Dissolving the FPI, is it possible? A Report of Campus Discussion in Malang

Dissolving the FPI, is it possible? A Report of Campus Discussion in Malang
By Edi Purwanto

“Violence is the reflection of the fragile soul,” Mahatma Gandhi said. Indeed, if we see further the remarks of the Indian national prominence, it’s a reflection of stunted condition of an individual, or group and even people who use violence to solve problems. We have many pages of history that has written about this country as many pages of the same history of violence produced and reproduced, whether in the context of social, cultural, religion or the political scene. Violence seemed always be the final answer. Public spaces that should be able to bridge the differences were not fully utilized. For those who do not agree, they don’t see that public space as an open dialogue as an answer. Naive, they see public space as one of the brainwashing media.

Indonesia that is famous for the world’s largest Muslim population does not provide an answer that Islam is a religion that brings a message of peace and love. Especially nowadays we often hear and even see with our own eyes that the religious-based violence is increasingly, being done by individual or group. The actions of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), which tends to vigilante, became one obvious example of how the violence has become increasingly entrenched part of this nation. Burning, fatwa apostasy, excommunication is a bit of those committed by those who claimed to be the most correct. This vigilante action cannot be accepted.
The violence that being done by FPI in many cities inspired the Center for the Study and Development of Culture (PUSPeK) Averroes in cooperation with the Liberal Islam Network (JIL) Jakarta held a public discussion on July 26, 2010. The theme of discussion was Dissolution of “Hard” Islamic Organizations: Is It Possible? (Judicial Review and Conceptual Ideas for Dissolving FPI).

The event was held in the IKA building Brawijaya Malang University was attended by approximately 110 participants. They came from various groups and elements that most are students, including HTI who never want to miss such an activity. Another came from NGOs, youth organizations, print and electronic media also briefly covered the event. Even, one of the on-air radio reported this event.

In the opening session, this discussion was began with the Fajar Santoso’s explanation. Discourse dissolution of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) was discussed and discourse, because of their anarchic actions and vigilante. The violence that occurred in various regions, the last was happened in Banyuwangi. FPI dispersed socialization health event that organized by three Parliament members of the Struggle Democratic Party, Nursuhud, Ribka Tjiptaning, and Rieke Dyah Pitaloka that
held in the Buyung Restaurant, Pakis Village, Banyuwangi. Many forums and observers suggested that the FPI should be dissolved.

LBH activists Malang considered that the dissolution of Islamic organizations such as the FPI is still debatable. One of the problems is because the organization is illegal. When they filed a judicial dissolution of the FPI, the Constitutional Court (MK) denied it because it is not competent to adjudicate this matter. Because it was given the mandate to dissolution of political parties (political parties), not the dissolution of community organizations. It is become a problem when the dissolution of organizations filed to the Court, said fajar Santoso at the meeting.

Further, Fajar assumed the dissolution of FPI discourse is a legal vacuum. But it does not mean we cannot do anything about the legal vacuum in the midst of it. If the issue was filed to the court, the judge cannot refuse with the reason of legal vacuum. This judge’s reason is indisputable by legal principle: “Solis populis sprimalek” (the safety of the people is the supreme law). The reason is quite powerful when used to disperse the mass organizations such as the FPI, said the alumni of democracy school.

Looking to this issue, Levi Riansyah has different views. The PUSPeK Averroes Director didn’t agree to dissolved the FPI. ” Actually I do not agree with the dissolution of the party and mass organizations as well as I do not agree with any dissolution, because in this world all have the right to live, whoever it is. There is law or no, although there are other cases but they deserve to live, “he said.

According to him, if FPI is dissolved, new mass organizations will arise. The second reason if the mass organization is dissolved then this event will be a reference to dissolve the mass organizations that are not in line with the government. This will repeat the dictatorship that done by new order. Dissolution of the FPI is reflecting emotional action, when we saw their actions to respond various problems.

When he saw the act of FPI is increasingly indiscriminate and uncontrolled as well as using violence, then he boldly said that, “In the all languages of humanity, the violence never acceptable. This action is in the same level with the laws of stealing and corruption in this country,” he added.

The spirit to fight against crime in the name of religion must going on, but the fight that done by Habib Rizik is an authoritarian way may not acceptable. Because the authoritarian ways are not good for humanity to build the civilizations. In fact, it is rather difficult to establish a dialogue with them, but to build a public space is our responsibility. The space must be built to seek the understanding by strategic ways. “It is the duty of intellectuals to build dialogue and transform the understanding, that such actions were not justified,” he concluded.

The discussion continued with the presentation delivered by Ust. Mus`ab Abdurrahman from HTI, who presented only a few materials. Mus’ab clarified the accident in Banyuwangi. He did not want to know and explain more about the event. “Regarding the incident in Banyuangi, I do not want to talk too much about the FPI, as the Banyuwangi incident clarified already by Habib Rizik, that who dismissed the event was not the FPI, but the individuals because FPI was not there. Mus’ab responded about the terminology of hard and soft Islam that did not exist in Islam. He asserted that the term was invented by Westerners.

His response about the violence, Mus’ab said that violence was not only done by Islamic organizations. There are many organizations using violence way, according to him, Arema is one of them. Why it can’t be dissolved?... Why it’s only Islamic labelled organization that can be dissolved if they using violence way, he concluded.
Responding the FPI actions, Moqsith Gozali, the speaker of JIL is the one who said loudly and firmly, “The act of FPI in various areas is a crime that must be dealt firmly by the authorities, because so many acts of violence that has been done by the FPI. Wahid Institute and JIL have a number of data-related violence committed by FPI in various regions, he added

According to Moqsith, the police and the government must concern seriously on this violence case. If there are people or organizations that do crime, they have to arrested and prosecuted immediately. But why they do nothing to FPI?...even people know that what they do is systemic planning and good structured?.. Furthermore, FPI opened the possibilities to allow the violence of ideology, even they do not have rights,” he added.

According to Moqsith, Banyuwangi incident is included in the violence. “Even if it’s true there are a bunch of actors who talk about or discuss Marxism, Leninism and Communism, FPI has no authority or right to disband interfered it. Except FPI is a legal organization and have the right and authority to dissolve it. I reiterate again, they have no right. In the contrary, JIL should not intervene in the discussions about the Islamic Caliphate by FPI or timber, because it becomes part of the discourses of democracy, “he said.

He said, that what was done by Habib Rizik, has been out of the corridor Ahlussunah Waljamaah (ASWAJA).  Who claimed as Ahlussunnah, they should not take the law into their own in the society. FPI is a matter of crime and the solution through the law.  The government should be firm to run the law and the police have to ensure the public safety. The Wahid Institute activists also mention that the HTI is a religion organization that does not acknowledge the Constitution. “How to respond the religion organizations that do not acknowledge the existence of the Constitution. For the example: HTI, it does not acknowledge Indonesia’s Constitution. If they don’t,  how can they do and criticize. And governments can act decisively to disperse HTI, because it is prohibited,” he explained.

According to Moqsit, if HTI does not want to be dissolved, it should be a political party of Indonesia. Thus can control the parliament and declare the Islamic law. “If the anti-Palestinian demonstrations only, when the Islamic Shari’a can be formed in Indonesia,” he said with a chuckle.

After that, they opened the question session and responded to by several speakers. The discussion was attended by Moqsith Ghazali of the Liberal Islam Network, Ust. Mus’ab Abd (HTI), Fajar Santoso (LBH Malang), and Levi Riansyah (Puspek Averroes) is running well. Although there is criticism, which makes hot flushes sometime, the discussion ended at 13:15 forwarded by giving souvenirs to the speakers.

The committee had previously been invited KH. Lutfi Bashori Alwi (FPI fatwa commission of East Java). At first he was sure his presence, but when he knew that he would be in one table with Moqsith Gazali, Lutfi Bashori cancelled his attendence. We don’t know what kind of traumatic events he had.

* The author is the activist of Center for the Study and Development of Culture (PUSPeK) Averroes Malang.