Editorial

Osama bin Laden is a controversial figure. For many people, Osama is a symbol of terrorism who is the most responsible for all acts of terror that occurred in the world, particularly in the World Trade Centre (WTC) attack at the United State of America on September 11, 2001. The government of the United States considers that al-Qaeda is responsible for the terror that occurred in the WTC. Thus, the assassination of Osama (May 1, 2011), as the leader of al-Qaeda, is a justice that must we accept as a punishment for terrorists.

Since June 2008, the anniversary of Pancasila becomes the commemoration of the National Monument (Monas). Perhaps we would state that the Monas tragedy is a form of impertinence against Pancasila, the national foundation that is believed capable of uniting Indonesia. Those who three years ago chasing, hitting, kicking and berate the stalwarts of the National Alliance for Freedom of Religion and Belief (AKKBB) who wanted to celebrate the anniversary of Pancasila was a group of anti-Pancasila. Do they really have no place within the construction of the ideology of Pancasila?

Wahhabism is growing in Indonesia now. Some Islamic boarding schools (pesantren) or ma’had with Wahhabism ideology emerge. A friend of mine who is doing his research about Wahhabism in Indonesia recorded that about fourteen pesantren in Indonesia has been spreading the doctrine of Wahhabism. Compared to the statistical data of thousands pesantren in Indonesia, the fourteen numbers are still little. But this phenomenon of Wahhabism has been very dissolute. In this situation, some people say Alhamdulillah, and some others say Innalillah, and finally wallahu a’lam bisshawab

Defending certain group based on their religious identity is also very dangerous for the justice. No matter how noble the religious teaching is, it will never guarantee the noble behavior of its adherents.

The violence against Ahmadiyya Muslim community has never done spontaneously. There is a mass gathering processes and provocations. State officials should be able to prevent violence from early times by for instance dispersing the mass gathering that aims to provoke violence. The PNPS Act of 1965 explicitly states that the campaign of hatred and hostility against one group of people is banned; the perpetrators must be arrested and punishable by a maximum of 5 years sentence in jail according to Penal Code Section 156 A.

This explanation shows that it as difficult to speak in the name of the Indonesian Muslim Ummah as it is to define exactly who or what the Indonesian Muslim Ummah actually is. Therefore, when Muslim leaders speak in the name of the Muslim Ummah, they are in fact unable to truly represent the diversity inherent in the Indonesian Muslim community. They will never be able to speak as though they have a mandate to represent the interests of the whole of Indonesia’s Muslims.

In the journey toward the truth, people tend to take the easy tack. The easiest way is to treat religion as an heirloom inherited from our ancient predecessors; to treat religion as a set of doctrines that have clear-cut boundaries or, more precisely, boundary (in a singular form). The easiest way to be in the way of being “religionist” is to follow the well-trodden path of the predecessors without daring to ask or challenge. To question what has been laid down as doctrines by our pious predecessors is tantamount to an act of heresy.

Meanwhile, no single verse of Quran declare that apostates should be killed. Allah would certainly have included this important penalty in the Quran if he wanted it performed. In fact, Quran clearly guarantees freedom of religion. Jawdat Said observed that the above hadith is dla’if (weak), since it conflicts with the fundamental Islamic teaching: namely freedom of religion.

It is important to expose this historical fact to let the Muslims know that some Jewish groups have an objective perspective and were fair in building relationship with Islam. They are not like what the Muslims think.

The problem with Indonesian Muslims is that they live so long as a majority, cultivating the mindset of “supremacy” given their status as the predominant religious group in the country. It never occurs to them how it looks like to be in the reverse position. It is so striking to see that the discourse of “civil right” is markedly missing in the rhetoric of Sunni majority in Indonesia.