Mencuatnya issue terorisme yang disusul dengan ditangkapnya eksponen JI dan para pelaku terror membawa babak baru dalam perbincangan terorisme dan Islam. Dunia pesantren sebagai basis pendidikan dan ideologisasi Islam terkena imbasnya. Pesantren disorot tajam setelah diketahui ada hubungan erat antara pelaku terror dengan pesantren. Masih segar dalam ingatan Pemerintah dan masyarakat siapa itu Dr. Azhari. Ia bukan hanya di kenal semata sebagai anggota JI, tetapi juga sabagai salah satu tokoh penting di pesantren Al-Mukmin, Ngruki Solo.
Ada beragam respons terhadap issue ini, sebagian ada yang menolak mentah-mentah hubungan pesantren dengan terorisme. Sikap ini ditunjukkan oleh para tokoh pentinggi organisasi NU dan Muhammadiyah. Dalam salah satu wawancara yang dimuat kantor berita Antara KH. Hasim Muzadi menegaskan bahwa NU steril dari terror. Tidak ada satu pun terrorist yang tertangkap berasal dari kaum nahdiyin. Di lain pihak ada yang mengamini pendapat kedekatan terrorist dengan pesantren, namun dengan catatan hanya segelintir pesantren saja. Terutama pesantren yang ber-ideology salaf dan beraliran jihadist. Sarjana yang berpendapat demikian adalah Azyumardi Azra dalam (..).
Bagaimana sebenarnya suara kalangan pesantren sendiri dalam menanggapi issue ini. Faktanya masih banyak pesantren yang diam. Belum diketahui respons element pesantren dan kelompok jihadist ini dalam menanggapi stigma negative yang mengatributi mereka dengan label pencetak generasi terror. Selama ini pesantren masih banyak direpresentasikan suaranya oleh tokoh organisasi keummatan, pemerintah maupun intelektual. Atas dasar itu Penulis mengobservasi beberapa pesantren di Yogykarta yang merefresentasikan pesantren NU, Muhammadiyah dan Salafi. Pesantren-pesantren tersebut adalah pesantren traditionalist NU Al-Falaliyah Mlangi, Pesantern al-Quran al-Munawir Krapyak, Pesantren Mahasiswa Aji Mahasiswa Krapyak, Pesantren Muhammadiyah Pandanaran Kaliurang, dan pesantren FPI Ihya As-Sunnah Ngemplak, Sleman.
Ada opini yang hampir seragam, hanya berbeda argumentasi, yang di sampaikan oleh pesantren-pesantren tersebut. Mereka menolak dan menggugat secara tegas asumsi dan tuduhan pesantren sebagai penyemai ideology terror dan produsen terrorist. Alasan dari penolakan tersebut cukup bervariasi. Yang pertama disebabkan karena faktor definisi; Kalangan pesantren tidak menerima definisi simplistic dan reduksionist yang mengkonversi Jihad sebagai terror. Kedua dari golongan NU dan Muhammadiyah yang melihat adanya ketidaktepatan impelementasi doktrin jihad yang di pahami dan dipraktekkan oleh para terrorist dan kelopok salafi. Ketiga dari refleksi kalangan pesantren terhadap masalah ke-Indonesia-an.
Teror bukan jihad
Salahsatu teorema umum yang dipercaya massa adalah terrorist selalu berlindung di bawah panji-panji jihad dalam melakukan aksi terror dan bom bunuh diri. Kematian bukan sesuatu yang ditakuti oleh terrorist, malah sebaliknya sesuatu yang di idam-idamkan. Apabila saatnya meregang nyawa tiba atas aksinya itu, para suicide bomber akan tersenyum. Di ujung mata dan pikirannya terbayang kenikmatan dan keindahan kerling mata dan harum nafas bidadari-bidadari surgawi. Terrorist adalah jalan alternatif perjuangan bagi kelompok garis keras, tetapi jalan tersebut adalah jalan kecil yang digugat oleh mayoritas. Uniknya, golongan ini juga selalu beranggapan bahwa mereka berjuang atas nama mayoritas komunitas Islam. Sehingga komunitas yang tidak tahu menahu pun terkena imbasnya.
Kyai, santri dan eksponent jihadist bukan hanya tidak sepakat dengan pemahaman tersebut, namun juga mempertanyakan asal usul teorema yang diproduksi dan dimasifkan itu. Sementara ada kecurigaan dari kalangan santri yang melihat definisi jihad sudah dipelintirkan. Abdul Harris, Rois pesantren Al-Munawir Krapyak mengatakan: “Saya tidak tahu Siapa Nurdin M Top, dan apa agama dia. Sangat sulit untuk mengetahui siapa orang yang berada dibelakang dia dan atas kepentingan apa dia bekerja.” Haris adalah santri dan sebagian kecil umat yang merasa risih dan terganggu dengan pemahaman ajaran agama yang simplistic, identitas para pelaku terror yang kabur, anomaly kepentingan yang mendasarinya, dan juga pemberitaan media yang bombastis. Ia curiga bahwa tindakan dan issue ini sengaja diproduksi oleh pihak luar untuk mengotori ajaran jihad Islam yang suci.
Kalau mengacu kepada konsep jihad yang diajarkan pesantren yaitu “ma’lumun bidhdharurah” jelas sekali yang di wacanakan diatas kontraproduktif. Menurut KH. Mustopa Bisri dalam situs pribadinya Jihad tidak bias diartikan hanya sebatas qitaal, perang tanpa menggandengkannya dengan kata fii sabiilillah. Fii sabillah adalah konteks dan norma yang harus dipatuhi. Firman allah “Wajaahidhum bihi jihaadan kabiiran” (Q. 25: 52). Artinya, berjuanglah terhadap mereka dengannya dengan jihad yang besar, yaitu menebarkan rahmat dan kehidupan. Tidak disebut jihad berjuang atas nama allah tetapi tidak mengikuti jalan-Nya untuk menyebarkan rahmat dan kehidupan, apalagi bom dan terror yang menebarkan laknat dan kematian.
Menurut Kyia dan Santri, perilaku Terrorist yang mengganggu stabilitas keamanan dan ketenangan masyarakat sulit diterima nalar sebagai seorang Mujahid. Pak Muhadi Zainuddin, yang akrab dipanggil Pak Muh dari pesantren Aji Mahasiswa, berpendapat bahwa jihad tidak bisa di lakukan dengan terror. Harris menambahkan bahwa kalaupun terrorist berniat baik, mereka hanya bias dikatagorikan kepada amal makruf nahyi munkar, mengajak kepada kebaikan dan mencegah kepada kemunkaran. Persoalannya, apakah amal makruf yang dilakukan dengan cara munkar tersebut masih disebut sebagai amal makruf? Dalam konteks jihad fii sabillah, apakah jihad yang tidak berada di jalan Allah akan mendapat surga-Nya?
Teroris rupanya diragukan komitment jihad fii sabilillah-nya. Pak Muh berpendapat yang di lakukan terrorist itu bukan jihad fii sabilillah, tetapi jihad fisabil “salah.” Lanjutnya, Islam tidak mengajarkan kekerasan dalam perjuangan karena Islam agama yang cinta damai. Pendapat tersebut dapat dimaphumi mengingat Islam sendiri mendeklarasikan diri sebagai rahmatan lil alamin, rahmat bagi sekian alam. Ada cara-cara dan norma-norma yang yang harus di taati dalam ber-jihad yang ditetapkan Qur’an dan hadist. Melabeli bom bunuh diri dengan jihad dalam konteks terorisme bukan hanya terburu-buru, namun juga ironis. Islam melarang bunuh diri dan membunuh orang lain yang tak bersalah yang selama ini sering menjadi korban terror.
Menurut Haris, Jihad harus dimaknai dalam konteks perang. dalam perang tidak ada kepastian akan mati, sebaliknya dengan bom bunuh seseorang pasti mati. Jihad adalah untuk mencapai kemenangan umat islam, bukan jalan kematian. Lawan jihad juga bukan semata ideology, tetapi agama kafir yang menyerang Islam. Pandangan Harris masih terkesan kaku dan fundamentalist, tetapi barangkali ia benar ketika mengatakan bahwa dengan bunuh diri seolah manusia mendahalui taqdir Tuhan. Frame dia sejalan dengan apa yang dilakukan oleh FPI yang melihat medan kontestasi jihad adalah perang agama. Rujukan favoritnya adalah perang di Palestina dan Afganistan. Kristen dan Yahudi yang menyerang Afganistan dan Palestina di anggap sebagai musuh konkrit yang harus dihadapi mujahid.
FPI berangkali termasuk kelompok jihadist apabila dilihat dari komitment mereka terhadap jihad. Tetapi menurut pengakuan Ustd. Rifky, Muridnya Ja’far Umar Thalib, di Pesantren Ihya As-sunnah ideology jihadist FPI yang cenderung salafi dan garis keras tidak mendukung terror yang dilakukan kelompok terrorist di tanah air. Masih dari FPI, Habib Muhmud Bin Umar Al Hamid juga secara tegas mengatakan: “Kami sebagai organisasi pembela Islam, tidak mendukung gerakan teroris dan kekerasan, Islam tidak mengenal tindakan terorisme dan kekerasan, Islam itu agama damai."
Kelihatannya Kyai, santri dan kelompok jihadist sepakat bahwa jihad sebagai terror sulit diterima agama dan akal sehat. Hanya saja, dalam beberapa hal masih ada ketidak setujuan diantara mereka. Dibanding dengan kelompok jihadist atau salafi, NU dan Muhammadiyah, menurut Azra, tergolong modern. Salafi melihat agama secara hitam putih, sebagai kafir dan muslim. Cara berpikir ideology agama masih membagi manusia berdasarkan kepada keimanan masih rawan memunculkan terror jenis baru yang juga dilegitimasi oleh jihadist.
Untuk menjustifikasi mana yang terbenar memang sulit. Selama ini jihad dinisbahkan secara particular oleh kelompok dan kepentingan tertentu. Oleh karena itu ia akan selalu bermakna ganda. Aksi teror dapat di labeli sebagai terorist dan patriot oleh kelompok yang berbeda pada waktu bersamaan. Sebagaimana halnya Mahatama Gandi yang dianggap pahlawan India di era penjajahan atas ideology perlawanan swadesi-nya yang pada waktu bersamaan ia juga di cap sebagai terrorist oleh pemerintah kolonial Inggris. Namun setidaknya kompaknya unsur pesantren dan kelompok jihadist dalam menggugat terorisme yang mencaplok jihad belakangan ini dan juga penolakanya atas definisi jihad yang kaku dan rigid bisa jadi langkah awal yang baik untuk memerangi terorisme.
Salafi, dari madhab sampai rigiditas tafsir
Dari segi pemikiran, yang mendapat sorotan dari kyai dan santri NU dan Muhammadiyah adalah cara berpikir salafi yang dianggap tidak konstektual dan non-madhab yang dipercaya berpotensi menumbuhkan ideology garis keras. Pendefinisan salafi yang demikian di kontraskan dengan NU dan Muhammadiyah yang berakar dari sejarah perjuangan bangsa dan berafiliasi madhab yang jelas. Geneology pemikiran ulama madhab berasal dari konteks tertentu, sebaliknya kaum salafi langsung berangkat dari text. Pembacaan terhadap text tanpa mempertimbangkan context dianggap berbahaya oleh ulama salafiyah.
Umumnya NU dan Muhammadiyah pengikut Iman Safi’i yang di sebut-sebut sebagai tokoh moderat dalam bidang pemikiran fiqh. Ia berhasil memoderasi pemikiran fiqh Imam Hanafi yang cenderung rasional-kontektual dan pemikiran fiqh Imam Maliki yang cenderung kaku dan rigid. Imam Syafi'i juga dikenal sebagai sosok penuh toleransi atas perbedaan. Salahsatu ajrannya, “ra'yuna shawab yahtamil al-khata' wa ra'y ghairina khata' yahtamil al-shawab.” (Pandangan yang kami yakini benar, mungkin salah; dan pandangan orang lain yang kami yakini salah, mungkin benar). Pandangan ini contrast dengan dengan pandangan terrorist yang selalu mengkalim apapun yang dilakukannya benar tanpa kecuali.
Karena salafi aliran pemikiran yang cenderung textual dan keras, ditambah dengan tidak merujuk kepada otoritas madhab yang mendorong penafsiran turats secara pribadi dan atau tidak mempertimbngakan jejaring konteks yang melatarbelakanginya dianggap berbahaya. Misalnya, dalam menafsirkan ayat “qotilul musrikina kaffah”, bunuhlah orang kafir semunya. Seringkali, menurut anggapan pak Muh, ditafisrkan salafi sebagai perintah untuk membunuh semua orang kafir tanpa kekecualian. Tidak ada istilah kafir dimmy, yang wajib dilindungi. Melainkan semuanya harby dan bisa dibunuh.
Di sinilah kelihatan karakter asli kelompok ini yang memandang doktrin dan tradisi yang berupa teks-teks kitab secara literalistik, tekstual dan final. Pandangan literal salafi inilah yang menurut Azra yang menyebabkan perilaku salafi ekstrem, radikal, fanatis, tidak kenal kompromi, eksklusif, dan fundamentalis. Padahal menurut ulama NU, ayat tadi juga harus di konfrontir dengan ayat lain untuk mendapatkan makna yang lebih universal. Seperti “lakum dinukum wal-yadin”, agamaku untukmu dan agamamaku untukku.
Kosekuensinya, yang kafir tidak dimaknai sebagai golongan yang harus selalu mati di ujung pedang apabila mereka beragama dengan jelas, berbuat baik kepada sesama, dan tidak mengajak kepada kekafiran. Di jaman Rasullah, kafir dimmy dilindungi dan tidak boleh dibunuh sepanjang kafir ini menerima dan menghormati hukum Islam. Menurut Pak Muh, hukum tersebut juga berlaku di Indonesia, karena mayoritas masyarakat Indonesia muslim. Menurutnya, “Kalau kafir dimmy juga dibunuh, rusaklah Negara.”
Indonesia, bumi kerajaan Tuhan yang lain
Alasan lain keberatan pesantren dikaitkannya terror dengan pesantren adalah tradisi panjang di tanah air. Pesantren adalah lembaga pendidikan tua yang berkiprah semejak sebelum kemerdekaan. Pesantren terlibat dalam pendikan bangsa dalam rangka pencerdasan warga Negara. Tokoh-tokoh pesantren banyak yang terlibat dalam perjuangan. Sejak dulu ulama-ulama banyak yang tergerak dalam menginisiasi perlawanan terhadap kolonialisme. Organisasi NU dan Muhammadiyah yang menjadi pillar nasionalisme adalah tumbuh dari pemikiran ulama.
Mengingat sejarah lembaga pesantren yang sangat erat dengan berdirinya Indonesia, disisi lain terorisme sering di identikkan dengan disintegrasi dan atau menyebarkan ketidak tenangan masyarakat jelas tidak sesuai dengan karakter pesantren. Pesantren yang terlibat dalam terbentuknya Negara tidak mungkin menghancurkan bangunannya sendiri.
Kalau ada yang mengatasnamakan pesantren untuk merusak ideology bangsa, kalangan pesantren berasumsi pesantren yang demikian yang tidak berakar dari tradisi bangsa ini. Atau pesantern tiban dalam pengertian Gus Mus, yaitu pesantern yang baru berkembang yang berdasarkan kepada ideology politik global semisal HTI atau Jamaah. Oleh karena itu secara karakter keduanya pasti berbeda. Pesantren yang merusak hubungan baik islam dan Negara di kecam KH. Muh sebagai pesantren yang merusak “susu dalam sebelangga.” Persoalannya, kadanga pesantren yang demikian di generalisir, dan pemerintah pemerintah tidak melihat sejarah secara holistik, sehingga pesantren menjadi korban.
Kalangan NU dan Muhammdiyah percaya bahwa Indonesia adalah bumi tuhan yang lain. wilayah kerajaan tuhan yang tidak dibatasi oleh pemerintahan tertentu. Tidak selayaknya terror dengan mengaku dilegitimasi agama menghancur tatanan kebangsaan yang sudah susah payah dibentuk selama Indonesia juga adalah bagian dari ciptaan tuhan yang layak di jaga. Mencintai Negara, adalah sebagian dari iman, begitu kata pepetah.

Read More...

Although some Islamic country has applied democracy but some westerns scholar are still questing to Muslim ability in adopting democracy as whole. Karen Armstrong, British writer, was question: can religious states be democratic? And whether Islamic ideology will allow Muslims to embrace democracy and freedom? Armstrong fundamentally questioning the religious state or states based on religious role in dealing with democracy. Perhaps that question arise because of many Muslim countries that embraces democracy little different in implementation as western does.
Hesitancy of western scholars to the Muslim ability in maintaining democracy was based on historical fact that majority of Muslim countries are western colony. Alexander Kronemer said that the greatest obstacle to democracy in Muslim word is not Islam as ideology, but poverty, the lack of education, corruption, and repressive regime—and this is important point—are supported by democracies of the West. Many Muslim countries were colonized, they have no single decision to maintenance democracy before independent, and still cannot move forward because strong influence of colonialism. Additionally, intervention of western to internal political matter of Islamic countries to the implementation of democracy makes democracy lose it spirit. It makes Muslim lose the ability to organize who is him. Whereas, western always proclaim that democracy come from west, and west are democracy guardian. French, British Kingdom and United States continued to control ex-colonies countries. In Egypt al-Wafad Islamic party won election for seventieth, but because of British interventions and Egypt Kingdom policies just have hold administration for three times. Iran parliamentary before revolution also tried to constitute a democratic constitutional but that effort was fail because of foreign nations, Russia, British Kingdom, and United States support despotic regime of king, Pahlevi’s dynasty.
Muslim countries after independent eras are still tricky to avoid colonialism influences. French still control Marocco and Egypt and British kingdom made British Commonwealth to control ex-England colonies. An Islamic country which tries to implement democracy was in the hard positions; in one hand democracy was ideology of colonialism where Islamic countries become a victim. Moreover, many Muslims believe that Islamic state should operate khalifah as the only Islamic system. For that reason, many Islamic countries just allow democracy as ritual and institutional things, like general election to choose president and parliament. Democracy is not for pursuing people prosperity and for establishing people right guarantee, like freedom of speech and expression, and equality in front of laws.
There is longing feeling of several Muslims to adopt democracy without losing Islamic tradition identity. Anyway, for Muslim, khilafah was important system that Islamic tradition inherited that refer to prophet eras administration and khulafaurrasidhin. Of course to implement khilafah as whole almost impossible in the time because of Muslims have been divided into nation states. In the other hand, there are tension between Islam and democracy that makes both of them hard to unify. Islam and democracy for same people are different, even opposites each other. Islam after cold ward positioned as opponent ideology against western ideology. The world split into two basic camps; either democratic or totalitarian. Being democratic means American alliance, and anti-American means anti democracy. By using cold war framework thinking, Islam was like communism ideology that stands against democratic ideology. Of course that all wrong, Islam is not communism, because of the values of them are contrary each others. Western approach to Islam should different to communism. Islam is religion, not merely political ideology. There are ethics and moralities in Islam that lead to brotherhood not to enmity. Addressing Islam to the bombing and suicide are not qualified. The whole Islamic teaching is about harmony and against injustice and destruction.
Karen Armstrong true when she said that democracy could be various and Islam was not democracy opponent or anti-democracy. There are principles in Islamic law, such as the need to shura (consultation) before passing new legislation that fix to democracy. Ismail al-Faruqi also shares in opinion that Islam can accept democratic principle. Islam is not cease system, although khilafah has been practiced since long times ago, that not means fix system in Islam. Shura didn’t describe despotic system, because all decisions are negotiated. Sunni and Syiah might respond in different ways. In practice Islamic Sunni states tend to accept democracy without presuppose. But, they added Islamic laws and Islamic courts. In syiah who has strong Imamah (Syiah spiritual leader) modified some element of democracy by adding religious authority. In the case of Iran, syiah administration has derived by Ulema authority. Even, Shi’ite has a capability to separate politic and religion. Armstrong said that this separation of religion and politic was sacred because all states were seen as corrupt. That separation closes to western concept, which is separation between state and church. Perhaps, one different thing that was very significant is about sovereignty. Islam teaches that sovereignty is own God, human voice is not truly sovereign. It means that Islamic sovereignty is in the hand of God not in the human voices. Yet, it not means Muslim voices are nothing in Islam. It is a fact that many Muslims accept democracy, like in Indonesia, because democracy suitable to Muslim. Muslim in Egypt, Morocco and other Islamic country practiced democracy without losing Islamic identity.
Many critics to Islamic democratic usually refer to practice of democracy in Iran. Iran democracy called as wilayah al-faqih, where religious authority has strong position in maintaining the role of state. Higher authority is not in the people voice, but Syiah ulemas decisions. Wilayah al-faqih represents religious power toward political matter. But, Iran has democratic institution and functioning elections. General election chooses president and parliament members. Does Islamic democracy developed in Iran was deviation? If minimally democracy is measured by general election and parliament, of course Iran was democratic country. Status of Islam cannot address Iran as non-democratic state. Probably right that Iran was anti-American, but it not means anti-American cannot be democratic states. I think, making an ideal form of democracy was absolutely error. As long as supreme democratic policy in the hand of people voices, the kind of democracy will follow the interest of people. There are many factor of developing democracy in which not only religions. Politic and economy are other factors that affect to development of democracy. Different kind and implementation of democracy in Islamic countries can be right. Armstrong contends that democracy needs a process. Western democracy builds in wide array in long history since enlightenment eras. In the process happens much destruction, anomalies, and conflicts, but that all development process. Islamic democracy is in the process of finding an appropriate form to Islam and democracy. Muslim tried to found ways to give Qur’an and Sunnah a democratic interpretation. Iran democracy perhaps is not ideals religious democratic example, but should be remembered that Islam and western developed democracy from different roots. []

Read More...

Although some Islamic country has applied democracy but some western scholar are still questing to Muslim ability in adopting democracy as whole. Karen Armstrong, British writer, was question: can religious states be democratic? And whether Islamic ideology will allow Muslims to embrace democracy and freedom? Armstrong fundamentally questioning the religious state or states based on religious role in deal with democracy. Perhaps that question arise because of many Muslim countries that embraces democracy little different in implementation as western does.
Religious state terms actually did not refer to all Muslim nations, but specific to Iranian democracy. Iran has democratic institution and functioning elections. However, the position of religious leader was very significance in maintaining the role of states. They called Iran democracy as wilayah al-faqih. Higher authority is not in the people voice, but Syiah ulemas decisions. Wilayah al-faqih represents religious power toward political matter. Does Islamic democracy developed in Iran was deviation? If minimally democracy measured by general election and parliament, of course Iran was democratic country. Status of Islam cannot address Iran as non-democratic state.
There are tension between Islam and democracy that makes both of them hard to unify. Islam after cold ward positioned as opponent ideology against western ideology. For me, viewing word as split into two basic camps; either democratic or totalitarian was not relevant. Being democratic is not means American alliance, and anti-American is not means anti democracy. Iran was anti-American, but it embraces democratic states. At vice versa, many despotic regime supports by western democratic states. Like Iran in the eras of Pahlavi’s regime supported by British and America.
Islam is not communism, because of the values of them are contrary each others. Western approach to Islam should different to communism. Islam is religion, not merely political ideology. There are ethics and moralities in Islam that lead to brotherhood not to enmity. Addressing Islam to the bombing and suicide are not qualified. The whole Islamic teaching is about harmony and against injustice and destruction.
Islam itself, according to Armstrong was not anti-democracy. There are principles in Islamic law, such as the need to shura (consultation) before passing new legislation. In the case of Shi’ite even have a capability to separate politic and religion. Armstrong said that this separation of religion and politic was sacred because all states were seen as corrupt. That separation closes to western concept, which is separation between state and church.
It is right that Islamic sovereignty in the hand of God not in the human voices. Yet, it not means Muslim voices are nothing in Islam. It is a fact that many Muslim accept democracy, like in Indonesia, because democracy fix to Muslim. Muslim in Egypt, morocco and other Islamic country also have practiced democracy trough general election and give freedom to inhabitants in giving the voices. In those countries, religious role arise in political party in which struggling to Islamic interest.
Making ideal such form of democracy was fallacy. As long as supreme democratic policy in the hand of people voices, the kind of democracy will follow the interest of people. There are many factor of developing democracy in which not only religions. Politic and economy are other factors that affect to development of democracy.
Alexander Kronemer said that the greatest obstacle to democracy in Muslim word is not Islam as ideology. It is poverty, the lack of education, corrupt, and repressive regime—and this is important point—are supported by democracies of the West. For Armstrong, those problems were waste of colonialism. Many Muslim countries were colonized, they have no single decision to maintenance democracy before independent, and still cannot move forward because strong influence of colonialism. France, Britain, and laterally America continued control the political destiny of these developing nations. For certain Muslim, like HTI (hizbut Tahrir Indonesia), democracy is bad name, even like Armstrong notions, that was bad joke.
Different kind and implementation of democracy in Islamic countries was not fallacy. Armstrong tried to see these relations in more wise ways. He said that democracy needs a process. Western democracy builds in wide array in long history since enlightenment eras. In the process happens much destruction, anomalies, and conflicts, but that all development process. Islamic democracy is in the process of finding an appropriate form to Islam and democracy. Muslim tried to found ways to give Qur’an and Sunnah a democratic interpretation. Iran democracy perhaps is not ideals religious democratic example, but should be remembered that Islam and western developed democracy from different roots. []

Read More...

Rawls, Pluralism, and Public Reason
By: abdul holik

Rawls saw pluralism as a fact in the public political matter. It seem permanent, there is no political power could changes the diversities of societies into monolithic condition. The diversities of human are in everywhere and everything. They different in religions, skin colors, interests, etc. That can be distinguished to group, race, continent, but it cannot reduce to privilege individual.
In political philosophy, diversity is an interesting topic. A person is always life in group or societies. They will interact with other as human social. Whereas they have different backgrounds that probably in times could happens conflict because of diversities. How to manage the diversities in public politic?
It is impossible to give privilege position just for one people or one groups, because that means diminish others. In the relationship of state and society need one role that can secure and legitimate all people conduct as an appropriate one together. That needs a law that will cover all the diversities as a community with their unique values.
Law is must rise from the public awareness, Rawls remark as “overlapping consensus”. The overlapping consensus presupposes equality, freedom of citizen to express what they understand according to their belief. But, they cannot impose their doctrine to others to reach agreement. Their duties of them are to find common understanding of some conduct and how to legitimate it together.
Public reason has assumption that all peoples are rational and understand to their doctrine. They reasonable are about God, right, life, and death, etc. They can communicate what they have as values of life to other people and can give a respond for other values. They also can give a reason from whatever thing he/her refuses or he/her obeys. All religion is reasonable in public reason, so catholic is reasonable, Muslim is reasonable, Jew reasonable. However, reasonable Muslim cannot endorse Judaism as basic term for social life, and vice versa. Thus, from different values there is no comprehensive doctrine can be acceptable by all people.
However, Rawls contends that human naturally have a capacity for gentle toleration and give mutual respect between reasonable Catholicism and reasonable Muslim etc. he hope that all religious moral, philosophical doctrine will accept the essential of democratic regime. In find what the essential ideas that will determine by all people without diminish his/her belief and at that time everybody can gain free reason and agreement in judgment.
Democratic regime is based on the constitution to legitimate basic conduct of states and society. Powers holder have no authoritative power to justify conduct himself. All peoples has respect as rational human, all group of society respected as group with the privilege comprehensive doctrine. History, belief, and body acknowledge as an important think in building character of the identity. State policy is to safeguard the diversity of the peoples. It can being balance among citizen who have different world views and different political choices. Reasonable citizens could grow in the free and equal conditions where anybody respect and respond to other peoples without discrimination.[]

Read More...

In addition to recognizing public reason, John Rawls also recognized the existence of ‘nonpublic’ reason –the reason of churches and universities and other associations in civil society. The understanding of ‘non public reason’ by the reason of churches will take us to a step toward an understanding of religious reason. Religious reason is different from other reasons in that it involves belief in the divine, the affirmation of theological propositions, or the pronouncement of persons and institutions qua religious authority also includes values conceptions of good, rights, and duties ordered in certain way. In brief, the content of religious reason is based on religion, while public reason is based on a concept of political justice that is broadly liberal in character. The ideal of Rawls’s concept of public reason is a reflection of certain aspect of democratic practice in contemporary Western liberal democracy that is characterized by a certain measure of openness, freedom, pluralism, and secularism. Therefore, Rawls’s concept of public reason is not freed by critics especially from the opponent of religious reason. The discussion about democracy, constitutionalism (rule of law), civil society, popular sovereignty, secularism, freedom and equality is the subjects that are debated between public reason and the Islamic public reason.
There are two reasons why debates took place; the first is in Rawsian conception of public reason that is based on liberal conception of justice is relevant to be criticized; the second is some of the objections to the notion of public reason are formulated best in communitarian terms.
The matter that is criticized is in public reason the citizen have two identities; public identity and non-public identity. In public identity, the citizen is a free and equal person that is apart from certain religious, philosophical and moral convictions, or from certain enduring attachment and loyalties. Nevertheless, as a non-public identity, s/he is allowed to use religion rather than public reason in his dealing with the world. Islamic thinkers rejected these classifications. They distinguish the citizens between the believers and non-believers. Religious belief is politically relevant to resist all attempts to turn religion into a private matter.

Read More...

Islam and state are interesting issues which invite many scholars to contribute debating how Islam correlates with the state. Issue has been focusing to the shari’a, as the framework of Islamic thinking about bases of Islamic state and the secular state as it opposes. For first glance, this issue is impossible to negotiate, because the bases ontology and epistemology are different. In this way, An-Naim lies, he argues that Islam has to negotiate with secular system for better Muslim in the future. He states Islamic countries must be “secular state”. This book is about paradigm and framework for his argumentation.
From this book I see An-Naim has strong argumentation to support his idea. As professor of law in Kartoum University and visiting professor at Emory and Harvard University his refutation is undoubted. I agree Islam is universal teaching, pure, but it has political dimension. Politic is not merely as consequence from Islamic teaching itself, but also from people who use it to get authorities under the Islamic law umbrella. Saving Islam as pure religious or joining to the mundane word in state is difficult choice indeed. The question how to elevate Muslim economies, to pursuit advance technology, and to manage Islamic societies from different Muslim countries, take care to world issues like human right etc. is challenges for many Muslim scholar. I know, accommodation secular thinking into state will emerge a rejection for many Muslim. However, An-Naim believe that be a secular is better than under shari’a, because under secular system, actually Muslim can practice shari’a, or can worship as well. He asserts, the state should not to attempt to enforce shari’a, in order that Muslims can run shari’a as a matter of religious obligation, not as the outcome of coercion by the state.
This book is very interesting because he try to elevate Muslim not by constant doctrine of shari’a. In the other hand, he argues that shari’a is ijtihad project, so Muslim today must make new ijtihad to find appropriate system to enforce Muslim live in all sector. Muslim countries cannot close the door from outer challenges, but respond it by creative way.[]

Read More...

Eleven September (9/11) tragedy was one of world humanity tragedy ever happened early in this century. Thousands of innocent people died for no reason. Some who survive became handicap, and got very deep traumatic experience. So many rumors grew speculated the reason of the action, and who was really behind that tragedy. Was it really Al-qaeda or could be America it self for political interest or might be anybody else. The media kept telling us that it was Alqaeda organisation who should be blame. This constellation remind us to Reene Gerard theory of scapegoat mechanism, that there must some body or some thing to be pointed to keep the stability againts people’s curiousity.
Religion seems to be like fast food that could easily grabbed as the motivation of the action. And in so many violence happened was commonly connected to religion. Some might be true but other part is not true, means that religion has been hijacked for the interest of other.
violation above show us the fact of reality that people live, and influenced by religious values surrounding them. As we noted, it is rooted in the core metaphor of a violent cosmic contest between good and evil in terms of wich all of reality is consciously viewed and that is derived from the ancient Israelite root of all of our religions (Harold Ellens).
As it has been explaine by Harrold Ellen about religions. Eastern religion focus on individual and intrinsic spirituality that moves toward transcendence of self, society, and world, but the western religion (Abrahamic religion) tend to externalize their values in sociocultural influences (Harold.6). this explained why for some fundamentalist Muslim they still believe that building civil society based on Islamic values on their community is Muslim’s responsibility. In this kind of community, religious leaders also have very strong influence to his congregation. When he allows people to do such violent, they will take it for granted and use it as license to kill. Sounds that his (religious leader) permission is equal with what the God say. So the interpretation of the sacred texts by the religious charismatic leader play very big role in brain storming his congregation to become militant and the devender of they religion and nation. They are willing to die for things they believe.
Indonesian Muslim Council (MUI), in Indonesia, as elite which represent Indonesian Muslim community have as much power as religious leader in Iran or other part of Islamic states in centre east. When it gave fatwa (a binding ruling in religious matters) againts Ahmadiah tenets as a mislead sect of Islam, imply the violence action from Islamic Fundamentalists. They violated the Ahmadia congregation. Thing that suddenly jump to my mind was where is law enforcement? Where are the policements? How could they be good an audience while these all violation happened? Is my country a real republic? Or people get misunderstanding of the term of Re-Public itself. It is true that Democration concept is always about majority and minority. But it doesn’t mean to sharpen the distinction between this two categories. Conversely, democracy should guaranty all citizens right, no matter who they are, what their skin colour or even people’s religious affiliation.
There is something that we can learn from this empirical experience that those who joined in the terrorism are usually those who have been alienated from his or her society. People who are alienated will hate those who are perceived to those who are alienated them and for some of them, they get together with people who are experiencing the same experience. People like these are likely to become member of terrorist. Government should aware of this sociological condition, By not giving any privilege to certain religion or group of people is the best way to maintain peaceful condition and very good stand point to start cultivating tradition of tolerance.

Read More...

Democracy is a sacred word that must be followed by all nations. This is always correlated with human right issues. In its historical journey people went through many ideas and finally found democracy as the best choice for the interest of all citizens. This concept offer equality, men’s dignity, freedom of expression, freedom of religion , the right of property, and any other basic rights that has been recognized in The Universal Declaration of human right ,1948. This declaration come from a very long process which is in the end produce human civilization for the time being and regarded as the highest humanity achievement. Violating the values of humanity means to draw back human civilization itself into pre historical era.
Religious affiliation is a very basic right. People can not be forced neither by the state nor other men to believe in things that they do not want to. This is a matter of faith and in faith we found trust. In my opinion trust means something that unquestionable that is what we call as faith. Feeling comfortable with certain religious affiliation is an example that men could not explain, even though most people get their religion from their parents.
State is supposed to be out off this thing. Nevertheless, it does not mean that the government does not have any involvement with the religiousity. Freedom it self always have implication to each other. Men’s freedom is always in a boundary of other’s freedom. In my opinion this is the area that belongs to the government. Guaranteeing every one’s right and protecting them from being tortured by others in the name of law is the duty of the government as well as giving prosperity to all of its citizens.
In conclusion, the best way is to recognize which is our duties and which is our right. Put them all in the constitution as a convention. This is one way to remind each other in living in pluralistique society. Respect each other is something to be developed and not taken for granted. This is how civilization means something in the history of human life.

Read More...

The global conflict between Islam and the west is started from Palestine and Israel (conflict in the Middle East). This local conflict become global conflict because there are many interests involved. Things are getting more complicated when America come to interfere. Palestinian thought that USA take a side on Israel and giving more privileges to them. This escalates the hatred of Islamic world in general. The tragedy of September 11/2001 seems to be the peak of the conflict. As the result, the government of America increases its security status. Everybody come to America should be ispected and investigated in very detail way, especially those who has Islamic name, like Muhammad, Ahmad, Hasan, Umar, Abdul and so like. Those who have such kind of names, of course, are experiencing inconvenient treatment, just because of their personality. It also happened to American Muslim and their family.
This kind of stereotyping people is really a human right violation. People should be treated equally, despite of their religion, ethnic or races. As they pay same taxes like any other and fulfill their obligatory as citizen. This has been recognized in The Universal Declaration of human right, 1948 that covered a freedom of expression, freedom of religion , The right of property, and any other basic rights. This declaration come from a very long processes which is in the end produce human civilization for the time being and regarded as the highest humanity achievement. Violating the values of humanity means to draw back human civilization itself into pre historical era.
If the reason is for national security then all people should have the same treatment. Labeling all Muslims as the same is unreasonable. Islam is just like other religion with various ways of understanding. Some take hard way but the others are not. I suspect those of Muslim who choose peaceful way are in the vast majority. Stereotyping Muslim will not give any positive effect in making a better livelihood. Charles Cooley (1902) as quoted by Zastrouw (1999) explained his theory of “The Looking Glass Self Concept”.
“The looking glass says that people develop their self concept in term of how other people relate to them, as if other were a looking glass or mirror. For example, if a person receives respect from others and is praised for positive qualities, he or she is apt to feel good about him self or herself, will gradually develop positive sense of worth, will be

happier, and will seek responsible and socially acceptable ways to maintain the respect of others. Conversely, if a person commits a deviant act and then is shunned by others, viewed as different, and treated with disrespect, that person will develop a failure identity.”
According to Glasser (1972) as also quoted by Zastrouw said, “people with failures identities either withdraw from society, become emotionally disturbed , or express their discontent in delinquent and deviant actions.” So scientifically, there is no reason to stereotype people for any purposes. In fact, it makes things getting worst. Obviously, developing sense to respect each other is the best solution and eventually will keep our world civilized. [ ]

Read More...

In it journey the idea of state has developed from time to time, from orthodoxy to democracy. Nowadays Democracy is still believed as the best way of live for everybody within the country. The idea of Democracy was firstly used by Socrates who has been hanged to death because of his idea was againts the monarchy system that was ruling in that era.
Democracy is based on freedom that is the purpose of the democracy itself. One of the principle of the democracy is that every citizen has obligatory to lead and to be led alternately, and democratic justice is about the amount of the people rather than the proportion. From that point, in democratic country, the majority have the highest power. In general the highest amount of the citizen of the country is the poor.
The principle of freedom of democratic country is freedom itself. People should live freely. If people do not live freely mean that they are slaves. Include in this freedom is choosing religion and doing whatever people’s believe, of course in the corridor of respect each other. In this democratic atmosphere people could live in pluralistic way. Pluralistic in culture, in nature, in religion, in races and so forth. Even in doing their liturgy.
Most of the religious thinker suggested that religion was not supposed to be exposed, but let it become a personal matter, as it happened in America. There, people could live in the same neighborhood for such a long time without knowing what other people’s religion is. In my opinion this condition is not totally correct. There is nothing wrong to know about other people’s religion, since by then we know what they like and they don’t. for example when we invite other for having dinner, if we know that our neighbor is Moslem we could avoid to serve pork or any kind of meat from a pig, that is considered forbidden for Moslem to eat. According to Paul F, Knitter and Hanskung, what we supposed to develop is correlational and responsible interfaith dialog globally. He explained that people should accept the plurality of the religion honestly and more serious rather than like what we have done in the past.
From the perspective of relativist, Human being is the overcome of his or her history. Social construction theory also has become part of understanding human itself. So why don’t we start to construct a new understanding of interfaith dialogue that is more responsibly acceptable in the name of plurality. in my opinion from what I could understand so far, relativist approach perspective is still relevant to be used. For me the righteous is my religion and at the same time giving the same freedom to other to think the same way. Just like seeing our self in the mirror, what we like could also be what others like. Respect each other is something to be developed and not taken for granted. Rome was not built in one night, so that interfaith dialogue. God know which is better or worst, let Him decide.

Read More...

Background
The world, nowadays, seems to have single ideology that is democracy. In any country, the spirit of democracy is now blown and regarded as highest accepted ideology. However, the world with its plurality, is now facing the challenge of having a peaceful world to live in. The challenge of religious truth claims lead most thinkers to provide the third language to facilitate alternatives on toleration among the truth claimers. The idea of secularism has emerged as an object of academic argument and of practical dispute. This is the growing interest in questions of modernity. However, most anthropologists continued to show little interest in question of secularity and secularization. Most thinkers believe the need of new model of religion and modernity. Such great thinkers name arise like Talal Asad, John Hick, Sayyed Nasr, John Rawls, Diana Eck, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Jurgen Habermas, etc. In Indonesia we also know such name like Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), Nurcholis Madjid (Cak Nur) who are dedicating their research to create a bridge or third language where every people could harmoniously living together despite of their Religious affiliation, race or skin colour.
Modernity, which has been reach by Western civilization, is centrally taking the role that influencing this new idea of secularism. Modernity with all tools altogether with its indicators such as technology, industry, and science take the most responsibility in influencing the global change all over world population jump hill to the culture, values of the society and the way civilian think in the third world civilization even the global warming. Modernity has successfully driven people to live in smaller world and within plurality that undoubtedly unavoidable.
Nowadays we frequently heard news about clashed mass almost happened all over the world and every day. Something jumped into my mind when I heard this kind of news. Why people do so? Religion supposed to bring peace rather than violence or brutality. I finally found the answer that is lied in the media releases the news itself. Media have very widely broad in scale of conveying ideas to the audiences or spectators. These media have chances to generate culture, either the good one on conversely to the bad one.
Democration
The idea of Democracy was firstly used by Socrates (469-399 bca) who has been sentenced to death because of his idea was againts the monarchy (Athena) system that was ruling in that era. The basic fundament of democration is freedom and equality. Democracy is a concept, which is flexible eventhough it comes from western secular societies. This concept could be absorbed and considered as the most human approaches over centuries. Democracy put everybody equal as in every individual people inherit human right. It is acknowledge in the declaration of human right, Including freedom of religion. The principle of freedom of democratic country is freedom itself. People should live freely. If people do not live freely mean that they are slaves. Include in this freedom is choosing religion and doing whatever people’s believe, of course in the corridor of respect each other. In this democratic atmosphere people could live in pluralistic way. Pluralistic in culture, in nature, in religion, in races and so forth. Even in doing their liturgy.
Most of the religious thinker suggested that religion was not supposed to be exposed in public sphere, but let it become a personal matter, as it happened in Western societies or America. There, people could live in the same neighborhood for such a long time without knowing what other people’s religion is. In my opinion this condition is not totally correct. There is nothing wrong to know about people’s religion, since by then we know what they like and they don’t. for example when we invite other for having dinner, if we know that our neighbor is Moslem we could avoid to serve pork or any kind of meat from a pig, that is considered forbidden for Moslem to eat. According to Paul F, Knitter and Hanskung, what we supposed to develop is correlation and responsible interfaith dialog globally. He explained that people should accept the plurality of the religion honestly and more serious rather than like what we have done in the past.
Today people live in globalizing world in wich the world’s societies are rapidly becoming interconnected economically, politically and culturally. There are fewer than 190 autonomous nation state in the contemporary world, although many of these states contain communities that maintain old fashion ways of live based on hunting and gathering, preindustrial agriculture, animal herding or some combination thereof.
The Relation between Religion and State
Before discussing the role of a democratic society in regulating and controlling religious activity, we should see the type of the relation between religion and the state. In fact on its journey this relation also experiencing evolution, which in the end resulted civilization. Civilization paradigm has its own pattern, which is always bound in time and situation. It comes, rises and then gone. This is mainly because of two reasons, which are; 1. The dynamic of human mind, and 2. society needs itself . This relation could be mapped into three Paradigms:
1. Integral Paradigm
In this paradigm, Religion and state are integrated. The area of religion is covering politic or state. State is also play role as religious institution as well as politic. The ideology is divine sovereignty. This such system is usually Theocracy, since the sovereignty is in God’s decision.
2. Symbiotic Paradigm
The relation in this paradigm is symbiotical mutualism. Religion and state are completing each other. In this relation, Religion needs State to be able to develop, and in another hand the state also need religion since by then state could be developed comprehensively, not only its material but also spiritual, social and keep the people to have morality in daily activity.
3. Secular Paradigm
State and religion are separated in this paradigm. This paradigm mostly used by Western secular states.
In my opinion, the best paradigm approach, which is possibly used for Indonesia is the symbiotic paradigm. Indonesia is secular from the perspective of legacy, but in reality (de facto) Indonesians are religious. Indonesia is known as the country with biggest Muslim population all over the world. From all of the population, about 80 % are Muslims. People live their life with religion as identity, but still can live together in tolerance way. Naturally, people are respecting each other. In fact, this is the indigenous nature of most Indonesian people. Culture that has been perpetuated over generation. The question which raises is how such nature transformed in almost all Indonesian people?. Sigmund Freud has the explanation over the similar question. When he was asked to explain memories which is “remembered” by the whole human race over religions. The answer lies on collective memories, that is possibly inherited. The notion of collective memories in unconsciousness itself was influenced by lamarck, a French philosopher, which holds that an experience acquired during one’s live can be biologically inherited by descendents. We can observe, from that point, the nature of Javanese are mostly similar to each other. This is also happened to Batakneese or any other ethnicities in Indonesia. This natural similarity according to Durkheim created people commitment to their society. The nature and culture, has restored a sense of community, of shared identity and purpose, to a neighborhood of otherwise poor, isolated, even disillusioned individuals . Durcheim asserted : The idea of society is the soul of religion.
The idea of state itself is rooted in the formation of the community., and community consist of Individuals with all of their uniqueness. The fact, that people of Indonesia are religious, can not be ignored in choosing kind of relation which is going to be developed. The most vital contribution of religion toward ethical awareness draws into two aspect; vision and energy. Religion gives hope to its adherent that they can change and transform the world, which is full of hatred and enmity, into the better world where people could work and live together in harmonious mutuality and love. The hope produces the energy which unite people to gain that goal together. All of religion brings metanoia internal change, enlightment which produces something we never imagine before.
Symbiotic paradigm approach is acceptable to be implement in Indonesia. In fact, Pancasila which has been chosen by Indonesia’s founding father as the state ideology for Indonesian multi-religious and multi-cultural society, has effectively proven itself as a modus vivendi
Religion as Social Capital.
Strong state requires morality and good behavior from its citizens which is mostly influenced by religious values. The civilization can only be developed by these virtues. For instances, the notion to help each other, giving the charity, helping the needy voluntary are rooted in religious norms. Such activities are named as philantropic activities which simply means love and care. The influences of religious norms are dominant here both in theory and practice. In “Rigveda” (Hindus holly book) there is a teaching of “Danaa”. “Danaa” is a teaching which encourage its adherents to give something to Monks, Nuns, Brahmins and also to the needy. This is also touch in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In Islam, helping other especially the needy one is an obligatory and always interconnected in Muslim’s faithfulness. The concepts of Zakat , Shodaqoh , infaq are evidences that Islam has developed the idea of social development in order to build civilized society. These all are in accordance with what Paul F Knitter explanation above about
But, religious norms, which Fukuyama classified it into hierarchycal process, is, of course, not the only source of the morality. Franciscus Fukuyama explained that morality can also be tracked from the idea of spontaneous order or arrangement. This notion is based on Darwin’s idea of evolution. By quoting Kevin Kelley, Wired magazine’s editor director, Fukuyama explained the phenomenon of a flock of bees, which showed a very complicated behavior of working together in a harmony, without any of them are acting as administer. This group of bees is organized, because each of them is obeying their simple rule such as: get over flower’s bud, avoid obstacles and stay close each other. He named this kind of process as “adaptive complex system”.
I would like to say that religion has it own importance position, characteristic and role in development of the nation. It is a kind of resources as natural resources, or human resources. In fact it is the way people conduct their live in such a long period of time. Social evolution told us how people struggle very hard to find the meaning of live. From the era of “Totem and Taboo” until animism and now monotheistic believe, people still urge to disclose the resource within human bodies and minds. Social capital which could be derived from my explanation above are, disciplines (including obeying law and respecting the agreement), helping values, care each other, toleration, and so forth which eventually develop civilization.
Democratic Freedom in Boundary and the role of the state

In democratic society, people are equally free, no matter what their ethnicity, religious affiliation, gender etc. State should guarantee this as human basic right. In fact, there are not only few citizens but millions of them, then, how state possibly satisfy each citizens, of course it will be impossible for a state to give satisfaction to their every single citizens. There must be a consensus among people regarding this matter, which include what to do and not to do. This consensus is the clue for citizens of how they should behave to each other, to know what their right and others right at once. In general term, people should learn to respect other’s right by mean of respecting his or her own respect. The boundary, which is developed, is creating respectful manner in which people could choose certain behaviour to be adapted in their social relationship. This needs a very hard effort from all members within the society.
The government should create agendas of social construction, which is integrated within the whole country’s development strategies and practices. Indonesia founding fathers, for instance, had taken such effort in order to maintain stability of the nation with its plurality of ethnic, religions and tribes. Choosing pancasila as national consensus reflected their wisdom in accommodating all citizens interests. Even in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (As amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002), in Chapter XI about: Religion, Article 29, mention :
“(2) The State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief.”
Now it is our turn to relay and perpetuate their agendas as well as keeping their spirit.
The government should also use all tools to propagate tolerance culture. TV media, for instance, with its widest covering range in term of catching the audiences, is a very effective as well as powerful instrument to use. We can see the impact of this media in changing characters of our young generations, which is in the tip changing the culture, the relation among people in community, materialistic behaviour, individualistic and any other impacts. Despite of those bad impacts, of course, there are also good impacts. This is just common effect, which always leaves two side of impacts, which is good side in one hand and bad side in the other. Its all depend on how seriously we do the effort in maximizing all instruments available and use it to gain the goals.
Developing local wisdom is also effective as well as powerful. In this case, some areas in Indonesia could be target as model. What I mean by model here is that we could learn and take lesson from what have happened in these areas. Such areas like Ambon, in Sulawesi, and Solo in Central Java, which famously called “short wired city” since religious or ethnic conflicts easily ignited, have experiences in curing and reconciling. Learn from Yogyakarta, demographically, the relation among people are stronger compare with those in solo. In Yogyakarta, a lot of social organisations are developed base on their hobbies and interest. For instance, turtledove (local: perkutut) lover club and old cycle club, which spread all over Yogyakarta, are clubs base on hobbies. The member can be everybody regardless the ethnicity, religious affiliation or social status. People within the club share experiences and even expertise in favour of their hobbies. In fact, it tightened the relation among people within plurality. When they meet each other, they already have something to talk, some thing they can share in common. In my opinion, local government of Solo should learn from people of Yogyakarta. By propagating local wisdom, the distance among ethnicities, religions and social status could be decreased.
We also could learn and share with other country such as New Zealand. According to Prof. Simon Rae, New Zealanders are now also facing challenges that is to define a place for religion in such a secular society; a place that will ensure that those who do continue to value and practice their faiths are respected and not subjected to gratuitous insult under the guise of ‘free speech’, and that public space is accorded to those religious communities that aspire to contribute to society and its development – including the religions of those who have come to live in New Zealand under the more recently liberalised migration patterns and who have enlarged the range of religions in our community and strengthened some existing religious communities to the point where they are no longer ‘invisible’. It is obvious that Religion is a real phenomenon eventhough it contains a lot of abstract things and some time irrational. What we can learn is that government should guarantee that people are not step over other’s right while enjoying their own right. To respect to each other is something to be implement from the very beginning. School could be the best place to be used to cultivate tolerant sense.

Conclusion
Anthropologists are having a hunch that human beings are the outcome of their history. Social structure has constructed men’s personality. Leaving the result of the long social process is just like purifying the opium from the blood of the addict. However, if the person successfully did it, he or she is actually not really free from their built up experiences, it remains in their unconsciousness, and Freud himself pointed that the more a person put thing into his or her own unconsciousness the more neurotic they will come. Freud is unique. He has his different view of overcoming the problem of illness (neurotic); he said, to begin to leave it behind is the first signal of health. According to himself the more things men put into human unconsciousness the more neurotic a person will come.
The role of state is to guarantee the freedom of it’s citizen and also open and create chances to cultivate tolerant culture among people within the country. Democracy can also be mean as equality before the law, so that Law enforcement should be upright. People must respect the consensus. Government should guarantee that people are not step over other’s right while enjoying their own right. If the government is able to maintain this condition, then we have nothing to worry about. People could still embrace their chosen religion and do religious activities. In fact it gives more positive impact since religion generally propose their adherents to have good behaviour base on their religious teaching. In this global world, plurality is unavoidable thing. For that reason we should work together hand by hand to develop civilized society. Society in where people could live together in harmony. Let see deeper inside our heart, we will see what we really like to have in our society. We might claim our religion as the truth one, but we should also realize that other adherents will think the same way. Then who is going to judge, which is really the truth one. Religion is the way to find the ultimate reality. People can choose their own way, which might be diverse even within same religion. “that everybody should honour their God according to the belief given to him or her by God, without hatred of the other or causing trouble, and the rest will be entrusted to God who is the judge over all belief and all souls.” I Wish people could live in happiness and harmony. [ ]

Bibliography:
Anderson K Stephen and Alderson S Arthur, World Societies: The Evolution of Human Social Life, Pearson Education, Boston, New York, USA, 2005.
Fukuyama, Francis, Guncangan Besar: Kodrat Manusia dan Tata Sosial Baru, PT. Gramedia, Jakarta, 2005..
Khatami Mohammad, Membangun dialog antar Peradaban; Harapan dan Tantangan, Penerbit Mizan, 1998.
Knitter, Paul F, Satu Bumi Banyak Agama, Dialog multi agama dan Tanggung jawab global (One earth many religion, multifaith dialogue and global responsibelity), PT. BPK Gunung Mulia, Jakarta,2004,
Lubis, Mochtar, Demokrasi; klasik dan Modern, Yayasan Obor Indonesia, Jakarta, 1994.
Pals L Daniel, Seven Theories of Religion, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.
Quoted in C. W. Th. Baron van Boetzelaer van Asperen en Dubbeldam, De Protestantsche Kerk in Nederlandsch Indië, (1947), 14. (translation from Dutch: S.R.)
Simon Rae, Prof. Beyond Toleration – Managing Religion in Civil Society-reflections on challenges in New Zealand and Indonesia.-a paper presented to the Center for Dialogue and Cooperation Between Civilisations (CDCC), Jakarta, 31 July 2008.

Read More...

Suddenly, civil religion becomes hot issues in Indonesia since Bob Hefner published the book of “civil Islam” that analyzes the Islamic condition in Indonesia related to democracy. Hefner, of course, talks about the specific issue of religion in the society, while civic religion talks wider not only one religion but many. Civil here is more about political issue rather than about religion per se. The issue is; how religion or different religions are accommodated by the state and how they interacts each others is very important.
The development of civil religion and its encounter with the particular system in different states which already democratic states arise several understanding that civil religion is like common values which is overcome particular religions. In Indonesian context for example, Pancasila was believed as representation of civil religion. It’s because Pancasila is state ideology, and the most important is universally speaking about the belief in God, without specific referent to specific god in Islam or Christianity.
I see the understanding of Pancasila as civil religion should be scrutinized seriously. The founding father of Indonesia is not compelled Pancasila as civil religion, rather just state ideology. Like other ideology, Pancasila just emphasizes the philosophical view of the nation. Additionally, if people understand Pancasila ideology is as civil religion, how about other ideology? Is it democracy or capitalism is new kind of civil religion.
Questioning and debating the concept
For me civil religion is not easy to be understood because civil religion concept is still ambiguous. Is it civil religion is new religion? If it is a new religion who is the prophet, what is the scripture, what kind of devotion it needed? Civil religion cannot escape from the understanding of the word “civil” and “religion.” if civil religion refers to civil, it means the most important of it is not about the content of god and the holy text, rather the society itself. Religion will be understood in social context, that everyone believes it with different kind of expression.
Furthermore, the definition of civil religion is not the only. Genuinely it came from European and American tradition. As I know, One who consent in the civil religion issue has no similar points or agreement in defining what civil religion is. Two of those philosophers are Jean Jacques Rousseau and Robert Nelly Bellah. Originally the term “civil religion” was Rousseau word. He proposes the civil religion in contrary to religion of man. He says:
“There are two kinds of religion: Religion of man and religion of the citizen. The first is confined to the purely internal cult of the supreme god and the eternal obligation of morality, is the religion of the gospel, the true theism, and natural divine or law. The other is codified in single country, give its it gods, it own tutelary patron; its has its dogma, its rights, and its external cult prescribed by law; which my call as positive Devine right or law.”
It seem civil religion in Rousseau views is like national religion that is the only for all citizen. The supreme law is positive religion, not biblical text. People adoration is not intuitional religion, but state intuitional. Civil religion is part of social contract theories, where all citizens in the name of state should give their right to be maintained by state. He further said: “It god because it unites the devine culture with love of the laws, and making country the object of adoration. It’s a form of theocracy, in which there can be no pontiff save the prince,and pontiff save the magistrates. To die for ones’s country then become martyrdom; violation of laws, impiety.”
Andrew Sank argues that the Rousseau’s concept is like deistic adoration, it exclusively exists just for supporting and legitimizing political power. So the conception is always politics related. Thus, the tendency of civil religion is not just for religion per se, but for political interest. The concept of “civil religion” what Rousseau argues exemplified with ancient people where Babylon civilization, Egypt civilization have their god and religion exclusively and followed by the society in that countries. However, that national religion is just for the inhabitant under the specific role of sates. There is no need to be same for every nation and civilization.
In the other hand, Bellah, who is well-known by his article of civil religion in America, actually accepts the idea of civil religion from Rousseau. For him, civil religion has dogma, that is: The existence of God, the life to come, the reward of virtue and the punishment of vice, and the exclusion of religious intolerance. Further he says that all other religious opinions are outside the cognizance of the state and may be freely held by citizens. Thus, civil religion is to differ religious of common people and legitimized religion which is national religion.
Although Bellah and Rousseau have similar idea, but they came from various cultural backgrounds and different in conclusion what the civil religion is. Roseau lived in Europe in enlighten eras, while Bellah lives in modern America. But they came from the same problem; how to resolve the pluralistic religion in the democratic society which is impossible to identify with such group of religion states should be accompany. Bellah faced problem that there was a common sense in US that Christianity is the national faith, and others that church and synagogue celebrate only the generalized religion of "the American Way of Life. That view was danger for modern democracy in US, because state did not based on religion. America is not theocracy, although majority of citizen are protestant.
Civil religion in Bellah’s sense is supra ethic, where various religions are not need to be problem of the society because it is part of human rights and human freedom. For him, conventional religion which just stress to salvation and love is not enough. People should goes to related law and right who overcome all various people background. He says : “The God of the civil religion is not only rather ‘unitarian,’ he is also on the austere side, much more related to order, law, and right than to salvation and love. Even though he is somewhat deist in cast, he is by no means simply a watchmaker God. He is actively interested and involved in history, with a special concern for America.”
In some extent, civil religion America is to accommodate pluralism which the fact colored long history of America. America faced many problems since its freedom where segregation of people, slavery, and civil war happened. Civil religion historically formed in that time, ancient, where the tension of citizens was dangerous. What Bellah produce is returning back to the historical fact that nothing will be harmonious and strength without unification of word view which is managed by state. But state cannot emphasize in building new common or national religion, whereas accommodate all religion in new spirit of state by establishing new kind of pride as American, especially after American become leader of word after world war II.
I see the basis thought of Rousseau and Bellah is the centrality of human, or specifically society. Bellah seems to take the idea of social sacred from Durkheim where the society which unified by state is the only attempt of the society. Both Rousseau and Bellah idolize democracy as system which will cover the problem of religion in the society. In relation to the states, that there is no other sacred institution beside state because state is aim of society. Conventional religion free still, but the only private. Citizenship is being confined by super ethic which is constituted by states, namely positive law, human right, etc.
State accommodates religion just in such situation, for instance ceremony and oat of official. States interest is back to heart of religion, or even just come to the general meeting point of religion. Devotion to strict doctrine is fallacy, because when theology goes to social context that is various backgrounds will lose the significance. For that way, God in civil religion such as presented by Bellah did not need to refer to such religion, but to the primordial belief to god that all people acknowledge that concept either theist or atheist.
The leader of civil religion is not prophet, but the president, hero, and founding father. Bellah takes example how Abraham Lincoln, president US, become great theologian in sense that he speaks and acts as tolerance one to other difference religion. He never talks as Catholic people, although he was, but speak named as American. Bellah respects to the people who had bright view and moderate from different level of society and to the great experience of everyone who get it.
Actually, the common ground of the states ideology should come from the primordial belief of the people. Bellah in his article did not talk much about the basic belief of state or common ground used by society. He principally, however, just refers to the idea of social contract. In the other hand Hannah Arendt, as quotes by Sank refer to the idea pre-religion. I don’t know exactly does bellah have an idea refer to the pre-religions or no.
Return to the pre-religion will be an attempt to break the boundary of every religion. Sank argues civil religion should not hostile conventional but rather seep to all religion and break the loyalty to the conventional doctrine and escape to new solidarity created by the openness of mind in the current political situation. What sank argue seem to build new kind of theological doctrine which capable to civil religion to be based of belief of society.
Problem of escaping identity
Although civil religion seem clearly suitable for people in democratic society and closely appropriate to the new order of word it for me is to simplified the problem. Even, civil religion into some extent can diminish such civilization or ancient heritage of some people because of it freely ruined defense one in the social context. Religion in my mind is not only ritual, but also social critics toward hegemony. Unification and devotion of one to a new kind of ideology or belief can produce lack of critic traditions within generation. The function of conventional religion also will be un-useful to ask social problem because of lack of capacity.
Religion for colored men, as Malcom X has been struggled, was kind of religious protest toward dominant system which is legitimized by state. Religion always refers to historical situation where it was established and the ironic situation where devotee faced difficulties in the life.
I see, although Rousseau proposed the idea of civil religion for the first time, he also aware that it also have big problem for the society if it cannot be elaborated in right ways. he says:
“In the other hand, it is bad in that, being founded on lies and error, it deceives men, make them credulous and superstitious, and drowns the true cult of the divinity in empty ceremonial. It is become bad if become tyrannous and exclusive, and make a people bloodthirsty and intolerant, so that it breaths fire and slaughter, and regard as sacred act the killing of every one who doesnot believe in its gods. The place is to place such a people in a natural state of war with all others, so that is security is deeply endangered.”
Civil religion still has bad impact if it leads to strict obedience without critic manner. Bellah also talks about Vietnam War whose it danger for humankind because can diminish and kill many people. If civil religion understood by narrow minded will potent to bring destruction of human. Religious values will not be important thing again if it just an additional stuff of the state.
Last remark
Civil religion as political conception probably is a kind of political conception. It is the concept which is part of the democracy and democracy context. Although religion or exactly religious values was accommodated by civil religion concept, but the content was less because more focus how to maintenance citizen as whole and part of the social system.
Pancasila as ideology probably in some extent is civil religion, because there is verses who talks that belief to god is very essential for Indonesia people. Additionally, almost all states ceremony also use religious ritual as part of it. However, pancasila is just pancasila. It cannot changes conventional religion as well.

Read More...