Critical Notes on Indonesian Ulama Council

As an Islamic religious organization which activities are supported largely by the government’s fund, Indonesian Ulama Council (MUI) has long been considered problematic. Besides it does not represent all elements of the Muslim in the country, the fatwa issued by MUI often generate negative impact in the society. For example, the MUI’s fatwa concerning the heretic status of Ahmadiyah and other sects has led to physical violence and violated the citizens’ rights of practicing their religion and belief. Although the fatwa is just a religious opinion and not legally binding, it is quite influential upon the majority of Muslims as well as the government.

Feedback and criticism must be given to MUI therefore its strong influence among Indonesian Muslim community can reinforce the principles of Pancasila, Indonesia’s Constitution of 1945 and democracy instead of undermining these values. For that reason, Ciputat’s Student Forum (Formaci) in collaboration with the Student Press Agency (LPM), the Liberal Islam Network (JIL) and the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung (FNS) organize a public discussion under the theme “Criticism of the Indonesian Ulama Council / MUI”. The discussion was held on Thursday, September 30th 2010 at the Student Center Auditorium, State Islamic University (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Jl. Ir. H. Juanda no. 95 South Jakarta.

The discussion invited three speakers, wherein only Ulil Abshar Abdalla from the Liberal Islam Network (JIL) and Ali Munhanif from the Center for Islamic and Society Studies (PPIM) UIN Jakarta attended the event. The chairman of MUI KH Ma’ruf Amin was absent. However, it did not reduce the audience’s enthusiasm in joining the discussion. With the capacity of 200 seats, the auditorium could not accommodate so many participants who some of them eventually prefer to stand and sit on the floor. Most of the participants are students from different faculties and activists of various student organizations. Some others are lecturers and Muslim scholars.

This discussion started at 9.45 and hosted by Iqbal Hasanuddin from the Institute for the Study of Religion and Philosophy (LSAF). Ulil Abshar Abdalla got the first opportunity to deliver his perspective. After presenting a brief review upon the origins of the MUI, the religious texts, and the fatwa, he expressed his criticism of the MUI. He observed that MUI’s fatwa often contradicts the common sense and engenders negative impact upon religious life. Abdalla drew the examples of MUI’s fatwa against Ahmadiyya that encouraged violence against this community. In addition, MUI’s fatwa on the prohibition of pluralism, liberalism and secularism has hindered interreligious dialogue and disrupted interfaith harmony. Abdalla said the fatwa is opposing the principle of religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution. It also contrasts with the statement of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who dubbed the late KH Abdurrahman Wahid or Gus Dur as the Father of Pluralism.

The absence of the moderate and progressive clerics within MUI’s structure is the next point of Abdalla’s criticism. MUI does not represent all elements of Muslim society in Indonesia. MUI consists of Muslim scholars from various Islamic organizations, which mostly dominated by the Sunni. The Shiites, Ahmadiyya and other minorities are not represented at all. Abdalla argued that MUI’s sustainability as an institution that is supposed to bring benefit to the people, nation and country depends on its willingness to reach and embrace more people, especially the open-minded and progressive Muslims.  Abdalla cited many classic literatures like Bidayatul Mujtahid of Ibn Rushd to strengthen his argument.

Meanwhile, Ali Munhanif as the second speaker began his presentation with a history of MUI. MUI’s establishment in 1975 aimed to discuss religious policies concerning Muslim society. In practice, however, MUI served to socialize the government’s policy to Muslim society. Munhanif’s criticism is not much different from Abdalla. He criticized MUI’s fatwa products that directly and indirectly disturb the national stability and the state’s structure. Munhanif deemed MUI’s ideological fatwa as problematic, such as the fatwa against Ahmadiyah and the prohibition of pluralism, liberalism, and secularism. These ideological fatwas emerged as the society developed into a more modern direction.

The discussion then moved on to the question and answer session. In the first session, four participants conveyed their question, feedback and criticism for the speaker. The first participant was the member of Hizb at-Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) who viewed that this public discussion is a kind of new imperialism in order to poison the minds of Muslim students and estrange them from the true faith of Islam. He viewed that although Islam respects plurality, it does not recognize pluralism. The second participant from the Faculty of Islamic Studies UIN Jakarta appreciated Ulil Abshar Abdalla and emphasized on the necessity to include progressive Muslim like Abdalla in the MUI’s structure. The third participant from Muhammadiyah expressed his objection upon Abdalla’s view concerning Qur’an. He viewed that despite Quran did not talk about everything, some matters in the Qur’an are fixed and cannot be contested in the name of freedom such as the matter of adultery, homosexuality, creed etc. According to him, there are more important issues than pluralism such as welfare, poverty etc. The fourth participant from the Faculty of Ushuluddin UIN Jakarta questioned why Abdalla described Qur’an as incoherent whereas Qur’an has asserted that it is created by God and there is no doubt in it.

Abdalla first responded to allegation related to the imperialism of thought. Such accusation according to him will only make Muslims dull and make the discussion unhealthy. Abdalla argued that the truth can be taken from anywhere including the West. MUI and most Muslims generally misunderstood pluralism and deemed it as an idea promoting that all religions are same. As a matter of fact, the core idea of pluralism is precisely the differences and not the similarities between religions. Pluralism encourages people to address these religious differences in a wise manner. Since the Qur’an does not discuss about everything, therefore the principles of analogy (qiyas), personal interpretation (ijtihad) and the objectives of Islamic law (maqasid sharia) must be utilized in religious interpretation. Differences in interpretation of the Quran should not be treated as a source of conflict. Abdalla clarified that he did not say that the Quran is incoherent. He said that everybody may issue a fatwa but if it is supported by the government’s fund that came from the public tax then the fatwa must be consistent with public interest and should be open to public control.

Munhanif added that in order to be consistent, HTI’s movement based in London could be considered as imperialism as well. He wondered how can the Arab ideas imposed upon Indonesian Muslim society which culture and tradition are much different. Muslims society will not grow up maturely if they perceive everything negative without more in-depth consideration. Although he agreed on the importance of welfare and justice, this concern is not supposed to remove the issue of peace and stability from the agenda. Particularly that MUI fatwa engenders negative implications upon these two matters.

In the second session, the first audience challenged Abdalla to convert to other religion if he found that all religions are the same. The second participant from HTI said he asked God’s protection from the negative influence of the speakers. He viewed the discussion was not balanced because it did not invite representation from the MUI. He considered that the existence of MUI is necessary to direct the majority of Muslims who do not understand their religion, in order not to get lost. Especially that MUI is very competent in the religious field while Abdalla who study in the United States is not. The third participant from Ahmadiyya community started his talking by saying the shahadah that “there is no God but God and Muhammad is God’s messenger”. He asked other Muslims to stop intimidating his community since they say the same shahadah along with other Muslims. Only God has the right to determine who is right and wrong. He therefore invited toward a more friendly and rational dialog among Muslims without any physical violence. The third participant from the Faculty of Da’wa said that since there is no representative of MUI in the discussion, she requested speakers to formulate beneficial input to improve MUI in the future.

Munhanif expected that the authority held by MUI would not make it work beyond the ideals of Indonesia’s state. He hoped that the fatwa of MUI would no longer disrupt the religious harmony, peace and social stability. He gave an example that in Lombok, Ahmadiyah community could not go back to their hometown because the local government could not guarantee their safety. MUI seemed to go above the authority of the police and courts. Munhanif also criticized HTI that enjoyed the freedom guaranteed by the constitution while they always undermined the constitution.

In responding the first question, Abdalla answered that he did not have to convert to other religion if all religions are the same. Although he disagreed with Ahmadiyah’s belief, he respected them and considered them as part of Muslim society. He also formulated three feedbacks for the MUI. According to Abdalla, three requirements must be fulfilled if MUI still want to be supported by the public tax. First, MUI should represent the diversity in Islam through the inclusion of the Shiite and Ahmadi representatives in its structure as well as progressive Muslim representative like Dawam Rahardjo. Second, in addition to Qur’an and Sunnah, MUI must work within the framework of the Constitution. According to him, the fatwa against pluralism is not constitutional. Third, MUI must restrain itself from issuing fatwa and must not be tempted to do that in easy manner. Abdalla quoted the sayings of classic Muslim scholars like Imam Nawawi, Imam Malik, Abu Hanifa etcetera to show that these great scholars were very reluctant to issue a fatwa. It is not because they do not have the religious knowledge, but because they did not want Muslims to ask many questions on trivial matters and to depend heavily on the clerics. Abdalla noticed that many of MUI’s fatwa have no social significance and only a waste of the state’s fund. This incident violated the spirit of the classic Muslim scholars. Although MUI representative did not attend the discussion, Abdalla hoped this message would reach them through the audience. Discussion was ended at 13:05.