Muhammadiyah
must boost democratic values
M Hilaly Basya ; PhD student in religious studies at the
University of Leeds in the UK; A
lecturer of Islamic studies at the University of Muhammadiyah Jakarta (UMJ)
|
JAKARTA
POST, 18 November 2014
Muhammadiyah
successfully passed a test of “political temptation” in the 2014 general
elections. The nation’s second-largest Islamic organization, which on Nov. 18
commemorated its 102nd anniversary, declined to endorse any of the political
parties or presidential candidates.
While
some figures from other Islamic organizations joined teams supporting
specific candidates, central board members preferred to remain neutral.
Board
members also did not complain when no Muhammadiyah cadres were included in
President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s Cabinet. Certainly, disappointment was
expressed, particularly by Muhammadiyah’s youth wing.
However,
Muhammadiyah leaders and its members generally accepted the Cabinet formation
as the prerogative of the President.
The
neutrality indicates that Muhammadiyah is consistent in staying out of
politics, preferring to join campaigns concerning clean governance,
accountability and social justice. As
former chairman Syafii Ma’arif (1998-2005) stated, if Muhammadiyah voiced public
support for a candidate it would be based on strictly moral considerations.
The
success of Muhammadiyah in the post-New Order era is not measured by how many
cadres are appointed as ministers, but by the extent to which the movement
campaigns for principle values of humanity, freedom, peace and good
governance.
Muhammadiyah
has played an important role in fighting for those values, both
institutionally and interpersonally.
The
current political situation requires Muhammadiyah to think more seriously
about how to make Islam a means of strengthening democracy, human rights and
national identity. Claims that Muhammadiyah figures represent modernist
Islamic thought are false if the organization ignores crucial issues arising
in the post-New Order era that threaten religious plurality, religious
freedom and freedom of expression.
In the
past decade, Indonesia has witnessed the rise of “public religion” — a term
which scholars refer to as religions that seek to interfere in the public
sphere. After the collapse of the New Order, many new Islamic organizations
were established. Many of them saw democracy as a new opportunity for
Islamizing state and society.
Many of
these public religions and their representative organizations threatened
principles of democracy. There have been many instances of public religions
seeking to punish groups perceived to have deviated from, for example, “true”
Islam.
For
instance, from 2008 to 2012, the persecution of Ahmadiyah followers
increased. The punishment was not only done by attacks on mosques, but also
by chasing Ahmadiyah away from their homes.
This
period also witnessed stronger campaigning against freedom in interpreting
Islam. Interpretations that differed
from certain understandings of Islam began to be regarded as heretical.
As a
result, Islamic liberal thinkers have experienced physical and psychological
intimidation. Restrictions on Christians establishing churches have also been
imposed.
The most
recent case is the negative campaigning against a non-Muslim, acting Jakarta
governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama, against his upcoming installment as
Jakarta governor. Sectarian issues
dominate the discourse of these public religions.
The
emergence of public religions is acceptable as long as they support and
strengthen principles of democracy and the nation-state. They should enhance,
or at least not disrupt, religious freedom, freedom of expression and
religious plurality. It is better if public religions empower and enlighten
society and help ensure government accountability.
Therefore,
as one of the two biggest Islamic organizations, along with the Nahdlatul
Ulama (NU), Muhammadiyah should move to counter these sectarian voices in the
public sphere.
The main
point addressed here concerns who is regarded as having an authoritative
voice for Islam. If Muhammadiyah does not actively argue against those public
religions’ views, Muslims and non-Muslims alike will think they have the most
authoritative voice for Islam.
This
does not mean that Muhammadiyah has not played a public role. One significant
example came in 2000 — 2002 when it rejected efforts to amend the preamble of
the Constitution to include a clause mandating that Muslims follow sharia.
Another
instance was its campaign for clean governance and against “rotten”
politicians. Using a religious approach, Muhammadiyah helped socialize
anti-corruption spirit among Muslims.
Muhammadiyah
encouraged its Friday sermon preachers and other religious leaders to deliver
the message of clean governance.
However,
escalating sectarian discourse in the public sphere requires Muhammadiyah to
work harder. Its leaders and activists must be more systematic in
transforming the movement, and other Islamic movements, into “civil
religions” — that is, those that do not fight for religious identity or
sectarian issues, but for the common good.
This
civil religion enables Muslims to help transform religious teachings into
values applicable to society at large.
A civil
religion, as the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau noted, is a “secularized
religion” concerned with improving modern social and political life. In this light, instead of strengthening
sectarian identities, religions should encourage adherents to appreciate
diversity and strengthen national identity.
Such a concept of civil religion does not weaken or undermine Muslims’
devotion to their religion. Instead, the civil religion enables Muslims to
imbue religion with new meaning in a modern context. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar