working at the grass-roots level to boost Muslims’ commitment to the application of the shari’a in their everyday lives. As Ba’asyir pointed out, the strategy for implementing the shari’a suitable for current situation in Indonesia is not jihad, but rather informing the Indonesian Muslims about the magnificence of the shari’a. In his eyes, it is the prophetic strategy of da’wa to give hope and threat; the hope of heaven and the threat of hell. Following the prophet, he relates the implementation of the shari’a to the relationship between man’s life in this world and that in the hereafter. Every individual is leader: leader for himself, his family, his village, and above all his country. They are responsible in the hereafter for whatever they have done in this world. Political leaders who do not take any initiatives to create laws that might prevent their people from being put in hell will fall into trouble in the hereafter; they will be responsible for all people’s sins caused by the absence of the shari’a. However, this does not mean that Ba’asyir totally neglected the importance of jihad; he just sees that da’wa is more appropriate for current peaceful Indonesia. For him, da’wa and jihad are twin concepts to establish God’s laws on earth. In his eyes, the West has demonized and criminalized jihad, because they are afraid of Muslim’s return to the past glorious victory of Islam. He argued that if separated from jihad, Islam becomes weak. Islam will gain honorable victory only with jihad. However, he emphasized that jihad should not be understood simply as holy war. It connotes any effort to establish God’s laws, and da’wa in this context is considered the most suitable condition for realizing the spirit of jihad. I think in this case only God knows what is right and what is wrong!
Readings : Noorhaidi Hasan “September 11 and Islamic Militancy in Post-New Order Indonesia” and Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, ”The Impact of September 11 on Islam in Southeast Asia
I think the appearance of ‘radical’ and/or violent expressions of political Islam in Indonesia after 11 September is not simply understood as a function of the flaws of Indonesia’s post-Soeharto democracy but it can be more fruitfully understood in relation to similar historical and sociological processes intertwined with the ebb and flow of various kinds of Islamic-based movements in many parts of the world over the last half century. Much of this took place in the context of and in relation to the exigencies of the Cold War. Thus, there is an inter-relationship between developments in the international sphere and the nature of social conflict in the domestic which must be scrutinized.
I think it should be kept in mind that the political nature of Indonesian organized Islam, even at the very early stages, could never be separated from a broader international and historical milieu. At its moment of birth it was profoundly affected by the rise of anti colonial movements worldwide in the first decades of the twentieth century. Political Islam was clearly deeply influenced politically by its appearance in the context of growing nationalist and proto-nationalist sentiment in the colonial-era Dutch East Indies, and other parts of the colonized world – one manifestation of which was the Pan Islamic movement. As is well documented, the emergence of political Islam in Indonesia can be traced back at least to the early responses of the class of traders and merchants who perceived their social and economic position to be under threat within the colonial-era Dutch East Indies at the turn of the twentieth century, or thought their social mobility to be severely constrained. It is because of such a historical legacy that social justice ideals, often strongly tinged with a combination of nationalist and anti-capitalist sentiments–in whatever permutation – remain Islamic Militancy and Jihadist Activism
The complexity of the transition process following the fall of Suharto is confirmed by the act that, in tandem with the spread of democratic discourse, a number of militant Islamist groups, including the Front Pembela Islam (FPI) [Front of the Defenders of Islam], the Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) [Indonesia’s Party of Liberation], the Laskar Jihad (LJ) [Jihad Paramilitary Force], the Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI) [Indonesian Holy Warrior Council] and the Jamaah Islamiyah (JI), achieved notoriety by taking to the streets to demand the comprehensive implementation of the shari’a and by raiding cafes, discotheques, casinos, brothels and other reputed dens of iniquity. In response to the bloody communal conflicts in various trouble spots, they stated their determination to fight jihad and mobilized members and other aspirants of mujahidin to venture to the frontlines. The key to the success of the groups’ mobilizing process lay in the existing Islamist networks that had become widespread across the country in tandem with the efflorescence of Islamist ideology.
Framed in general terms, that what happens in Indonesia has very much to do with the global crisis in the Muslim world, the groups proclaimed their determination to offer the shari’a, khilafa system and jihad as the only solution to curb the continuing crises and disasters afflicting Indonesia today. Implicitly and explicitly they questioned the format of the modern nation-state and expressed their profound desire to establish an Islamic state. They asserted that only then would the Indonesian Muslim umma be protected and saved from the attacks of ‘belligerent infidels.’ Action frames developed by the militant Islamist groups could resonate widely in the public sphere of Indonesia, which is friendly to Islam. As a result of the Islamisation process over the past two decades, Islam has increasingly served as a determining variable behind political negotiations and become the most important frame of reference for many Indonesians to reflect upon the socio-political system they imagined capable of bringing about justice and attaining veritable development. According to them, by keeping pace with the growing influence of Islam on politics, Indonesia has witnessed new global forms of religious identity, whose effect is mediated by specific, historically situated, local institutions. The expansion of this so-called ‘global’ Islam appears to be correlated with the accentuation of religious symbols in the public sphere, the increase of personal religiosity as well as the proliferation of Islamic institutions and new life-styles.
In this context, in the wake of September 11, the name of Osama bin Laden came into the political arena of Indonesia. In this socially and politically ‘Islamised’ public sphere, the FPI came to the fore with a basic agenda to raid cafes, discotheques, casinos and brothels. These actions were claimed to be part of their attempts to secure Indonesia from the hegemony of a Zionist–Christian global conspiracy to undermine Islam. HTI appeared to the public to criticize the existing political system and to propose the khilafat system as an alternative to cope with all the problems facing Indonesia today. They claim that the collapse of the khilafat system was the prime cause of the crisis afflicting the Muslim world, which remains under the shadow of the Zionist–Christian hegemony.
The government and pro-democracy groups’ pressure against violent discourse and jihadist activism has gradually forced the militant Islamist groups to leave behind their high profile politics and shift to a strategy of implementing the shari’a from below. These militant groups apparently no longer see any relevance of jihad as a means to realizing the application of the shari’a. Instead, they argue that da’wa (Islamic proselytizing) is more appropriate to endorse the Indonesian Muslims’ awareness of their duty to uphold the supremacy of the shari’a. They also believe that non-violent endeavors would be more suitable to Indonesia’s current situation and crucial to defend Muslim solidarity and long-term struggle for the comprehensive application of the shari’a. In my mind, their campaign to apply the shari’a from above is considered less effective if there are no activists working at the grass-roots level to boost Muslims’ commitment to the application of the shari’a in their everyday lives. As Ba’asyir pointed out, the strategy for implementing the shari’a suitable for current situation in Indonesia is not jihad, but rather informing the Indonesian Muslims about the magnificence of the shari’a. In his eyes, it is the prophetic strategy of da’wa to give hope and threat; the hope of heaven and the threat of hell. Following the prophet, he relates the implementation of the shari’a to the relationship between man’s life in this world and that in the hereafter. Every individual is leader: leader for himself, his family, his village, and above all his country. They are responsible in the hereafter for whatever they have done in this world. Political leaders who do not take any initiatives to create laws that might prevent their people from being put in hell will fall into trouble in the hereafter; they will be responsible for all people’s sins caused by the absence of the shari’a. However, this does not mean that Ba’asyir totally neglected the importance of jihad; he just sees that da’wa is more appropriate for current peaceful Indonesia. For him, da’wa and jihad are twin concepts to establish God’s laws on earth. In his eyes, the West has demonized and criminalized jihad, because they are afraid of Muslim’s return to the past glorious victory of Islam. He argued that if separated from jihad, Islam becomes weak. Islam will gain honorable victory only with jihad. However, he emphasized that jihad should not be understood simply as holy war. It connotes any effort to establish God’s laws, and da’wa in this context is considered the most suitable condition for realizing the spirit of jihad. I think in this case only God knows what is right and what is wrong!
Readings : Noorhaidi Hasan “September 11 and Islamic Militancy in Post-New Order Indonesia” and Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, ”The Impact of September 11 on Islam in Southeast Asia
Complexity of Writing History in Post-Suharto Era
by Faqihuddin Abdul Kodir
History is not about facts of the past rather perspectives of present people about those facts for the benefits of establishing their future. Suharto was true in seeing history for building his perspective of the future of Indonesia; one nation, unity in diversity, economic development, national stability, and social prosperity of all citizens. For these reasons, history should be written in a single perspective owned by the government. Sukarno did the same for his own perspective of the future of Indonesia. The leaders of Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) also would likely do the same if they took over the power. This was the critical historical moment of modern Indonesian people having learnt that the truth is one and the source of the truth also one.
At the end of Suharto’s era, after thirty years seizing the power, people had been able to delegitimize the source of “the truth” which was his government. Reformation era following Suharto’s fall from the power in 1999 opened eyes of many people to look at their own sources of the truth. Without any single legitimized source of the truth, each group of Indonesian people spread “their own truth” from “their own source”. Historiography in this period becomes no longer monolithic and nor in single perspective. At least, in the account of Klinken, there have been emerged four historiographical streams in Indonesia: (1) Orthodox nationalist stream, (2) Societal historiographies at the national level, (3) Regional ethno-nationalisms, and (4) Local sources of historiography. These streams provide not only many facts about the same event, but many perspectives, many historical interpretations, and of course many truths.
From these multi-perspectives of writing history, we Indonesian people begin to learn many truths from many sources. At least, we rely not only on government to know and spread our national history. Although each people believe in their own resource, we Indonesian people attempt to negotiate ‘truths’ among us and learn each from other. However, is really the truth many or only one? I think historical fact about certain thing is single and has only one truth, while interpretation of the fact varies, comes from multi-perspectives, and proposes many truths. We will learn more from interpretation rather than from the fact. However the power, anyone owns it, tends to limit the perspectives for its own interests and at the cost of other perspectives owned by people. Unless we control the power, we may back to the era that the source of the truth is only one and will scare us again as we experienced in the era of Suharto. The power here is not necessary the government, but also mass-media and even religion.
Readings:
1. Gerry Van Klinken, “The Battle for History after Suharto”, in Mary Zurbuchen ed., Beginning to Remember. pp. 233-258.
History is not about facts of the past rather perspectives of present people about those facts for the benefits of establishing their future. Suharto was true in seeing history for building his perspective of the future of Indonesia; one nation, unity in diversity, economic development, national stability, and social prosperity of all citizens. For these reasons, history should be written in a single perspective owned by the government. Sukarno did the same for his own perspective of the future of Indonesia. The leaders of Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) also would likely do the same if they took over the power. This was the critical historical moment of modern Indonesian people having learnt that the truth is one and the source of the truth also one.
At the end of Suharto’s era, after thirty years seizing the power, people had been able to delegitimize the source of “the truth” which was his government. Reformation era following Suharto’s fall from the power in 1999 opened eyes of many people to look at their own sources of the truth. Without any single legitimized source of the truth, each group of Indonesian people spread “their own truth” from “their own source”. Historiography in this period becomes no longer monolithic and nor in single perspective. At least, in the account of Klinken, there have been emerged four historiographical streams in Indonesia: (1) Orthodox nationalist stream, (2) Societal historiographies at the national level, (3) Regional ethno-nationalisms, and (4) Local sources of historiography. These streams provide not only many facts about the same event, but many perspectives, many historical interpretations, and of course many truths.
From these multi-perspectives of writing history, we Indonesian people begin to learn many truths from many sources. At least, we rely not only on government to know and spread our national history. Although each people believe in their own resource, we Indonesian people attempt to negotiate ‘truths’ among us and learn each from other. However, is really the truth many or only one? I think historical fact about certain thing is single and has only one truth, while interpretation of the fact varies, comes from multi-perspectives, and proposes many truths. We will learn more from interpretation rather than from the fact. However the power, anyone owns it, tends to limit the perspectives for its own interests and at the cost of other perspectives owned by people. Unless we control the power, we may back to the era that the source of the truth is only one and will scare us again as we experienced in the era of Suharto. The power here is not necessary the government, but also mass-media and even religion.
Readings:
1. Gerry Van Klinken, “The Battle for History after Suharto”, in Mary Zurbuchen ed., Beginning to Remember. pp. 233-258.
Revival of Jihad
LEYAKET ALI MOHAMED OMAR
History of Religion Part 2- Prof Bernard Adeney- Risakotta and Prof Margana
Readings from: K.S Nathan & Mohammad Kamali- Islam In Southeast Asia & Bernard Adeney- Risakotta- The Impact of September 11 on Islam In Southeast Asia
Noorhaidi Hasan account defines the role that the Islamic militancy in the post-new order Indonesia. It is illustrated that basically there is no way these radical Islamic militants are ready for a diplomatic dialogues; it seems that they tends to have an idea of supremacy in their doctrine, it goes like ‘It is either you are with us or you are against us’. As a result of the principle that they grip and hold on tightly, they tend make a total shut off to any other theories or interpretation and hence in order to seek knowledge from another sources is not in their dictionary at all.
The 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States constituted the single most important new development in the international security environment around the globe. On the other hand in Indonesia changes are taken place almost immediately after that significant event and Jihad has no longer been anything new to Indonesia political sphere. It has been long awaited since after the New Order.
We know that long before the new order it has always been a subject that kept its leader on guard; its roots in Darul Islam, a radical movement in Indonesia in the 1940s. Example is Jemaah Islamiah which was formally founded on 1 January 1993 by JI leaders, Abu Bakar Bashir and Abdullah Sungkar while hiding in Malaysia from the persecution of the Suharto Government. After the fall of the Suharto regime in 1998, both men returned to Indonesia where JI gained a terrorist edge when one of its founders, the late Abdullah Sungkar established contact with Osama Bin Laden’s- al-Qaeda network.
Time bomb as I may call it but the fact, it is a time bomb, the only new thing is that they have a new focus violent operations that previously began as the communal conflicts in Maluku and Poso. It shifted its attention to targeting US and Western interests in Indonesia and the wider Southeast Asian region since the start of the US-led war on terror. The question I may want to ask is that, is it true that the reason behind this is the faith? Or it’s the marginalized Muslims that are frustrated due to economical factors? Well, I believed it’s the second one and religion became its tools to work on the ‘enemy’. The revival of Jihad are developed by the certain radical group who are against the West with an understanding that they are responsible for the marginalized as Hasan mentions ‘ Abu Bakar Baasyir, for instance, points out ‘Violence in the framework of Jihad is allowed to resist against belligerent unbelievers attacking Muslims”(p.313)
History of Religion Part 2- Prof Bernard Adeney- Risakotta and Prof Margana
Readings from: K.S Nathan & Mohammad Kamali- Islam In Southeast Asia & Bernard Adeney- Risakotta- The Impact of September 11 on Islam In Southeast Asia
Noorhaidi Hasan account defines the role that the Islamic militancy in the post-new order Indonesia. It is illustrated that basically there is no way these radical Islamic militants are ready for a diplomatic dialogues; it seems that they tends to have an idea of supremacy in their doctrine, it goes like ‘It is either you are with us or you are against us’. As a result of the principle that they grip and hold on tightly, they tend make a total shut off to any other theories or interpretation and hence in order to seek knowledge from another sources is not in their dictionary at all.
The 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States constituted the single most important new development in the international security environment around the globe. On the other hand in Indonesia changes are taken place almost immediately after that significant event and Jihad has no longer been anything new to Indonesia political sphere. It has been long awaited since after the New Order.
We know that long before the new order it has always been a subject that kept its leader on guard; its roots in Darul Islam, a radical movement in Indonesia in the 1940s. Example is Jemaah Islamiah which was formally founded on 1 January 1993 by JI leaders, Abu Bakar Bashir and Abdullah Sungkar while hiding in Malaysia from the persecution of the Suharto Government. After the fall of the Suharto regime in 1998, both men returned to Indonesia where JI gained a terrorist edge when one of its founders, the late Abdullah Sungkar established contact with Osama Bin Laden’s- al-Qaeda network.
Time bomb as I may call it but the fact, it is a time bomb, the only new thing is that they have a new focus violent operations that previously began as the communal conflicts in Maluku and Poso. It shifted its attention to targeting US and Western interests in Indonesia and the wider Southeast Asian region since the start of the US-led war on terror. The question I may want to ask is that, is it true that the reason behind this is the faith? Or it’s the marginalized Muslims that are frustrated due to economical factors? Well, I believed it’s the second one and religion became its tools to work on the ‘enemy’. The revival of Jihad are developed by the certain radical group who are against the West with an understanding that they are responsible for the marginalized as Hasan mentions ‘ Abu Bakar Baasyir, for instance, points out ‘Violence in the framework of Jihad is allowed to resist against belligerent unbelievers attacking Muslims”(p.313)
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)