Act of terrorism and identity alienation

Act of terrorism and identity alienation Kamilia Hamidah ;  Post Graduate Degree from The Department of Politics and International Relations at the International Islamic University in Islamabad, Lecturer at Mathali’ul Falah Islamic Institute in Pati, Central Java

JAKARTA POST, 24 April 2013

  

Endless opinion pieces about the Boston Marathon bombings have flooded the media following the incident and eventual arrest of a suspect and the death of another suspect. US President Barack Obama was careful not to use the word “terror” or “terrorism” as he spoke at the White House after the deadly attack, although an administration official said that the attack was being treated as an act of terrorism.  As the first suspect was shot dead by the police, the second suspect — Dzokhar Tsarnaev — was captured alive and identified as one of the ethnic Chechen brothers who had lived in Dagestan, which abuts Chechnya in southern Russia. They had been in the US for about a decade and were believed to be living in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Apart from the coverage of the world media, an act of terrorism was never expected to happen on this special annual event and above all, in a society where both socio-economic wellbeing as well as security measures are relatively stable. This tragedy shatters the myth that “failed states pose a great danger to global security”, which has had substantial influence in directing American foreign policy for decades. The Boston attack was an example of the fact that acts of terrorism do not always happen within failed states, as previously evinced in the tragedy of Connecticut. So what went wrong in American society? American society consist of multi ethnic people, yet it is a country that lately has felt overwhelmed to cope with the increasingly booming immigrants who come to the American mainland. Of course, the immigrants have come from different countries with different social backgrounds and some may have arrived from countries categorized as failed states.  In his book Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (2004), Samuel P. Huntington shatters the notion that the country is, as is often repeated, “a nation of immigrants” bound together to the American creed as the core American identity. He further defines the American creed as embodying the “principle of liberty, equality, individualism, representative government and private property”. Huntington argues that it was during the 1960s that American identity began to erode. This was the result of several factors, among them, the beginning of economic globalization and the rise of global sub-national identities, the easing of the Cold War and its end in 1989 that reduced the importance of national identity, attempts by candidates for political offices to win over groups of voters and the desire of subnational group leaders to enhance the status of their respective groups and their personal status within them. Now, as the mixture of subnational identities from different backgrounds and social traditions across the globe are living together on the American mainland, obviously social frictions are always visible, either because of economic sentiment, different social traditions or norms that sooner or later would instantly alienate a particular community. The principle of liberty, equality, individualism, representative government and private property has resulted in the loss of communal solidarity and the ethnic minority either feels alienated or subordinated.  The feeling of “being alienated”, being “the other” brings out the solidarity of “the other”, as they have the same feeling and form an exclusive community. Often this community goes beyond the ordinary community and later on could create an extreme mindset, which may stimulate radical action. Living in an environment that highly respects human rights, particularly freedom of the individual and freedom of expression, indirectly gives rise to community organizations that actually emerge from the alienation of identity. In one interesting tweet of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, from his Twitter @J tsar, he comments about the role of minorities in the United States. “There are people that know the truth but stay silent & there are people that speak the truth but we don’t hear them cuz they’re the minority.” What we learn from this tragedy is that Indonesia, with 240 million people and 34 provinces with various tribes and ethnicities, is potentially in an identity crisis; especially because our slogans such as “Unity in Diversity” have increasingly been forgotten as they are regarded as a legacy of the authoritarian New Order regime. Some cases, like the violence against the Ahmadis in Cikeusik and the two attacks on Shiites in Sampang are only a few manifestations of alienation of identity occurring in our homeland. Of course, we Indonesians hope that what happened in Boston will not occur in our country, but with the same potential for identity crisis, we need to take a lesson. The Boston bombings should inspire policymakers, security apparatus and social activists to map out regions prone to horizontal conflicts and take measures to prevent escalation of the rifts into acts of terrorism. ●

Cikeusik to Sampang: The threat to conflict

Cikeusik to Sampang: The threat to conflict

Kamilia Hamidah, STAF PENGAJAR TEKNIK MESIN ITS KANDIDAT PHD DI NTNU NORWEGIA

Sumber : JAKARTA POST, 10 Januari 2012

The late Abdurrahman Wahid once stated that, “Nahdlatul Ulama [NU] is like Shiite minus Imamah; similarly Shiite is NU plus Imamah.”

There have been too many similarities between the two, as the position and role of kyai is somehow similar with the position and the role of the imam in the Shiite tradition. The main contrast between them is that in NU, the concept is visible in the form of accepted culture, while in Shia, it takes the form of theology. Perhaps this is the substance of his statement.

The tragedy of Sampang is once again a strong slap to our religious harmony and it is very unfortunate that our security apparatus was not able to prevent this atrocity before it occurred.

The attack on the Shiite Islamic boarding school should have been prevented if the police, as well as local government, had a greater concern about this important issue.

Article 18 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that freedom of religion is a fundamental right, which should be protected by the state. The entire state machinery, therefore, should assume the responsibility and awareness to foresee any possible threats which could lead to violations of this right.

The attack on the boarding school in Sampang reminds us of the tragedy that occurred in Cikeusik, Banten, last year, which left three people dead and their place of worship burned. Just like the tragedy in Cikeusik, the police in Sampang seemed ill-prepared for the raid, even though they were called few hours beforehand.

Also, in a similar way, the local police stated that they were prevented access to the site by angry masses positioned a few hundred yards from the school compound.

It is totally unreasonable for the police apparatus to have so casually given over their position of strength to the angry masses, which they were supposed to expel.

The position of this minority sect is much more marginalized due to the release of a fatwa (edict) by the Ulema Council of Sampang (MUI Sampang), which states that the Shiite tradition has gone astray and is a misguided sect; despite the fact that the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) never released such a fatwa against Shia.

Indeed, they recognized that Sunni as well as Shiite were two great sects in Islam, as recognized by the Islamic Conference in Mecca in 2009. This decision shows that the fatwa issued by the MUI Sampang poses a great threat.

Previously, several attacks on Shiite Muslims occurred in East Java, in Bondowoso, Pasuruan, Malang and Bangil; these should have made it imperative upon the local government to prevent this particular conflict from escalating and to seek any possible solution to prevent further possible attacks.

Meanwhile, the ongoing Sunni-Shiite dialogue among academics, as well as elites, has helped to minimize misunderstanding and build a common understanding among the two groups.

It also affirms that previous misunderstandings between Sunnis and Shiites were not based on fundamental aspects from each religious teaching.

It is, however, very unfortunate that this kind of mutual understanding is found only within the elite and academic levels; the recent tragedy in Sampang illustrates what can happen if such awareness does not find its way to the grassroots level: namely, the common people.

The growing misunderstanding between Sunni and Shiite among ordinary people varies from theological differences, as with Sharia, which at an “elite” level is in fact not very significant, but there is a huge gap between academic dialogue at an intellectual level and what is understood among the majority of people. This happens because of the absence of a strategic approach to familiarize the dialogue process from the elite level in order to reach, and be accepted at, the grassroots level.

It is very interesting that culturally there have been several Islamic traditions that have sprung from the Shiite tradition.

Tabok and the remembrance of the month of Muharram is one example; although it has been mingled with various cultures from Java, Sulawesi and Sumatra along with their own cultural idiosyncrasies, the essence and the substance of the tradition remains the same.

This shows how an accepted culture in the form of a soft approach is more-easily welcomed by people than a hard approach, such as an overly theological or Sharia approach.

Also, there have been harmonious relations between Sunni and Shiite, and it’s already been interpreted into common acceptable tradition.

Such tradition also shows that culture can become an effective medium to translate elite-level dialogue for acceptance among ordinary people.

Thus, for the academic scholar, there should be some sort of comprehensive study to diagnose possible misunderstandings as perceived by people regarding the Sunni-Shiite issue, as well as to map the characteristics and the level of those misunderstandings according to particular provinces.

This information could be used to determine the extent to which such misunderstandings may threaten to erupt into serious horizontal conflict, which could be used as the basis of a blueprint to foster further dialogue. Misunderstandings between Sunni and Shiite followers in Indonesia are mostly due to the absence of culture as a means of propagation and dialogue.

Finally, the enemies of Islam — as for all religions — are oppression, poverty and ignorance. These common enemies of religion should be examined and understood by local ulema in order that they do not disrupt harmonious relations between different sects within a particular religion or between different religions. ●