|
JAKARTA
POST, 15 Mei 2013
There have been several articles published in Indonesian
English-language newspapers recently as a response to the Pew Research Center
survey report titled The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society.
The articles in essence question the validity and the accuracy of the survey results primarily because the report suggests that Indonesian Muslims are not as “moderate” as they are generally viewed.
One of the main points made against the report is that there are multiple understandings of what sharia means for Indonesian Muslims.
Thus, the claim that 72 percent of Indonesians are in favor of formalizing sharia in the country is problematic and must be interpreted very carefully.
What is interesting however is that when a survey result seems to suggest Indonesians support sharia we then point to the fact that there are multiple interpretations of sharia, but when surveys (including this Pew survey) report that Indonesians support pluralism, religious freedom, religious tolerance, democracy and many other “liberal” concepts, I cannot recall anyone making similar claims.
Keep in mind that, as with the concept of sharia, the aforementioned concepts also vary in interpretations. Why is it that when survey results show that Indonesians support pluralism and the like, people seem to be less willing to scrutinize them compared to when surveys show that Indonesians support sharia?
Before moving on, let us get the facts straight by reading the report carefully and thus accurately. Unlike the commentary in The Jakarta Post which stated that nearly half of all Indonesians agreed to hand-cutting and stoning, the Pew report actually found that nearly half of Indonesian Muslims who say that they favor making sharia the official law of the land agree to hand-cutting and stoning. Thus, approximately 35 percent rather than half of Indonesians agree to hand-cutting and stoning. This however is still a worrisome number.
The argument put forth by those questioning the validity of the survey was that the question about sharia was problematic. They assume that the respondents were probably not telling the truth because they wanted to be perceived as good Muslims, thus they said that they favored sharia becoming state law.
While this is possible, a similar case can be made for questioning the validity and accuracy of survey results which show that Indonesians greatly support pluralism, religious freedom, religious tolerance and democracy. Why? Because these are normatively correct items of terminology and people would be unwilling to admit that they do not agree with or do not favor them.
The commentary assumes that one of the standards of a “good Muslim” for Indonesian Muslims is that they favor sharia becoming state law. This is a very questionable assumption. Even if this assumption was true, should we not be even more cautious of the fact that one of the standards in becoming a “good Muslim” for Indonesians is supporting sharia as state law?
Furthermore, one of the articles in the Post questioned how 1,880 Indonesian Muslims sampled could represent the 200 million Indonesian Muslims. This is basic statistics and it is important that those who comment on and criticize any survey or public opinion results must first understand at least basic
statistics.
The construct or framing of the question was also criticized because the question seemed to force the respondents to choose between only two options: in favor or against making sharia the law of the country.
However, providing respondents with limited choices has its advantages since in sensitive and personal questions respondents in general often avoid revealing their true preferences and thus take a more “neutral” view if possible. To avoid this problem, forcing respondents to reveal their preferences by limiting their choices is a solution.
The survey result which showed that support for Islamic parties was significantly lower compared to support for sharia was used to indicate the inconsistency of the survey. One should understand that the two are not the same. People who support sharia do not necessarily support Islamic parties because the so called “nationalist-secular” parties have in many cases endorsed laws or bylaws with sharia nuances. Those who support sharia know that Indonesian political parties in general are open to the further promotion of sharia in public life.
Putting the problematic criticism of the Pew survey aside, the results should serve as a strong warning for policymakers, human rights activists and Indonesians in general. Particularly those who are of the view that religious belief is a private matter and should not be governed (or enforced) by formal rules and regulations, the Pew results should be a wake-up call.
It is highly probable that Indonesians have various understanding of what sharia is, but the fact is that Indonesians understand that sharia is a religious concept and the Pew survey shows that the majority of Indonesians are in favor of it being formalized as the law of the land. This shows that a significant number of Indonesians still fail to understand how problematic the idea can be.
If sharia becomes state law, this means in simple terms that some or even many aspects of Islamic teachings will become institutionalized and difficult to question openly. ●
The articles in essence question the validity and the accuracy of the survey results primarily because the report suggests that Indonesian Muslims are not as “moderate” as they are generally viewed.
One of the main points made against the report is that there are multiple understandings of what sharia means for Indonesian Muslims.
Thus, the claim that 72 percent of Indonesians are in favor of formalizing sharia in the country is problematic and must be interpreted very carefully.
What is interesting however is that when a survey result seems to suggest Indonesians support sharia we then point to the fact that there are multiple interpretations of sharia, but when surveys (including this Pew survey) report that Indonesians support pluralism, religious freedom, religious tolerance, democracy and many other “liberal” concepts, I cannot recall anyone making similar claims.
Keep in mind that, as with the concept of sharia, the aforementioned concepts also vary in interpretations. Why is it that when survey results show that Indonesians support pluralism and the like, people seem to be less willing to scrutinize them compared to when surveys show that Indonesians support sharia?
Before moving on, let us get the facts straight by reading the report carefully and thus accurately. Unlike the commentary in The Jakarta Post which stated that nearly half of all Indonesians agreed to hand-cutting and stoning, the Pew report actually found that nearly half of Indonesian Muslims who say that they favor making sharia the official law of the land agree to hand-cutting and stoning. Thus, approximately 35 percent rather than half of Indonesians agree to hand-cutting and stoning. This however is still a worrisome number.
The argument put forth by those questioning the validity of the survey was that the question about sharia was problematic. They assume that the respondents were probably not telling the truth because they wanted to be perceived as good Muslims, thus they said that they favored sharia becoming state law.
While this is possible, a similar case can be made for questioning the validity and accuracy of survey results which show that Indonesians greatly support pluralism, religious freedom, religious tolerance and democracy. Why? Because these are normatively correct items of terminology and people would be unwilling to admit that they do not agree with or do not favor them.
The commentary assumes that one of the standards of a “good Muslim” for Indonesian Muslims is that they favor sharia becoming state law. This is a very questionable assumption. Even if this assumption was true, should we not be even more cautious of the fact that one of the standards in becoming a “good Muslim” for Indonesians is supporting sharia as state law?
Furthermore, one of the articles in the Post questioned how 1,880 Indonesian Muslims sampled could represent the 200 million Indonesian Muslims. This is basic statistics and it is important that those who comment on and criticize any survey or public opinion results must first understand at least basic
statistics.
The construct or framing of the question was also criticized because the question seemed to force the respondents to choose between only two options: in favor or against making sharia the law of the country.
However, providing respondents with limited choices has its advantages since in sensitive and personal questions respondents in general often avoid revealing their true preferences and thus take a more “neutral” view if possible. To avoid this problem, forcing respondents to reveal their preferences by limiting their choices is a solution.
The survey result which showed that support for Islamic parties was significantly lower compared to support for sharia was used to indicate the inconsistency of the survey. One should understand that the two are not the same. People who support sharia do not necessarily support Islamic parties because the so called “nationalist-secular” parties have in many cases endorsed laws or bylaws with sharia nuances. Those who support sharia know that Indonesian political parties in general are open to the further promotion of sharia in public life.
Putting the problematic criticism of the Pew survey aside, the results should serve as a strong warning for policymakers, human rights activists and Indonesians in general. Particularly those who are of the view that religious belief is a private matter and should not be governed (or enforced) by formal rules and regulations, the Pew results should be a wake-up call.
It is highly probable that Indonesians have various understanding of what sharia is, but the fact is that Indonesians understand that sharia is a religious concept and the Pew survey shows that the majority of Indonesians are in favor of it being formalized as the law of the land. This shows that a significant number of Indonesians still fail to understand how problematic the idea can be.
If sharia becomes state law, this means in simple terms that some or even many aspects of Islamic teachings will become institutionalized and difficult to question openly. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar