Bali bombers, victims of ulemas' doctrines

Mohammad Yazid ,  Jakarta   |  Tue, 09/09/2008 10:21 AM  |  Opinion

Many Muslims are impressed -- but that does not necessarily mean they agree -- with the strong determination shown by the Bali bombers, Amrozi, Mukhlas and Imam Samudara who insist they need not fear execution because they believe God has blessed their acts of terrorism, which killed more than 200 innocent victims in 2002.

Many Muslims wonder why they believe so strongly a doctrine they consider "true" while putting their own lives at stake, although media reports highlight doubts conveyed by their tense facial expressions.

"Dying a martyr's death is the goal I'm pursuing and the wish I'm longing to fulfill. So if I'm destined by Allah Ta'ala (God the Most High) to be killed by infidels including hypocrites and apostates by means of execution, it means my highest aspiration will be achieved. Alhamdulillah (praise be to God)," wrote Mukhlas in his open letter to journalists, when a team from Muslim Attorneys (TPM) visited them at the Batu Penitentiary, Nusakambangan Island, Cilacap, recently. They were responding to the execution order originally planned prior to the fasting month, then postponed by the Attorney General's Office until after Ramadan.

For what they call "defending Islam", their position cannot be a straightforward personal matter unless they are imbued with exceptionally firm convictions and determination, while the greater part of the Muslim community regards their actions as a disgrace to Islam. Their position as a minority faction in comparison with majority Muslim groups such as Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama has also made their actions controversial.

Their different appearance from the local culture, with Afghan style clothes, long beards and veiled wives, has "distanced" them from the rest of the Indonesian Muslim community. Moreover, their way of living creates an impression of exclusivity, since they avoid contact with western culture and technology because of their assumption that western products come from infidels.

Economically, they live a modest life and are surely facing problems in meeting family needs amid today's hard conditions for daily survival. Its all very well to claim to be Islamic fighters, but in the eyes of their wives and children they may be judged differently some day, if family economic needs are not properly met.

Muslim terrorists believe they will go to heaven because they will die sahid after pursuing jihad. It is true that in Islam, Muslims are encouraged to die in the path of Allah, or to be killed for a cause blessed by Allah and this teaching has undeniably struck a chord with some believers.

The problem is that this jihad doctrine has been made use of in recent years by ulemas who seek to serve their own interests by legitimizing political violence. Conversely, many ulemas have opposed this tendency and have developed theological positions arguing that violence is only justifiable in specific circumstances, such as war.

In this context, war can only be waged when we are attacked, meaning that we are forced to resist. In the context of war we are prohibited from hurting innocent civilians.

On the other hand, the Prophet Muhammad himself has taught that jihad in war may be applied to a small holy war (jihadu asghor), while the major jihad (jihadu akbar) is the fight against personal desire.

The doctrine that justifies violence in the form of jihad fisabilillah (on the path of Allah) gives rise to other problems as the concept can be interpreted in various ways and mutual antagonism on these points may lead to civil war among ourselves. Then the question is: What criteria should be applied to the struggle on the path of Allah?

The concept of kafir (infidel), frequently used by those claiming to be on the path of Allah, perhaps also requires review with regard to its meaning. Is this concept already appropriately applied? It is true that as terminology, it can be found in the Koran and Sunnah (sayings on meritorious conduct).

However, it is often only defined in terms of it being ascribed to non-Muslims.

In fact, the word kafir is derived from kafara, meaning to cover, which implies being closed to appeals for good conduct. This has to do with the issue of ethics and the frequent bad character of mankind in respect of attitudes toward God or fellow human beings. So kafir is a moral label rather than a mere principle of faith. It means that a Muslim can also be labeled as kafir when he or she behaves in the context of ungratefulness towards God.

Many ulemas teach Islam with deep hatred and still many others do it with profound peace. A Muslim is indeed required to think critically and wisely in approaching these issues.

In the past, Indonesia already boasted its great ulemas known as Wali Songo (nine pious leaders). They were famed for their high tolerance for local culture and other believers.

In their period of Islamic propagation, historic monuments continued to stand in their grandeur like the temples of Borobudur and Prambanan, while the communities around them mostly embraced Islam.

The strength of their sermons won the sympathy of people from all walks of life because these Islamic gurus disseminated no hatred in their teachings.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, their tombs have always drawn large numbers of pilgrims to pay homage to their teachings. The relevant question to be answered by all Muslims is now: What kind of ulemas are worth following?

The writer is staff member of The Jakarta Post's Opinion Desk. He can be reached at yazid@thejakartapost.com

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.