The flagrant violation of religious freedom has become more widespread in Indonesia. The government continues to “pass-the-buck” or come up with fatuous policies more detrimental to the condition.
Source/Credit: The Jakarta Post
By Tobias Basuki | August 23 2013
The Shia community from Nangkernang village in the East Java regency of Sampang has been living in limbo away from their homes for over a year now. On top of that, their leader, Tajul Muluk, has had his prison sentence extended to four years. He was imprisoned right after the attacks on his village, while several of the attackers were only sentenced to a few months behind bars.
The dire situation of the Shiite community is exacerbated by indications of forced conversions by the government, involving, not surprisingly, Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali.
There are alleged conditions for the 235 Shiites to sign a pledge, which included “the willingness to return to the true teaching of Islam”. It was reported that 34 of the 235 Shiites caved in and took the pledge to be allowed to return to their homes in time for Idul Fitri. The government does not clearly admit this policy, but for many officials and some religious leaders, that is precisely the concept they have in mind to solve the “deviant group” problem.
In regards to the “Ahmadiyah problem”, West Java Governor Ahmad Heryawan clearly articulated the concept that many have. He stated: “the problem will disappear if the belief disappears”.
It is a terrible policy, not too brash to call it “genocide”! It is genocide of thought, conscience and conviction of a group of people. The flagrant violation of religious freedom has become more widespread in Indonesia. The government continues to “pass-the-buck” or come up with fatuous policies more detrimental to the condition.
It is a contentious issue that politicians, religious leaders and even scholars sometimes oversimplify or evade altogether. Back to the case of the Shiites in Sampang as a particular example, we see many attempts to gloss over the problem and generalize it.
Ever since the outbreak claimed two lives last year, a number of analyses have been made. Some say, it is an “isolated incident” as in many other religious conflicts or atrocities all over the country.
Proponents of this view emphasize that this case is idiosyncratic, caused by particular conditions in Sampang. They point out the personal dispute between Roies Alhukama and his older brother Tajul Muluk (the Shiite leader) over the impending marriage of a woman named Halimah. The girl was allegedly given away to one of Tajul Muluk’s followers.
So-called rationalist scholars in the field of comparative politics, who usually attribute political economic reasons to any conflict, say that in the Sampang case among others, many have brought up various issues ranging from economic competition to political motivations. Many are eager to link the East Java gubernatorial election to the problem.
Such a complex issue like the Sampang case is only the tip of the iceberg in the broader religiopolitical contention in Indonesia. It is not very helpful to oversimplify the conundrum. In each of the cases and in general, a more complex line of factors is at play. The most often ignored variable is religion.
Religion as a variable in comparative politics and international relations is heavily understudied. There is a strong tendency by academicians to put it aside, caricaturizing it into something they simplistically perceive.
Writers in the West often just vilify it. Scholars such as the popular “Four Horsemen of New Atheism” (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens and Daniel Dennet) simply paint religion as the “source of evil” and root of all social political problems.
Along this line many academicians in the West, although not as brutal in their view towards religion, dismiss it as a variable. Most often they simply overlook it with the implicit assumption in the back of their minds that religion is just a “looney” phase in humanity that will pass (modernization theory).
On the other side of the spectrum, many scholars from the East, whitewash religion as a factor. Those within this camp repeat the mantra that religion is basically only good; all is fine and dandy.
Either way, religion as a factor/variable had been well understudied. Problems within the dynamics between politics and religion had never found a good solution precisely because of this tendency to either vilify or whitewash religion.
It is not helpful to simply dismiss religion as a factor based on the premise of the two assumptions.
If religion is not a factor, returning the Shiite refugees back to their homes should require no “religious” procedures such as returning to the “true version of Islam”. The solution would just be solving the family conflict or redistribution of economic resources. Additionally, we see religion as one of the key issues; the Sampang case can be potentially politicized by certain parties in connection with the upcoming East Java gubernatorial election
Religion is not the root of the problem. But it should be put in the proper context as a variable in research and policy solutions. Understanding and handling its potential either to alleviate or aggravate a situation is key to finding a lasting solution.
Jose Casanova, a foremost sociologist of religion, depicted it as a “Janus face”, having the possibility of leaning toward primordial, radical and violent tendencies, but also having the power for progress and an inclusive good. Religiopolitical problems require this balanced perspective on religion.
In facing mounting religiopolitical problems in Indonesia, a few questions require answers. What is the proper role and action required of the State in handling religious issues? Second, what is the good religious response in facing what they deem as “deviant groups”, “heresy”, “blasphemy” within the context of democracy?
Can religions in Indonesia manage the reality that there will always be different interpretations in various matters, and also be prepared that in some cases there are those who simply provoke and insult (e.g. Innocence of Muslims video)? Can religious leaders find tenets within their religion to exhort their adherents to respond peacefully to these two challenges?
The writer is a researcher at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta, and political science lecturer at Pelita Harapan University (UPH), Tangerang.
Read original post here: Politics or religion in the Sampang Shiite quandary?
This content-post is archived for backup and to keep archived records of any news Islam Ahmadiyya. The views expressed by the author and source of this news archive do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of Ahmadiyya Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.