The World Needs More Like Gus Dur

Philip Bowring*

Symbolism matters. By most measures Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid was a disaster as Indonesia's president. Even Megawati's years of doing nothing appear a significant achievement in comparison with Gus Dur's chaotic 21 months in power as Indonesia's fourth leader.

Yet is it possible to argue that the almost-blind head of the Nahdlatul Ulama, who died last Wednesday, contributed not just more than anyone to Indonesia's nearly peaceful transition from the Suharto era, of which he was a part, to plural democracy. Even more important, he embodied a tradition of tolerance which is as essential as a common language to the survival of Indonesia, a nation which is not merely multi-religious but harbors a wide variety of interpretations of the religion of the majority.

His most obvious contribution as president to inclusiveness and tolerance was his ending of overt discrimination against Chinese people and language. But that was only one aspect of a career built on a profound belief in the importance of common values transcending religious divisions. Despite an unprepossessing physique, he was an effective leader because he combined several elements. He inherited leadership of the NU from his father and grandfather, and hence the quasi-feudal authority that went with the grass roots Muslim organization.

But he added to that true intellectual weight, a profound knowledge not only of Islam but of other religions and philosophies combined with an ability, learned through his years in journalism, to express himself simply and directly. And to those he added an earthiness to which people at large, be they peasants from east Java or politicians in Jakarta could easily relate.

The Gus Dur who loved retailing gossip about the sex lives of the first family was the same Gus Dur who was treated with reverence both by his fellow kiai - the religious leaders of Indonesian Muslims - and by attendees at international gatherings.

His failings were obvious too and rather typical of one born to high office. To those were added physical decline in the wake of his stroke and what amounted to almost an addiction to politicking which left friends and allies exasperated. If he had been directly elected as president, things might have been different. But he proved temperamentally incapable of managing the coalition of entrenched interests necessary when the presidency was the gift of the MPR, the country's fractured House of Representatives. His liberal views on separatist issues such as Aceh and Irian Jaya also contributed to his downfall - though in the case of Aceh they paved the way to a post-tsunami peace agreement.

His failures do not undermine his importance as religious leader and politician in keeping religion and politics separate and ensuring that mainstream Islam in Indonesia remained tolerant and plural, where religion was a matter of private conscience and where the secular state kept out of religious affairs - and vice versa. He also reconciled Islamic teachings with p a ncasila , Indonesia's amorphous, five-sided state philosophy of belief in one god, humanitarianism, national unity, popular sovereignty and social justice.

It was this belief in pluralism which enabled him to be a moderating influence in the latter Suharto years and play a central role in the democratic transition. That a nearly blind cleric who had already suffered strokes was elected president at all was a reflection of his symbolic role in a nation searching for a new basis for harmony.

Many Muslim-majority countries (not least Malaysia) could learn much from the liberal intellectual traditions which Gus Dur embodied. Indeed, the physical infirmity of his later years largely prevented him from playing an international role, providing a coherent and good-humored counter to the exclusivism and extremism displayed by religious and political authorities in countries as diverse as Iran, Malaysia and Pakistan.

The world, not just Indonesia, needs more Gus Durs.


Philip Bowring, a former editor of The Far Eastern Economic Review, is a founder and consulting editor of Asia Sentinel.

Source: thejakartaglobe.com | January 04, 2010

Abdurrahman Wahid - http://gusdur.net © 2008

READ MORE - The World Needs More Like Gus Dur

Threat of Religious Freedom

By Rumadi
Religious freedom in Indonesia is now under serious threat. On one hand we see a strong wave of Islamization as manifested by the formalization of Islamic law in several regions. On the other, we have witnessed discriminatory acts against groups that practice religious forms of expression outside of the mainstream. The latter cases are a serious violation of human rights and threaten the very foundations of the nation.

The attack on the Ahmadiyah complex in Parung, Bogor, West Java, by a hard-line Islamic group represents a serious threat to religious freedoms in this country. This violence is not the first to be experienced by Ahmadiyah followers. Before that, Ahmadiyah followers in West Nusatenggara and Kuningan, West Java, also suffered similar experiences. Their mosques were attacked and they suffered violence, both physical and mental.

The attack on Ahmadiyah is the most recent example of a growing intolerance of anything judged to be outside orthodox Islam and it is unlikely to be the last. In fact if we view events in recent months, the attack was part of a series of bigoted acts sanctioned by clerics here that all had a similar root; the persecution of those it was ruled had committed blasphemy.

A few months ago the rock band Dewa suffered a similar chastisement. The group was accused of undermining a symbol God and spreading more wrongs through its lyrics.

Accusations of blasphemy were also directed at an Islamic group, the Ngaji Lelaku community, who used two languages (Arabic and Indonesian) in the sholat prayer. That group was based in Malang and was led by imam Yusman Roy.

Roy who was only trying to teach his followers a good way of praying was arrested and was charged with committing blasphemy. His use of the two languages in the sholat was considered a criminal act.

A few weeks after Roy was brought to jail, another case involving blasphemy accusations occurred in Probolinggo, East Java. This time it was the ideas coming from a drug counselor at the Cancer and Drugs Rehabilitation Center. Thousands of people ransacked the complex because of what had been written in a book aiming to help addicts, “From Darkness toward Brightness”. Foundation head Ardhi Hussain and some of his assistants were arrested and his foundation was closed.

His followers, including small children were evicted from their premises and are now virtual refugees. The children were also accused of blasphemy and shunned – this is how the “sins” of the parents are visited on the children.

Because incidents involving blasphemy accusations are frequently occurring, one can strongly suspect that they are not spontaneous or unlinked. There is a grand plan behind them and those who are drawing up the scenario have so far fired their arrows at clear targets. I strongly believe that progressive Islamic groups will be the next targets.

If progressive Islam is attacked, the religious freedoms that are guaranteed in the Constitution will again be seriously threatened. However, the government seems hesitant to protect these religious freedoms. This can be seen from the hands-off way the state has dealt with these cases. The government and the security forces did not prevent attacks against places used by groups accused of committing blasphemy; their lack of action serving as an implicit approval.

This reality is in contrast with article 28 (e) of the Constitution which states (1) every citizen has the right to hold religious beliefs and pray according these beliefs, choose their education and form of teaching, choose their job, choose their citizenship, live in this country, leave and return to the country; (2) every citizen has the right to hold personal beliefs and express their thoughts and attitudes according to what they believe is right.

The article is in line with article 22 of the human rights Law No. 39/1999 which states: (1) Every citizen has the right to practice a religion and perform prayers according to their religion and beliefs; (2) The state shall guarantee the freedom of the citizen to believe in a religion and to practice their beliefs.

Article 8 of the law states: “Protection, development, enforcement, and fulfillment of the rights are the obligation of the government.

Under the law the government can not escape responsibility of protecting and guarantying religious freedoms; not only the freedom to hold a religion but also the freedom to practice it.

Therefore, the government must act firmly against all those that transgress this principle, because the action is not only a criminal action but also is a violation of the Constitution.

By taking firm action the public will consider that government has a commitment to safeguarding the Constitution and human rights principles.

In all cases of violence against religious groups, there has been the involvement of the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI). MUI has acted as if it holds supreme authority over religious matters. Sadly, the government has seemed to follow the ruling of the MUI and acted as if it did not have any interest in the fatwa issued by MUI.

The government must follow the Constitution and protect religious freedoms and the freedoms of people to practice their beliefs. At the same time it must take action against all those who violate the Constitution. Religious organizations like MUI must also follow the Constitution. They must not act as if they are the sole authority on religious affairs. MUI must become an organization of ulema that does not act against the Constitution. ***

The Writer is Lecturer in Faculty of Islamic Law UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Researcher The Wahid Institute Jakarta.



© 2005, GusDur.Net, All Rights Reserved

READ MORE - Threat of Religious Freedom

FPI dan Penodaan Citra Agama

Oleh Gugun El-Guyanie

Aksi anarkis Front Pembela Islam (FPI)kembali menyerang Aliansi Kebangsaan untuk Kebebasan Beragama dan Berkeyakinan (AKKBB), pada peringatan Hari Kelahiran Pancasila, Minggu (1/6) di Monas, Jakarta.

Tindakan brutal dengan mengibarkan bendera Islam itu justru melukai sejumlah tokoh Islam yang bergabung dalam AKKBB. Aksi kekerasan yang dilakukan oleh FPI itu adalah untuk kesekian, setelah berulang kali merusak dan menyerang kelompok yang tidak sependapat dengan mereka. Wajar jika banyak tuntutan dari organisasi kemasyarakatan (ormas) lain yang moderat, menuntut pemerintah untuk membubarkan FPI. Beragama dengan gaya premanis ala FPI sangat menodai Pancasila yang telah disepakati sebagai dasar negara dan pandangan hidup bangsa.

Nilai-nilai Pancasila yang secara jelas mendasarkan kepada semua ritme kehidupan berbangsa berdasarkan Ketuhanan telah ternodai. Terlebih agama Islam yang mengajarkan cinta untuk semesta (rahmatan lil ’alamin).

Kelompok-kelompok yang berbaju agama namun berlaku layaknya preman itu sebenarnya telah menentang Tuhan. Mereka sebenarnya tidak menyembah Tuhan, tetapi menyembah kesombongan kelompoknya yang seolah perkasa, paling kuat, dan paling benar. Aksi-aksi yang dilakukannya jelas berlawanan dengan nilai-nilai kemanusiaan, karena melukai dan menghujat kelompok lain dengan biadab.

Tipologi kelompok itu sangat mengancam semangat persatuan nasional. Berpolitik mereka adalah berpolitik gaya Machiavellian yang menghalalkan segala cara, yang bertentangan dengan prinsip kerakyatan yang bijak dan adil. Suara rakyat tidak dianggap sebagai suara kebenaran. Sesungguhnya kelompok mereka sangat merusak nilai keadilan bagi bangsa Indonesia.

Menodai Pancasila
Spirit kelima sila dalam Pancasila, telah dirusak semua. Secara gamblang, mereka sudah berusaha menodai Pancasila dengan tetap bersikukuh bahwa tindakannya adalah berdasarkan kepada legitimasi dari agama.

Pancasila telah menjamin kebebasan setiap kelompok untuk berkeyakinan, termasuk menjamin FPI hidup di bumi Indonesia. Namun dengan prasyarat bahwa semua kelompok harus hidup berdampingan, menjaga keyakinan masing-masing, dan toleran terhadap kebenaran kelompok lain. Artinya, kelompok yang ekstrem dan fanatis buta berarti telah mencederai komitmen untuk hidup bersama dalam naungan Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (NKRI) yang ber-Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa.

Dengan demikian, harus ada tindakan yang tegas dari negara untuk menindak kelompok-kelompok preman, kendatipun sumpah serapah ingin menegakkan syariat Islam.

Tidak ada syariat Islam di dunia ini yang mengajarkan kekerasan dan menganggap kelompoknya sendiri yang paling benar. Dengan anarkisme dan brutalisme FPI, Tuhan tidak akan ternoda, tapi yang ternoda adalah makhluk Tuhan yang disyariatkan untuk hidup cinta damai di belahan bumi mana pun. Kebesaran Tuhan tidak akan terkurangi karena ulah FPI; kesucian Tuhan tidak akan ternodai; dan kemahakuasaan Tuhan juga tetap utuh. Namun, kehidupan di muka bumi Indonesia harus dijaga dari ancaman-ancaman yang membahayakan keselamatan umat beriman, termasuk aksi teror dari FPI.

Sejarah FPI
Siapa sebenarnya FPI; bagaimana lahirnya; dan apa sebenarnya tujuan mereka di balik gembar-gembor tentang syariat Islam? FPI lahir pada 17 Agustus 1998 dengan ketua umumnya Habib Muhammad Rizieq Syihab, serta berkembang subur pada masa pemerintahan Presiden Habibie. FPI dinilai dekat dengan orang-orang di sekeliling Soeharto.

Di masa Prabowo Subianto aktif di TNI, FPI diduga sebagai salah satu binaan menantu Soeharto itu. Namun, setelah Prabowo jatuh, FPI kemudian cenderung mendekati kelompok Jendral Wiranto yang tengah bermusuhan dengan kelompok Prabowo.

Keberkaitan FPI dengan Wiranto barangkali dapat dideduksi dari aksi ratusan milisi FPI yang selalu berpakaian putih-putih, ketika menyatroni kantor Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia (Komnas HAM), memprotes pemeriksaan Jendral Wiranto dan kawan-kawan oleh KPP HAM.

Milisi FPI yang datang ke kantor Komnas HAM dengan membawa pedang dan golok, bahkan menuntut lembaga hak asasi manusia itu dibubarkan karena dianggap lancang memeriksa para jendral.

Demonstrasi Tandingan
Sementara itu kedekatannya dengan ABRI terlihat dalam aksi demonstrasi tandingan yang dilakukannya melawan aksi mahasiswa yang menentang RUU Keadaan Darurat yang diajukan Mabes TNI kepada DPR pada 24 Oktober 1999. Setelah jatuhnya Wiranto, kelompok itu kehilangan induknya, dan mulai mengalihkan perhatian kepada upaya penegakan syariat Islam di Indonesia. (Syamsul Rizal Panggabean: 2007).

Ada sebagian pendapat yang menyatakan bahwa FPI awalnya memang murni didirikan oleh para ”habib” yang berjuang untuk syariat Islam. Namun pada perjalanannya kelompok itu ditunggangi oleh sejumlah jenderal, yang sekaligus menjadi pembina dan juga sumber dana operasionalnya.

Penyerbuan yang dilakukan di mal, diskotek, bar, dan kafe-kafe, sebenarnya dilakukan oleh laskar FPI yang berbasis preman Betawi. Laskar FPI yang diduga adalah preman-preman itu kemudian dikomando untuk menyerbu tempat-tempat hiburan pada bulan Ramadan dengan dalih penegakan syariat. Namun yang terjadi hanya tempat-tempat hiburan tertentu yang tidak memberikan uang keamanan yang diserbu.

Dalam merespons kejadian tersebut, polisi terlihat hanya datang menyaksikan aksi-aksi perusakan. Sekalipun polisi kemudian mengkritik aksi-aksi itu, tetapi tak satu pun anggota FPI yang ditangkap. Sejumlah pengamat mengungkapkan óyang juga diyakini kebenarannya oleh sebagian masyarakató bahwa polisi telah memanfaatkan FPI dan milisinya, Laskar Pembela Syariat Islam (LPSI) untuk memaksakan protection rackets-nya. Sebagai akibatnya, polisi memaafkan aksi tersebut atau bahkan mengarahkan serangan itu ke sasarannya.

Jika fakta-fakta tersebut benar-benar terjadi, maka masyarakat dan negara harus waspada. Kalau ada konspirasi antara preman dan aparat negara, berarti negara sudah kehilangan kontrol terhadap kehidupan warganya.

Rakyat kecil yang sudah hidup miskin, terusik ketenteramannya dan selalu diributi oleh teror-teror kekerasan, harus diutamakan. Warga negara membutuhkan jaminan ekonomi, jaminan lapangan kerja, jaminan kebebasan beragama dan kebebasan berpolitik.

Jika negara telah gagal menjamin hak-hak tersebut, wajar apabila kewajiban sebagai warga negara dan sebagai manusia terabaikan. Bahkan menurut John Rawl berbalik menjadi ketidakpatuhan kepada negara (civil disobedience).

Saatnya negara bertindak tegas terhadap para perusuh, baik itu preman maupun orang-orang dalam sendiri yang tidak puas dengan pembagian ”kue kekuasaan”. Negara ini bukan milik orang dan kelompok tertentu, tetapi milik rakyat. Siapa pun yang terlibat dalam kekacauan terhadap negara, baik yang berjubah agama maupun yang berbaju apa pun, harus diadili. Siapkah pemerintah menegakkan keadilan dan membubarkan FPI?(68)

Gugun El-Guyanie, sekjen Lembaga Kajian Keagamaan dan Kebangsaan (LK3 ) PW GP Ansor DIY.

(Suara Merdeka, 4/6/2008)

READ MORE - FPI dan Penodaan Citra Agama