You might
find some stuff sensitive, don’t get offended.
Since last
week, two newspapers my family subscribes have been putting articles on this
organization called Gerakan Fajar
Nusantara, or Gafatar for short. Previously, messages were broadcast on
social media and chatting platform on the need of being aware of Gafatar’s
presence and on people missing after being offered to join a pengajian (Koran reading) from its
members. Then the time bomb exploded. Ex-Gafatar members, having had their
organization dissolved, were evicted from their community’s ‘neighborhood’ in
Mempawah, West Kalimantan by an angry mob. This ex-Gafatar community in
Mempawah originated from different cities, particularly from the populous
island of Java. They had gathered to form a community and engaged in communal
farming. Their children, having dropped out from school in their own city of
origin, did not continue school and have not gone to one ever since. As a
replacement, Gafatar had run a home based school in each community, but ceased after
the movement dismissed itself.
Tracing back
a little, this movement (or organization) was said to be the successor of
Al-Qiyadah al-Islamiyah, founded by Ahmad Mussadeq in 2000, who was then
charged by the South Jakarta District Court for blasphemy after declaring
himself a prophet. Al-Qiyadah al-Islamiyah was then changed to Gafatar in 2012.
It received wide rejection, after the government ordered its disbandment with
Home Ministerial Decree No. 220/2012 (Jakarta Post, January 28, 2016) before
dissolving itself in August 2015.
What came
up to me as problems are the mob-led eviction and government’s disbandment on
Gafatar, but, with the authority experienced with terrorism and secession, the
disbandment can be said the right measure taken by the elites. At the same
time, I suppose democratic country should provide freedom to its people, including
freedom to choose religion. But some legal instruments are contrary to this
very basic principle, and this, in my opinion, is the root of the mob violence.
Getting
straight to it, the Indonesian Constitution (UUD 1945) (I don’t know if it’s
the correct term à) article 28E point (1) stipulates that “every
citizen is free to choose his/her religion, …, choose his/her domicile in any
area of the country and leave it … .” Article 28I point (1) stipulates that
freedom to choose religion is part of human rights. Finally, Article 29 point
(2) reads that the country will assure its people’s freedom to choose and
practice their religion.
However, in
reality the government was referring to something else more specific. Undang-Undang Nomor 1/PnPs/1965 tentang
Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan Agama, or simply blasphemy
ruled out freedom granted by the constitution. Article one of this law stipulates
that there are only six religions in Indonesia: Islam, Christianity, Catholicism,
Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism. Such regulation has engendered a sense of
orthodoxy that is made by the government itself. Any other religion out of the
official spectrum will be easily deemed sesat,
murtad, or blasphemous by the government and by Indonesian society, made
even easier with the existence of Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI, Council of
Ulema of Indonesia). This is simply contrary to the freedom to choose religion,
and at the end causing the rise of violence or even hate crimes towards
not-approved-by-government religious groups. Such mob violence (usually carried
out by government-approved religious groups) is not new. Ahmadiyah, Shi’ite Muslims,
and Surga Eden sects, for example, have been the victims of orthodoxy socially
formed by the legal instrument. And now the Gafatar, even when no longer existing.
It makes me
wonder whether the government is serious enough in providing the people freedom
to choose religion. It seems like they have turned into God’s envoy that they
have listed religions permitted in heaven. This is somewhat different from the
western countries. Even though some have turned islamophobic, they allow the
presence of any religion even the weirdest ones, because it is understood that
state can only negatively meddle on ensuring the freedom, not deciding which
religions are available to their people.
But,
Indonesia’s regulatory system is not much different from that of Russia where
the government has instruments such as Council of Muftis and Central
Ecclesiastical Administration of the Muslim of Russia. These two Islamic
institutions, often contending each other, are meant to control the presence of
Islam, keeping them apolitical while preventing other Islamic sects (such as
Wahabbism) that are not in tune with traditional ethnic Islam in Russia,
culturally wielded by the Tatars, Chechen, Bashkirs, Ingush, etc. The aim is to
preserve state control, in the Russian case, on Islam in Russia. In Indonesia,
MUI can be said to work for the same purpose, to preserve the “correct” Islam that
the council can produce fatwa stating which religious group is sesat. Moreover, the government also has
similar authority with Undang-Undang
Nomor 1/PnPs/1965 through agreement between home minister, minister of
religion, and attorney general (jaksa agung), hence the Home Minister Decree
No. 220/2012. It is clear then that the Indonesia’s legal system towards
religions is somewhat ambiguous, granting (limited) freedom while causing
strong orthodoxy (that encourages the society to independently punish “wrong”
religions faithful, especially their leaders as experienced by Mussadeq) for
the sake of control and stability.
This ambiguity stemmed from the “obsession”
of state’s control, but it turns out not without any clear reason: separatist
religious-based movement. Indonesia has had similar experience to its Russian counterparts.
Indonesia has seen the Negara Islam Indonesia (NII, is it the same as Darul
Islam? I’m not sure :/) to the radical Muhajidin Indonesia Timur (MIT). The
Russian administrations have seen the two Chechen wars and other radical
Islamic movement in other regions. In the case of Gafatar, the pattern of
transmigrating to a certain area, living in an exclusive community and engaging
in communal farming, making its own education system, while potential new
members could be bound to come along was of course worrying to the state
authority, and that could be the rational reason for Gafatar to be disbanded,
although it had not posed any threat of secession nor terror towards local
residents.
I would conclude that maintaining
stability is a must for every authority, sometimes at the expense of people’s
freedom and basic civil rights. I cannot decide whether the government had to
stop the blasphemy law from taking effects (who am I to decide anyway?). But
hate crimes law would be favourable in protecting the rights of unapproved
religions devotees. For now, Indonesia would stay this way, not a truly free
country, not as free as we could be anywhere else.
Sources:
Jakarta Post(s)
Paper SSPI semester 2
Paper Rusia
Kehampaan malam
Mungkin komentar ini ga terlalu sinkron sama konten tulisannya sih, tapi setelah baca, jadi kepikiran gini. (Terlepas dari benar tidaknya tindakan MUI dan lembaga-lembaga terkait dalam hal penetapan ajaran sesat dll itu.Kalau dipikir-pikir, jika sebuah negara itu benar-benar bebas, atau tidak mempunyai batasan yang jelas/ objektif, pasti akan terjadi kekacauan.Semua orang akan menunut hak dan kebebasannya. Sebenarnya hal ini kan uda mulai kelihatan di AS. Misalnya kelompok-kelompok Satanist yang mulai menunut hak kebebasan beragamanya secara terbuka.
BalasHapusTrus mengenai penetapan2 MUI ttg ajaran sesat dsb itu bisa dilihat sebagai bentuk perlindungan terhadap orang-orang Muslim yang mungkin ga punya pengetahuan dalam soal agamanya..jadi biar mereka tida tersesat dala ketidaktahuannya. Hmm mungkiin.
Tapi intinya sih, kalau negara itu benar-benar bebas sepenuhnya, pasti akan muncul masalah dan kekacauan. Menurutku aturan dan pembatasan oleh pihak otoritatif itu sangat perlu. Tapi yang juga harus jadi pertimbangan penting adalah standar aturan dan pembatasan itu. Ini bisa memicu pertanyaan lebih panjang lagi. Sekian.
ini siapa pula pake akun angkatan
Hapusya bner juga sih, kalau tidak ada kontrol dari negara bisa aja keadaan menjadi chaotic banget. negara kan seharusnya jadi otoritas tertinggi secara domestik dan organisasi2 di bawahnya jangan sampai challenging pemerintah. Nah, tapi di saat yang sama, kita bisa mempertanyakan apakah negara dapat menjadi aktor yang mempertahankan nilai-nilai luhur agama, menentukan agama mana saja yang benar dan salah. padahal, negara seharusnya hadir sebagai penjamin kebebasan beragama manusia. hubungan spiritual manusia dengan agamanya itu menurutku sesuatu yang sangat pribadi, jadi kalau seseirang menyatakan dirinya sebagai yahudi, katolik, muslim, atau satanis, ya kan itu hak mereka karena mungkin mereka sudah melewati pergolakan iman yang sedemikian rupa.
Nah, tentunya kelompok satanis punya paham yang sangat kontradiktif dengan agama2 mainstream kan. this is where conflict may start. apakah negara kemudian harus melindungi satu pihak at the expense of the other? padahal religiositas itu hak yang sangat pribadi. terlepas dari sesat atau tidaknya suatu agama,negara secara esensial harus melindungi hak pemeluknya.
tapi, untuk meredam konflik, memang negara harus melakukannya: melindungi yang satu sambil mengorbankan yang lain.
nah jalan keluarnya, menurutku ya UU yang melindungi masyarakat dari hate crimes, tapi itu masih sangat tidak mungkin. jadi untuk sementara, sistem yang ada emang harus dipertahankan demi stabilitas. semoga berkenan yaw