erichkaunang
Dear friends and colleagues,
We are glad to announce the opening of admission for students to apply for full time Ph.D. program for the 2nd Semester of 2022-2023 academic year. You may visit our website to get more information about the admission process.
Written by Haris Fatwa Dinal Maula – CRCS UGM Student
Translation by Maurisa Zinira – ICRS Doctoral Student
As a social norm that is intended to apply universally, the existence of Human Rights (HAM) is an inseparable part of the discourse and life of Muslims in today’s world. Formally, Muslim countries that are part of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) affirm the existence of human rights values through the contents of the opening of the OIC Guidelines Charter in 1972. This commitment is also shown by the number of Muslim countries that ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICSER) which was ratified in 1966. However, this formal acceptance did not necessarily make the human rights discourse accepted smoothly by the Muslim world. One of the crucial points in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which is being debated is about freedom of religion or belief (FoRB). On the other hand, the implementation and enforcement of human rights in Muslim countries is also still weak and is often in the spotlight.
This dynamic is what we raised in the interview with Prof. Dr. Syamsul Arifin, the 1st Vice Rector of the University of Muhammadiyah Malang (UMM). This professor of the sociology of religion has written several works related to the discourse on the relationship between human rights and Islam, especially in the Indonesian context. Among them, Attitudes to Human Rights and Freedom of Religion or Belief in Indonesia (2010), “Indonesian Discourse on Human Rights and Freedom of Religion or Belief: Muslim Perspectives” (2012), and “The Intersection of Human Rights and Shar’ah in Indonesia” (2018). Regarding the specific issue of KBB, Arifin has also written “Human Rights Discourse in Indonesia: Perspective on Freedom of Religion/Belief” (2011). These articles describe some important keywords; Human Rights, Islam, Shari’a, and KBB.
How do you see human rights relations from an Islamic perspective?
Actually, the problem is not whether Islam is compatible with human rights and FoRB, but what is the Islamic concept of human rights and FoRB. As a scholar in the sociology of religion, respective of this issue, I focus more on how the relationship between human rights, FoRB, and Islam is constructed by Muslims. In my article, Attitudes to Human Rights and Freedom of Religion or Belief In Indonesia, I said that Islam’s response to human rights is diverse. On one side are groups who view the compatibility between Islam and human rights, and on the other side, are those rejecting it on the grounds that human rights are Western product and part of propaganda to attack Islam, especially on its recognition of freedom and the right to convert.
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to convert included in the topic of freedom of religion or belief which is categorized as a forum internum (non-derogable rights). Whereas in Islam, conversion is termed apostasy. For some Muslims, apostasy is not only sinful, but also a crime. Thus, human rights and FoRB are perceived, by some of these groups, as irrelevant, incompatible, and threatening the existence of Islam because they provide space for people to choose their religion or belief without bearing any risk.
I say that Islam is compatible with human rights and FORB. In fact, Islam must set an example. Why? Because Islam has many fundamental values of respect for humans, including the principle of freedom of religion or belief. This form of Islamic commitment to freedom is found in many verses of the Qur’an. That is why, Islam recognizes that individuals have the right to embrace what they believe in, without any coercion. But of course, everything will depend on how Muslims interpret the verses. Therefore, how to provide a progressive interpretation is also a concern. For an example is what has been conducted by Abdullah Saeed and Abdullahi An-Na’im.
The abundant and multi-perspective interpretations of the postulates of Islam also contribute to the discussion of Islam and human rights, how do you see this?
There are two main views of interpretation: textual and contextual, or at some point can also be called exclusive and inclusive. We can’t avoid these (plurality on interpretation). This is inseparable from the nature of the text which requires various kinds of interpretations to be conducted. The textual model will produce an exclusive theological attitude, meanwhile the contextual one will generate a more inclusive one. Debate about the two approaches has been publicly acknowledged since each has its own arguments.
However, I think the most important thing is that these differences do not lead to intolerance, persecution of those who are deemed not in line with that interpretation. For example, there are those who view that changing religions is a sin. I, for example, do not want my children or grandchildren to change religions. That is, it. I am not permitted do crime to prevent them from conversion.
The state thus needs to be present to maintain the stability of society. The state has roles to protect, accommodate, and respect the basic rights of its citizens. They should not ignore acts of persecution against certain groups different from the dominant ones.
Indonesia has regulated Human Rights and FORB in Article 29 of the 1945 Constitution, but the state has also limited them in Article 28J, how do you view these restrictions?
What is restricted by the state is actually the expression of religion in the context of space and time that can cause chaos in the public. However, quoting Zainal Abidin Bagir, the rules must also be clear. This is also what I think the Minister of Religion is doing. The Minister of Religion does not hinder but manages religious expression in public spaces. For example, the call to prayer which is part of Islamic religious rituals is then regulated so as not to interfere with other public interests. Another example is how the state prohibits religious activities to the point of closing public access. The state has the authority to prohibit a religious gathering, for example, that blocks roads for days.
What do you think about the phrase “keep order”? Are the cases of banning Ahmadiyah, the disbandment of FPI and HTI included in the context of “bringing things in order”?
This is indeed a long debate. I was once asked about the banning of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI). I think the state has several considerations. For example, if HTI is permitted (to grow) it will disrupt national stability, especially regarding Pancasila. I think in this case, the government is justified because HTI is considered to use laws and ideologies that are not in accordance with the plurality of Indonesian society. The HTI movement itself is also seen as disturbing the community and disturbing order. What is important is that the state bases it on provisions that are objective, clear, and involve society at large.
The state should also concern about the way to educate society about the marginalized groups. This is indirectly related to human rights itself. The way people accept and respond to differences will be greatly influenced by how the state conveys it to the public.
Is it possible for Indonesia to remove restrictions on Human Rights and FoRB? Instead, the state should mere socialize how to respond to differences?
In the end, all countries, not only Indonesia, will reach a phase when human rights and FoRB are considered a necessity, a reality that cannot be avoided. However, these ideals seem to appear only in forums because we are witnessing biased state policies. For example, there are policies that benefit only particular groups. With this respect, the state seems to strongly create polarization by asserting one group over another.
Our state at this level appears to be inconsistent. On one hand, the state talks a lot about religious moderation. But on the other hand, many state policies are biased. This can be clearly sensed by several parties, especially those who are disadvantaged. More or less, it relates to the religious politics that occurred during the Reformation era. On one hand, the state criticizes populism, for example. But on the other hand, the government is doing populist practices. The government therefore needs to provide education to the public by producing objective policies.
Will the universality of human rights continue to be contested with the cultural relativism in many Muslim-majority countries?
Universalism and cultural relativism are debates that have been going on for a long time. However, it should be noted that the universalism of human rights is not only questioned by Muslims, but also other groups who usually have strong religious commitments. In Indonesia, the concept of universalism—in my opinion—is also difficult to accept because it contradicts the concept of culture, which includes religious frames. However, I think the debate between universalism and cultural relativism is an unavoidable reality. I don’t think this debate will end.
What is important now is to manage such discourse contestations. They should not lead to persecution, violence to groups with different points of view.
In your opinion, how do you instill awareness of human rights and FoRB in the context of higher education, especially using the concept of living values you wrote about?
Living values is a comprehensive systemic approach. It departs from a single concept of fundamental values. These values are then internalized using a value-based environment or atmosphere approach. For example, providing facilities for disabled groups and an anti-bullying, anti-sexual and anti-corruption campus environment. One simple example, as the 1st Vice Rector, I proposed a regulation on the issue of “ethics of student consultation” (etika bimbingan mahasiswa) that obliges academic consultation be carried out on campus. Also, students are not allowed to hand in any form of gift to lecturers, and vice versa, lecturers are not permitted to accept gifts from students. This regulation is a way of bringing the value to life. There must be a means or an ecosystem that is created to employ these values.
We cannot say “no smoking” on campus without sanctioning those who transgress the law. Living values must be fully understood from conceptualization to implementation. Living values in the end must ensure the creation of an atmosphere based on those values. Even the people in it must become a living curriculum. Talking about tolerance will be meaningless if the lecturer does not reflect a tolerant attitude. So, everything must be complete and comprehensive.
With respect to FoRB, I often say to religious lecturers, especially at UMM (Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang) that it must be ensured that teaching should be conducted by ensuring that audiences or students are comfortable and theologically safe. The lecturers should not deliver provocative remarks that make students of different religions or beliefs feel insecure and uncomfortable.
In that regard, is it necessary to provide specific/special course on Islam, Human Rights, and FoRB in universities?
Human Rights and FoRB are interesting themes, especially related to their compatibility, relations, and intersection with Islam. I think there needs to be a large forum that produces discourses on human rights and FoRB, on its relations and intersections with Islam. The forum has an output such as a class called “Master Course on Shari’ah and Human Rights”. Its main function is to provide adequate academic insights to university students regarding the intersection between sharia and human rights, conflicts, compatibility, and related issues in Indonesia. This forum also serves as a forum to discuss different opinions related to human rights, FoRB, and Islam in an academic space. This will produce knowledge and thought that will make us mature in responding to differences.
This article is a translation of the original article published on CRCS UGM Website.
Written by Krisharyanto Umbu Deta – CRCS UGM Student
Translated by Athanasia Safitri – ICRS Doctoral Student
Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB), as part of the Human Rights (HR) value, is often seen as an advocacy tool oriented for the minority groups. However, this view tends to depreciate FoRB significance for a broader community, not just any particular group. In the Public Lecture International Conference on Religion and Human Rights, July 18, 2022, entitled “The Contribution of Freedom of Religion or Belief to Societal Peace”, Heiner Bielefeldt – who had served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief 2010-2016 – raised one interesting perspective on FoRB which has a potential contribution in bringing societal peace into life. This point of view is vital to review the interconnection between issues of peace and freedom which often do not go hand in hand. In the name of peace, harmony and order, violations of human rights and freedoms of the citizens may occur. For this reason, the paper re-examines Bielefeldt’s main ideas regarding the contribution of the FoRB to peace-building projects that are oriented towards genuine peace that is “noisy” instead of “tranquil”.
Incarnating Human Rights and Peace Based on Trust
The preamble of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) clearly states that human rights are the foundation for freedom, justice and peace in the world. Bielefeldt begins his review by reaffirming the position that human rights (HR) are not merely a norm. HR requires the establishment of a culture of respect. This culture must be manifested in the transparency and accountability of public institutions—especially government institutions, as well as non-governmental organisations. It can be achieved through a checks and balances system, along with supervision. All public institutions must be equally accountable to all citizens who are HR subjects. Thus, these institutions show a culture of respect for citizens, and vice versa become institutions that are upheld by the citizens.
In turn, this culture of respect is closely related to trust being. Here, Bielefeldt starts from the phenomenon of a trust crisis in public institutions due to rampant cases such as corruption and oligarchic politics which indicate the lack of transparency and accountability of the institutions. This problematic situation at a certain point even leads to the assumption that there is no single institution that can be trusted or deserves to be called a “public” institution. IN the end, the trust crisis often leads to conspiracies and even incitement to hatred. Bielefeldt continued that the culture of respect desired by HR is to facilitate the building of trust, which is the key word for peace, and antidote to a collective narrow-mindness, hatred and conspiracy.
In this case, the trust we are talking about is not blind trust, but a critical trust which indicates the context of an inclusive and democratic society. The attitude implies the freedom of expression by the citizens and to be critical, not to merely obey and be submissive blindly. It is in line with the HR framework which affirms the inherent dignity of all human beings equally. It is at this level that Bielefeldt sees the potential of human rights in building a trust-based peace.
Further Examining Diversity within the FoRB Framework
As a central part of the discourse on FoRB and peace, the concept of “diversity” received serious attention in Bielefeldt’s presentation. In line with the basic principles of HR, he emphasised that diversity must be understood very broadly in order to protect human diversity itself. In this context, religious diversity cannot be limited narrowly to the official religion listed by the government, typically found in several countries including Indonesia.
Having thought so, the diversity issue we are facing is not only related to inter-religious but also an intra-religious one. It happens since each religion has an upscale plurality. Christianity and Islam, for example, have denominations that hold different interpretations of the sacred texts and religious practices. This very kind of diversity in religions also often leads to religious conflicts, one of which is caused by the dominant group.
Therefore, one of the fundamental issues to be clarified regarding FoRB is that it protects human beings as subjects of HR, not religion. FoRB touches up religion indirectly. Clarification on the matter is important since the misunderstanding of the statement to FoRB “protects religion” will lead to problematic regulations such as blasphemy law. The law is contradictory to the principles of FoRB if religion gets protection from blasphemy. Meanwhile religion itself can be defined and discussed in a very diverse manner. In the HR framework, instead of protecting a particular religion, religious diversity must be the direction to protect freedom of religion or belief, as well as protecting those who hold no religion or belief. Bielefeldt notes what people need is an anti-hatred offence, not blasphemy offences.
If we review the HR principles in general and FoRB in particular, which protects humans instead of religion per se, human diversity also needs to be taken into account. Many vulnerable groups such as women, young people, critics or those who choose not to be religious are excluded from this diversity narrative. In this regard, Bielefeldt emphasises the importance of including human diversity in their identities, backgrounds and experiences. For this purpose, the government can play a productive role to convene interreligious communication so religious communities can come together in the spirit of respect toward human dignity. Interreligious communication based on respect is the fundamental principle in FORB.
By adhering to the principle of such broad diversity, FoRB can be an inclusion tool which also protects people from incitement to hatred based on differences or diversity. It is important to facilitate religious diversity. Religion can indeed be the basis of conflict, however it can also have the potential to bring out peace. For this matter, FoRB is a vital part of the peace-building project which focuses on religious diversity. FoRB in this case facilitates an interfaith communication space based on respect, both towards other religions and all human beings.
Bielefeldt firmly concludes that peace must be distinguished from tranquillity, referring to Immanuel Kant who noted that peace must be different from the tranquillity in the graveyard. He states that facilitating social peace can be done by building critical trust that is “noisy” and has voice but indicates freedom, instead of blind trust that is “tranquil” and does not indicate genuine peace. It should be separated from the concept of harmony since it tends to be a tool of silencing people. It means that what is represented by HR and FoRB should not be a peace project that is “too harmonious” in a way of tranquillity but a peace where various voices are heard.
________
*Perpetual peace can only be found in the graveyard (Kant, I)
This article is a translation of the original article published on CRCS UGM Website.
Written by Maurisa Zinira
Right-wing populism continues to show signs in various countries. By adhering to claims of privilege as the dominant group, they further their politics by mobilizing hatred against minorities. They don’t even hesitate to use vigilante methods to set up domination. Using the extra-legal mechanism for politics, right-wing populism perpetuates the chain of violence that threatens democracy. The micro picture of the relationship between right-wing populism and vigilantism is discussed remarkably in the 8th Reading in Social Science (RISOS) by reviewing Sana Jafrey’s article entitled “Right Wing Populism and Vigilante Violence in Indonesia” that was published in the journal Studies in Comparative International Development (2021) 56:223–249. The forum was held on 29 August 2022 by inviting two researchers in the same study, Laurens Bakker from the University of Amsterdam and Iqbal Ahnaf from Center for Religious and Cross-Cultural Studies, UGM.
Vigilantism and Right-Wing Populists
Sana Jaffrey—the director of Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict (IPAC) argues in her article that right-wing populism and vigilantism are often interconnected and complementary. Although not all populism uses vigilante methods, this kind of vigilante-based dominance mechanism is increasingly being used by right wing populists to articulate and fight for their social dominance.
Jeffrey defines right wing populism as “political movements rooted in perceived marginalization of ethnic majorities due to alliance between political elites and “disloyal” minorities”. As the majority, they feel left out by a system that should (arguably) give them positions and privileges. Thus, reclaiming power from the supposedly “disloyal” minorities through politics must be carried out one among the other using vigilantism to push them to acknowledge the populists’ power. While vigilantism itself is defined by Jefrey as a collective use of extra-legal violence to respond to perceived transgressions of social order.
Drawing on comparative analysis of India and Indonesia, Jeffrey finds that both countries have similar features of right-wing populism. First, like any other right-wing populist, those are in Indonesia and India make majoritarian demands as “authentic” people who are under threat of the minority. Second, secular nationalist political elites are labelled as the obstruction to the realization of people’s true identity. And third, populists in both countries galvanize various groups into political action after a notable historical event.
Despite similar traits, however, right wing populism in both countries bring about different outcome of electoral politics. While BJP in India successfully seized the election, Islamists in Indonesia failed to further their politics. This also explains the acts of vigilantism in the two countries. While vigilantism continues to rise in India, the number of riots and pogroms constantly decreased. There were at least 254 violence against religious minorities between 2009-2018, of which 90% occurred after the BJP came to power. Meanwhile in Indonesia, the target of vigilantes is not only religious minorities, but also internal religious groups who have different views and those who are considered to be committing moral offenses. Employing such a different category to maps the action, there are approximately 25,421 acts of vigilantism that occurred from 2009 to 2019. The high number of vigilantes above should not be compared since the technic of collecting samples from the two countries marked the differences.
A Lobbying Violence for Political Ends
Vigilantism helps right-wing populists to achieve their political goals. In India, this kind of action is used by Hindu nationalists who move on claims of majoritarianism through Narendra Modi’s Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). Since 2014, the party has sharpened tensions between religious communities in India. By calling themselves “authentic” people, they eliminate various practices contrary to Hindu’s sensibilities such as forbidding Muslims to eat and sell beef. Jaffrey pointed out in her article that there were at least 133 of cow-related vigilante violence between 2012-2019, resulting in a total of 290 victims and 50 died, about 74% were Muslims and the rest were Dalits. At the national level, the government cut minority political privileges, especially for Muslims, to accept government funding and autonomy for educational institutions and personal laws.
In Indonesia, Islamists claim to be the largest population to have automatically had more privileges than other minority groups. They demand the implementation of the Sharia system in government and institutionalize Islamism through vigilante actions. Such behavior help incentivize mass sympathy for electoral politics, especially from 2016 to the 2019 elections when polarization of us vs them intensified. As they popularize moral and religious reasoning to legitimize the use of violence, they succeeded in influencing political constituents through identity politics.
Jeffrey notes two reasons why right-wing populism use up vigilantism. First, it is an efficient mechanism to regulate behavior for minority groups to submit to their rules. And second, violence is a form of lobbying strategy to transform the law. By claiming to preserve moral values, they force the government to comply with their action and make rules following the needs vigilantes believe to be proper. There are at least two forms of transformation that arise because of such a systematic use of vigilantism as a form of lobbying violence. First, harsher enforcement of existing law by the state. And second, the expansion of state power to regulate domains that were previously not their authority, such as dealing with issues surrounding LGBT under the pretext of moral order.
At the national level, vigilantism based on such moral claims continue to be voiced by right-wing populists to build a political base. Based on religious and ethnic majoritarianism, this group claims to be the owner of the native land. Whereas according to Jeffrey, what makes a group a majority is not particularly comprised of religion and ethnicity. From an economic aspect, it is the poor who make up the majority. Even looking at religious-political view, right wing populist number is relatively small compared to the more moderate one.
Apart from that, there are three things that, according to Jaffrey, become the enabling environment for the high use of vigilantism by right-wing populists. First, the difficulty of suppressing the rights of minorities from the constitutional path makes them use extra-judicial means. Second, the existing culture of violence gives legitimacy to vigilantism practices. Such as the perception that violence perpetrated by vigilantes is considered a normality or even a form of public protest for the reason that state laws do not work effectively. And third, collaboration with various state actors gives vigilantes impunity. Due to the support of right-wing populist politicians, vigilantes easily get impunity from various legal consequences. The BJP’s status as an election winner in India gives them the flexibility to decide legal cases especially given the decentralized feature of Indian police system and strong majority pressure. Likewise, in Indonesia, the involvement of FPI (Islamic Defender Front) in various mobs also exempted them from legal consequences. As vigilantes use religious and molar claims, those who are against their agenda are accused of being anti Islam.
Interestingly, as Laurens Bekker points out, the vigilante group is not singular. His research on the vigilante movement in Indonesia even found that groups like FPI, FBR and Pemuda Pancasila are in competition over media spotlights and commercialization areas that can benefit their future existence. In addition to that, Bekker mentioned that such movements have always targeted minorities as well as well-known individuals without community protection. This was not too surprising because only by fighting small groups would they be able to show strength. They would rather not be making any hassle with larger group as they have their own paramilitary wings.
Iqbal Ahnaf added that the high number of violence perpetrated by right-wing populism is not caused by the high technical skills of the perpetrators, but rather by the silence of the majority. The majority are often hesitant to provide serious responses to acts of vigilantism that permit the state to give no serious response to violence and intolerance. The weak counterbalance from the majority further causes impunity for vigilantes’ extra-legal actions that perpetuates chains of violence directed against minorities.
Indeed, efforts to reduce acts of vigilantism require serious action. In her presentation, Jaffrey argued that the rise of vigilantism in India was partly because of the absence of counterbalance against the Hindu’s violent narratives. While in Indonesia, the existence of two large organizations NU and Muhammadiyah is enough to give color to religious practices that muffle the existing violence not to escalate into communal conflicts at a larger scale. Considering how counternarratives make an effective alternative to violence, it is important to continue mainstreaming inclusive peaceful messages for tolerance.
Recorded Discussion: YouTube PUSAD Paramadina
Written by Athanasia Safitri
History has written that religion and its religious traditions, no matter how personal and sacred they may be, have involved the active participation of a community. Considering the variety of religious traditions, apart from the six acknowledged religions in Indonesia, there have also been many different teachings and rituals among the indigenous beliefs which are still practiced by Indonesian communities. This leads to potential arguments, inevitable tensions, and even religious conflicts at times. We understand that, occasionally, disagreement does not only happen between different religions but also within the religion itself related to its denominations. Therefore, when we talk about religious engagements, we cannot help but also include both interreligious and intra-religious relations since these two affect one another.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, people faced limitations in practicing their religious traditions. Therefore, relations with people of other religions were also reduced due to physical distancing, restrictions on gathering, and medical issues. Even so, the tension is still there which makes the dialogue necessary. As religious traditions may differ from one another, the active participation from each religious group is vital to the success and improvement of this type of dialogue. Even a small gathering of people from different religious backgrounds can nurture the opportunity to build bridges toward interreligious understanding. Not only will it build a strong foundation for people to engage in dialogue, but also to reflect on one’s own religious tradition. Furthermore, people converse in ideas and thoughts about other religious rituals, the do’s and the don’ts, which allow each one to grasp new spiritual knowledge and maturity from one another through this dialogue. The challenges of dialogue, post-COVID, add to the unresolved issues from before the pandemic further demonstrate the need for this work.
The Mini Student Conference
To learn about what students understand on this recent issue, the Center for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM); the graduate program in Sociology of Religion, Satya Wacana Christian University (UKSW); and Faculty of Ushuluddin and Islamic Thought, Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University (UIN Sunan Kalijaga) held a mini student conference hosted by UKSW on 16 May 2022, attended by 30 people, including doctoral students of ICRS. Most participants joined the class of Interreligious Dialogue in CRCS UGM by Izak Lattu, Ph.D and Fatimah Husein Ph.D, in which they presented their group project in the mini student conference, whereas many others who attended were either taking a related course or interested in interreligious relations. The topics presented in the event entitled “Interreligious Engagements in the Post COVID-19 Era” were categorized into three sub themes: Interreligious Engagements, Adat, and Local Context; Interreligious Engagements and New Social Spaces; and Interreligious Engagements and the Marginal Communities, all of which received great attention from the participants. Each sub theme included four groups presenting followed by a Q&A session.
The first sub theme discussed Islamic Intra-religious Conflict in Lombok, Christian-Muslim Relations in Poso, Tolerance in the Perspective of Muslim-Christian Youth, and Social Class in East Sumba. The following sub theme presented topics about Tolerance during Ramadan and Lent, Judaism Development in Minahasa, Tolerance through Graveyard in Yogyakarta, and Democratic Public Sphere in Manado. The last sub theme brought up issues on Women and Interfaith Dialogue in Indonesia, Gender Roles in the Bible for Interreligious Dialogue, Dialogue Between Christianity and Indigenous Worldview in Minahasa, and Narratives on Interreligious Marriage. Through this conference, it is vital to see that in the context of interreligious dialogue in Indonesia, not only should we consider the religious maturity of the community but also the conscious awareness of its importance.
What’s in store for interreligious dialogue
One of the Interreligious Engagements, Adat, and Local Context sub theme discussions brought up a particular topic on fostering tolerance among Indonesian youth with Muslim and Christian perspectives. The group observed how Indonesian youth understand religious tolerance and offered suggestions to foster the attitude of tolerance among them through Muslim-Christian dialogues. Religious tolerance consists of religious freedom, respect, rights to worship for other religions, and agreement upon disagreement. They presented the result of a focus group discussion (FGD) held with ten Indonesian youths (five each for Muslims and Christians), suggesting that in order to foster tolerance, the youth should go back to their religious teachings on how to allow other people to practice their religion. Tolerance will invite dialogue to communicate mutual recognition that leads to mutual respect needed by the youths in general. This is a good example on how the youths can participate in the application of interreligious tolerance in their local context, considering the findings from several studies that Indonesian youths tend to be intolerant. The questions in the Q&A session that are the challenges relevant even in the future are what kind of activities best facilitate tolerance to grow among youths and what might be the problems in doing so. There was also a suggestion to hold regular FGD for this purpose, along with other approaches suitable to the nature of the related youth groups.
The second sub theme Interreligious Engagements and New Social Spaces reviewed the relation of interreligious communities in the society. One of the topics discussed was the tolerance among Muslims and Christians during the Ramadan and Lent seasons. The presenting group explained how these two activities and celebrations are held in quite different ways which result in debate on whether inter religious tolerance is conducted equally among these religious groups. The survey involved eight participants both equal in religion and gender, trying to determine if the tolerance can be related with the concept of interreligious friendships by James L. Fredericks which leads to interreligious engagement. They suggested that there should be initiatives to hold open forum or casual dialogue to introduce Muslim traditions during Ramadan to Christians and vice versa to ensure the basic knowledge of these two events to develop interreligious friendships. The discussion was followed by a debate on whether the finding from the project, which is the lack of knowledge about particular religious traditions, might actually lead to intolerance and ignorance from other religious followers or if there was another factor which hinders close engagements from these two groups.
One topic from the Interreligious Engagements and the Marginal Communities focused on interfaith women’s movement in Indonesia as a resistance to male dominance. The group presented that women are invaluable in the interfaith dialogue since they are the most affected victims when there is interreligious conflicts and violence. Other literature that they referred to also indicates that women are the most effective in building peace, maintaining harmony, and minimizing violence. Men dominate interreligious dialogue in Indonesia which makes women’s voices rarely heard. On the other hand, the positions of women in the interfaith dialogue are very diverse and can defy the patriarchal society. They concluded by referring to an understanding Paul F. Knitter gave that dialogue is a way of understanding the differences therefore it requires correlational and equal participation from each party, both from male and female perspectives. The argument arises whether the male hegemony and the religious community in general can contribute to a wider participation by females in interfaith dialogue.
From three out of twelve topics above, we learn the difficulties we face dealing with religious practices and interreligious relationships. Norms, local context, social spaces, and marginal communities can play a very important role in determining the development of interreligious tolerance among different religious followers. Only by active involvement from each sector, tolerance can grow into a conscious relationship among religions. Most interreligious dialogues are similar to ‘a dialogue of the deaf’. That is, an interreligious dialogue will never work if the members are unwilling and cannot listen to others, as W.S.A. Rohmawati states. Therefore, it is very important to encourage the willingness and awareness of one another to accept differences in religions and religious teachings regardless of the different backgrounds. Apart from our basic understanding that interreligious engagement involves religious traditions and teachings, experiences and actions take a more important part in creating dialogue that goes beyond sacred texts and spiritual growth. Ways of living tolerance must be equally performed and considered as means that encourage active interaction to encourage interreligious engagement. The influence of personal approach, friendship in the interreligious scope, concrete examples from religious leaders and peers, and collective willingness to build dialogue, play a pivotal role in the existence of interreligious engagement.
Invitation for bridging the differences
A well-acknowledged religious tradition will help in building interreligious relations which lead to dialogue. The concrete actions which involve the acceptance of different religious rituals can only occur when people start to listen more and build friendships among themselves. This needs humility to be ready to empty ourselves so we are able to lose our ideas on what a perfect religious ritual can be. It later will grow a spiritual enrichment where people establish empathy on what the other religions believe in and conduct. Only then a strong friendship is built and tolerance with respect is nurtured. Having said this, an active participation of tolerance will gain us engagement regardless of our religious belief. Moreover, the participation from religious leaders contributes greatly to the development of this interreligious engagement through everyday practices.
Interreligious engagement in many fields can start by improving mutual learning which also involves the appropriation of new teachings and practices. A group discussion, workshop, casual meeting, or an open forum may offer the opportunity to consciously learn from other religions and to better practice our own religion. The mini student conference in May 2022 from three different universities provided the opportunity for a small group of people to learn from one another and even to get to know other religions’ struggles. It created a good understanding and tolerance. When participants opened their eyes, minds, and hearts for other religious traditions and circumstances, they looked inside themselves and distinguished their strengths, failings, and the need to strive for the better version of themselves with this spiritual enrichment from other religions. They will return to their own environment and educational institutions with this new appreciation toward other religions and may bridge the religious gap with the people around them positively. This is when interreligious engagement finds its best form and implementation.
Written by Jekonia Tarigan
After the decision of the Constitutional Court No.97/PUU-XIV/2016 related to the inclusion of indigenous beliefs as part of the religion column on the national identity card (KTP), as it concerns the rights of followers of indigenous religions, ideally there should no longer be discrimination in terms of having an equal position before the law and acquiring domicile documents equivalent to other citizens. [[i]] But, has the decision been properly implemented in people’s lives, especially in relation to public treatment and services to indigenous communities? This was the main question at the Kamisan Daring Forum (FKD) on August 18, 2022. This forum was held by several institutions including the Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies (ICRS), the Center for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies (CRCS), and the National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan).
On this occasion, two presenters and one responder were present. The first speaker was Sonia Sintia who represented Puanhayati, Bandung Regency. In her presentation, Sintia said that Article 28A-J of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia has regulated many aspects of the rights of citizens, one of which is the right to embrace religion and worship according to their religion, as written in Article 28 E. Indigenous communities in Indonesia struggle with the recognition of their religious identity. However, according to Sintia, indigenous people in Indonesia are grateful that there is a Constitutional Court Decision No.97/PUU-XIV/2016 to recognize and include their belief system as a part of the identity card. Unfortunately, even though the decision was made in 2016, the implementation of the decision still encounters many problems in the community. First, adherents of indigenous religions still face many difficulties, even to include their identity as adherents of indigenous religions, because they are asked to write a statement of conversion of religion first. Furthermore, according to Sintia, even though indigenous people have listed their identity as believers in God Almighty on their identity cards, they are discriminated against when dealing with educational services and applying for jobs in government. This is because in the application for jobs in government agencies there is no religious identity column for adherents of indigenous religions. A similar issue occurs in schools as students who are indigenous believers cannot have their religious identity recognized because there is no indigenous religion identity column in student biographies and recording student grades or learning outcomes. Further, compulsory religious education aligned with these students’ beliefs is rare.
These problems, according to Sintia, draw from several root causes. First, there are still weak regulations concerning the rights of indigenous believers to obtain public services. Second, there are quite a lot of unscrupulous employees in government institutions who do not understand the position and equality of the rights of indigenous groups, resulting in unfair services. Third, human resources, knowledge, and awareness of the group of believers themselves are still weak so they have not been able to fight for their rights. Fourth, the lack of coordination and common perception among state institutions, related to the decision of the constitutional court that indigenous religions are equal to religion and must receive the same recognition and treatment, as a result, adherents experience discrimination in terms of recognition of their religion, as well as in matters of accessing public services.
However, Sintia also realizes that the various obstacles in implementing the decision of the Constitutional Court No.97/PUU-XIV/2016 are also a good opportunity for the indigenous religion community to continue learning, especially learning about advocacy so that they can fight for their rights. Furthermore, these indigenous religious communities also need to establish good communication and cooperation with various stakeholders, both local governments and various agencies that intersect with their interests, such as the population and civil registration office, the education office, and even the Supreme Council of Trustees Indonesia (Majelis Luhur Kepercayaan Indonesia /MLKI) and the central government to support each other in fighting for the aspirations and interests of adherents of indigenous religions. Therefore, Sintia emphasized that as citizens, adherents of indigenous religions must not always only demand their rights, but also fulfill their obligations.
In line with that, Prof. Dr. Willa Ch. Supriadi, SH, a lecturer at Parahyangan University in Bandung who is also an adherent of an indigenous religion, said that there is no perfect law. Conceptually (das sollen) the law can be formulated ideally. However, in practice or in its implementation, of course, it must go through a process so that in reality (das sein) the implementation of the law is not always ideal. However, according to Supriadi, the law on population administration is the basis of all other regulations, and the decision of the Constitutional Court No.97/PUU-XIV/2016 is actually sufficient to realize good recognition and services to all citizens regardless of religion. One issue that has become Supriadi’s concern is education for adherents of indigenous religions. This is due to the lack of concepts and teaching staff of indigenous religion, considering that indigenous religion itself is very diverse. Therefore, according to Supriyadi, this needs to be a concern for all stakeholders, both the government through the Ministry of education and the indigenous religion community itself.
Responding to the two presentations was Dr. Ir. David Yama, M.SC, MA as Director of Population Registration, Ministry of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia. First, Yama admits that there are many challenges that are quite complex in fulfilling the principles of good public service from the government side to the people or society, in the context of a very diverse Indonesian society with a very large number (275 million people). Second, specifically related to the journey of recognition for adherents of a belief or belief in God Almighty, Yama argues that this has also gone through a fairly long process. According to Yama, at least important steps related to this process have taken place since 1955. At that time, the first congress of adherents of faith was held by the Indonesian Mystical Coordination Board. Then in 1965 the government issued the PNPS Law 1/1965 on Blasphemy of Religion to protect religion and religious beliefs. In 1973, TAP MPR 4/1973 was published, which explained that religion and belief are expressions of God Almighty. Both are legal and equal. Furthermore, in 1978 TAP MPR 4/1978 was also issued concerning the Outline of State Policy (GBHN) concerning nonreligious beliefs, but beliefs and required the religion column to be filled with five religions in civil registration. Then in 2006, Law 23/2006 concerning Population Administration was issued which stated that indigenous beliefs were not included in the religion column on the Kartu Keluarga (family card) and KTP, but were still served and recorded in the population database. In 2016, there was a judicial review of Articles 61 and 64 of the Population Administration Law at the Constitutional Court because the emptying of the religion column for indigenous believers was considered to cause discrimination. Finally, in 2017 Constitutional Court decision No. 97/PUU-XIV/2016 in which the Constitutional Court granted a judicial review for adherents of an indigenous belief so that they have the same legal standing as the followers of the six religions that have been recognized by the government and the status of indigenous believers can be listed in the religion column of family cards and electronic ID cards without elaborating the beliefs held. At the end of 2018, Presidential Regulation No. 96/2018 was also issued, which regulates the registration of marriages and the recording of child recognition for believers in God Almighty, and in 2019 Law No. 40/2019 concerning the implementation of the Population Administration Law, which regulates the procedure for registering marriages for adherent of indigenous religion.
In the end, Yama argues that in fact the government continues to try to provide the best public services for indigenous groups, but admits that there are several obstacles that need to be considered, namely that not all groups have recorded their data in the population database. Then there are still those whose data records in the population database are recorded as embracing one of the six major religions and the mechanism of religious conversion is still in the state of being processed. Several service innovations provided by the government include pick-up service for believers in various regions, integrated services for each population, and a joint program with the Ministry of Education and Culture to accelerate the granting of rights for believers and affirmative policies to include unregistered marital status for believers
- Sukirno Sukirno and Nur Adhim, “Implementasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 97/PUU-XIV/2016 Pada Masyarakat Adat Karuhun Urang Di Cigugur,” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure 20, no. 1 (2020): 11–24. p. 13, https://ejournal.balitbangham.go.id/index.php/dejure/article/view/666/pdf
Recorded discussion:http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdXN482A1VI