Jawaban untuk akang sealmamater
Salam, Terima kasih atas perhatiannya Kang Faqih. Saya baru dua bulan jadi Ass Professor, masih mempelajari segala aturan main dan program-program yang saya akan kerjakan kedepan. Untuk sementara, saya bisa katakan, lingkungan akademik di kampus tempat saya sekarang sangat baik, dengan dukungan professor senior dan kolega, staf, dan mahasiswa. Kolega-kolega saya pakar di bidang religious studies dan sebagian pakar di bidang area studies Asia Tenggara. Untuk religious studies, masing-masing profesor fokus pada agama tertentu, misalnya Katolik, Buddha, Sikhisme, Konghucu, Yahudi, dan sebagainya, sementara saya satu-satunya prof bidang Islam. Semester depan saya akan mengajar agama-agama di Asia (Hindu, Buddha, Islam, Sikh, Konghucu, Tao, Sinto) dari sisi ajaran, kitab suci, praktek keagamaan, dan kelembagaan. Saya juga akan mengajar Understanding the Qur'an, dan Islam di Asia Tenggara. Akan ada mata kuliah lain yang juga saya akan ajarkan, seperti agama dan politik, pemikiran Islam, dan sebagainya. Ini untuk program S-1, dan juga paskasarjana. Selain mengajar, sebagai professor, saya harus terus lakukan riset, publikasi, dan pengabdian (menjadi panitia, aktif dalam organisasi, dan semacamnya). Posisi assistant professor adalah jenjang pertama; setelah beberapa tahun akan dinilai, baru akan naik ke jenjang kedua, disebut Associate professor, lalu setelah itu, baru full professor. Assistant professor tidak berarti asisten dosen seperti di negeri kita, yaitu dosen yunior yang mengantikan profesor yang lebih senior (yang biasanya jarang hadir). Assistant professor di Barat memiliki otoritas penuh dalam bidang disiplin ilmunya. Sebagai assistant professor saya dibantu beberapa Teaching Assistant yang biasanya mahasiswa paskasarjana. Tugas lain adalah membimbing mahasiswa dalam kegiatan akademik, tesis, disertasi, dan sebagainya. Di Riverside, ada Islamic Center yang cukup besar berjamaah hampir seribuan dan bahkan lebih, umumnya pendatang dari negeri-negeri Muslim tapi sudah jadi orang Amerika. Orang Palestina, Mesir, Irak, Bangladesh, dan sebagainya, menjadi orang Amerika dan betah menjadi orang Amerika ketimbang tinggal di negeri-negeri asal mereka. Salah satu pelajaran penting di sini adalah menjadi Muslim tidaklah sulit di Amerika, dan bahkan kebebasan beragama sangat dijamin, terlepas dari sebagian orang Amerika yang tidak tahu banyak soal Islam. Salah satu acara yang saya ikuti Ramadhan yang baru lalu adalah dialog antaragama yang diadakan ole Islamic Center mengundang tokoh agama-agama di sini. Suasananya sangat akrab. Saya sempatkan tulis artikel soal itu di The Jakarta Post berjudul Ramadhan in America. Saya juga hadiri dialog antaragama yang dirintis masyarakat Muslim asal Turki. Ini dulu ceritanya, Kang Faqih. Nanti bisa disambung. Gimana kabar antum? Salam,
Monday, October 29, 2007
In Pursuit of Happiness
In pursuit of happiness
Happiness is a warm gun, sang the Beatles, and happiness is a long cold drink, an old beer advertisement heralds, and happiness is the happy and smiling faces of children.
But happiness is not always about self-gratification -- it can be about giving.
A Chinese proverb says if you want happiness for an hour, take a nap; if you want happiness for a day, go fishing; if you want happiness for a year, inherit a fortune; if you want happiness for a lifetime, help somebody.
And the Dalai Lama said, "If you want others to be happy, practice compassion".
Happiness is probably something everybody pursues in life, but happiness means different things to different people.
And to most, happiness means different things at different times.
Although material wealth, or at least well-being, is certainly an important element, happiness is not always associated with money or wealth.
Poor but happy people are forever in our midst -- and it is too easy to find wealthy miserable people.
And it's probably easier to find the latter group than the first in Indonesia, or in other places for that matter.
It is therefore courageous for anyone or any institution to try to rate and then aggregate the happiness of a nation, or of a people in a city.
The Frontier Consulting Group Indonesia last week released a study called the Indonesian Happiness Index 2007.
The study is based on a survey involving 1,800 respondents, 300 each in the six cities selected including Jakarta, Medan, Bandung, Semarang, Semarang, Surabaya and Makassar.
It finds the Indonesian Happiness Index (IHI) at 47.96 (presumably out of a possible score of 100), which put Indonesia below the average (meaning an index of 50).
The study did not say where Indonesia stood in relation to other countries.
The survey included questions related to the age, gender, income, education, job/position and religious devotion of the respondents, and came out with some interesting results.
People in Semarang and Makassar are said to be among the happiest in Indonesia, with those in Jakarta and Medan are among the most miserable, with their city ranking fifth and sixth respectively.
Speculation around why Semarang is the happiest city to live in remains however, as does the reason behind the study's findings that men are generally happier than women. No explanation was provided.
In terms of age, those in the 41-50 year-old category were happiest and those in 21-30 years old were most miserable, probably because those in the first group tend to be more established in their jobs and life, while those in the second group are just embarking on adulthood.
The rest of the survey's results are somewhat predictable. Those with a higher education and a good income (the two are usually related anyway) are happiest.
The more religious among us are said to be happier (probably because we think God is always with us).
Perhaps we should also thank religion, and religious leaders, for helping the nation through some of the most difficult times in the last 10 years.
In most other countries, the hardship the nation endured would have led to social upheaval.
In terms of profession, one result shows those in middle management were happier than those in top management.
So, those craving for the top job may want to think again -- and weigh-up the lucrative perks versus the responsibility that comes with being number one in the company.
If the Frontier Consulting Group put Indonesia below average (because it ranked below 50 in the index), a study published in 2006 by the New Economics Foundation actually put Indonesia among the happiest lot in the world in a survey of 178 countries.
The Happy Planet Index, issued to challenge the use of the gross domestic product (GDP) and the United Nations' Human Development Index (HDI) in measuring the welfare of a nation, found material wealth did define the happiness (or the fulfillment of a happy life) of a nation.
Vanuatu heads the happy index which includes Vietnam, Sri Lanka and the Philippines in the top 20. Indonesia came at a decent 23rd. The United States ranked 150th and Zimbabwe bottom of the list at 178th.
The Happy Planet Index, and the more recent Frontier Consulting Group measurement of Indonesians, reminders that while we keep to the adage that "men don't live on bread alone", material well-being is still important in our pursuit of happiness.
Granted, it is not the most important measurement of happiness, but it is an important component nevertheless.
And the pursuit of happiness, while not clearly stated as a right in our constitution, is an inalienable right for every citizen in this county, just as life and liberty are. (Editorial, The Jakarta Post, October 29, 2007)
Happiness is a warm gun, sang the Beatles, and happiness is a long cold drink, an old beer advertisement heralds, and happiness is the happy and smiling faces of children.
But happiness is not always about self-gratification -- it can be about giving.
A Chinese proverb says if you want happiness for an hour, take a nap; if you want happiness for a day, go fishing; if you want happiness for a year, inherit a fortune; if you want happiness for a lifetime, help somebody.
And the Dalai Lama said, "If you want others to be happy, practice compassion".
Happiness is probably something everybody pursues in life, but happiness means different things to different people.
And to most, happiness means different things at different times.
Although material wealth, or at least well-being, is certainly an important element, happiness is not always associated with money or wealth.
Poor but happy people are forever in our midst -- and it is too easy to find wealthy miserable people.
And it's probably easier to find the latter group than the first in Indonesia, or in other places for that matter.
It is therefore courageous for anyone or any institution to try to rate and then aggregate the happiness of a nation, or of a people in a city.
The Frontier Consulting Group Indonesia last week released a study called the Indonesian Happiness Index 2007.
The study is based on a survey involving 1,800 respondents, 300 each in the six cities selected including Jakarta, Medan, Bandung, Semarang, Semarang, Surabaya and Makassar.
It finds the Indonesian Happiness Index (IHI) at 47.96 (presumably out of a possible score of 100), which put Indonesia below the average (meaning an index of 50).
The study did not say where Indonesia stood in relation to other countries.
The survey included questions related to the age, gender, income, education, job/position and religious devotion of the respondents, and came out with some interesting results.
People in Semarang and Makassar are said to be among the happiest in Indonesia, with those in Jakarta and Medan are among the most miserable, with their city ranking fifth and sixth respectively.
Speculation around why Semarang is the happiest city to live in remains however, as does the reason behind the study's findings that men are generally happier than women. No explanation was provided.
In terms of age, those in the 41-50 year-old category were happiest and those in 21-30 years old were most miserable, probably because those in the first group tend to be more established in their jobs and life, while those in the second group are just embarking on adulthood.
The rest of the survey's results are somewhat predictable. Those with a higher education and a good income (the two are usually related anyway) are happiest.
The more religious among us are said to be happier (probably because we think God is always with us).
Perhaps we should also thank religion, and religious leaders, for helping the nation through some of the most difficult times in the last 10 years.
In most other countries, the hardship the nation endured would have led to social upheaval.
In terms of profession, one result shows those in middle management were happier than those in top management.
So, those craving for the top job may want to think again -- and weigh-up the lucrative perks versus the responsibility that comes with being number one in the company.
If the Frontier Consulting Group put Indonesia below average (because it ranked below 50 in the index), a study published in 2006 by the New Economics Foundation actually put Indonesia among the happiest lot in the world in a survey of 178 countries.
The Happy Planet Index, issued to challenge the use of the gross domestic product (GDP) and the United Nations' Human Development Index (HDI) in measuring the welfare of a nation, found material wealth did define the happiness (or the fulfillment of a happy life) of a nation.
Vanuatu heads the happy index which includes Vietnam, Sri Lanka and the Philippines in the top 20. Indonesia came at a decent 23rd. The United States ranked 150th and Zimbabwe bottom of the list at 178th.
The Happy Planet Index, and the more recent Frontier Consulting Group measurement of Indonesians, reminders that while we keep to the adage that "men don't live on bread alone", material well-being is still important in our pursuit of happiness.
Granted, it is not the most important measurement of happiness, but it is an important component nevertheless.
And the pursuit of happiness, while not clearly stated as a right in our constitution, is an inalienable right for every citizen in this county, just as life and liberty are. (Editorial, The Jakarta Post, October 29, 2007)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Media and Cultural Pluralization in Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/world/middleeast/16tehran.html
The news in Iran as read above indicates how media, including movies and TV programs, could play an important role as a social critic which in turn allows greater democractization and pluralization of religious views. With a creative, constructive, free and responsible media, the public space becomes pluralized and civilized.
Ali
Tibeten Dalai Lama, U.S. and China
China Warns U.S. on Dalai Lama Trip
By JOSEPH KAHN
Published: October 16, 2007
BEIJING, Oct. 16 — Chinese officials warned the United States on Tuesday not to honor the Dalai Lama, saying a planned award ceremony in Washington for the Tibetan spiritual leader would have “an extremely serious impact” on relations between the countries.
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
The Dalai Lama arrived at his hotel in Washington on Tuesday before a meeting with President Bush.
Speaking at a Foreign Ministry briefing and on the sidelines of the Communist Party’s 17th National Congress, the officials condemned the Dalai Lama as a resolute separatist and said foreign leaders must stop encouraging his “splittist” mission.
“Such a person who basely splits his motherland and doesn’t even love his motherland has been welcomed by some countries and has even been receiving this or that award,” Tibet’s Communist Party boss, Zhang Qingli, told reporters during the congress.
“We are furious,” Mr. Zhang said. “If the Dalai Lama can receive such an award, there must be no justice or good people in the world.”
The Dalai Lama, a Nobel laureate, has lived in exile since the Chinese army crushed an uprising in his homeland in 1959 and is revered as the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists. He is scheduled to receive the Congressional Gold Medal on Wednesday.
President Bush met with the Dalai Lama at the White House on Tuesday.
The meeting was clearly a matter of great sensitivity at the White House, which did not release a photograph of the Dalai Lama and the president, as it has in the past. “We in no way want to stir the pot and make China feel that we are poking a stick in their eye,” said Dana Perino, the chief White House spokeswoman. “We understand that the Chinese have very strong feelings about this.”
In fact, the Bush administration’s attempts to soothe Chinese feelings began more than a month ago in Sydney, when Mr. Bush accepted an invitation from President Hu Jintao to attend the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.
Mr. Bush told Mr. Hu at the time that he would attend the ceremony at which the Dalai Lama will receive a Congressional Gold Medal. And the White House emphasized Tuesday that Mr. Bush has always gone to the medal ceremonies, and that by protocol he will speak for about three minutes.
The visit comes as the United States has been either seeking or relying on Chinese cooperation on an array of difficult issues: the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, the mass killings in Darfur and the recent crackdown on protesters in Myanmar.
China has pressed the United States to cancel the award event for months. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao said today that Beijing was “strong dissatisfied” and warned of an “extremely serious impact” if the events are held as scheduled. But he did not say what steps China planned to take.
This week, Beijing pulled out of a meeting at which leading world powers are to discuss Iran’s nuclear program. Chinese officials cited “technical reasons” for not participating, but they left the clear impression that they might downgrade support for international efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program if foreign powers interfere in China’s internal affairs.
China also recently canceled its annual human rights dialogue with Germany to protest the September meeting between Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Dalai Lama.
But Beijing often uses strong language when warning other countries about interfering in its internal affairs without taking strong action. Giving an award to the Dalai Lama is highly unlikely to seriously disrupt relations with the United States, which has often sought to protect Chinese dissidents and has maintained close ties to Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province.
Both Washington and Beijing say relations between the two countries have been warm, especially after they worked together to bring about an agreement to end North Korea’s nuclear program.
In recent months, China has stepped up its attacks on the Dalai Lama even though Chinese officials and envoys from the Tibetan leader have engaged in a on-and-off dialogue over terms of reconciliation.
While Beijing says it is willing to allow the Dalai Lama to return to China if he promises to respect Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, the Chinese have dismissed his efforts to work for a “middle way” that gives Tibet a higher measure of autonomy under continued Chinese rule.
Tibet’s governor, Qiangba Puncog, said at the party congress that the dialogue with the Dalai Lama had gone poorly.
“He should resolutely abandon his Tibetan independence stance and activities,” Mr. Qiangba Puncog said. “But in my opinion, some of those activities are actually escalating and setting a lot of obstacles for further progress.”
Ethnic tensions have risen in Tibet in recent months, prompting tough police action.
Rights groups said a group of Tibetan boys were detained in the northwestern province of Gansu last month after they were accused of scribbling slogans on walls calling for the Dalai Lama’s return.
Four of the boys, all 15 years old, were still in detention. Police officers used electric prods on them and were demanding payment for their release, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch say.
Brian Knowlton contributed reporting from Washington
By JOSEPH KAHN
Published: October 16, 2007
BEIJING, Oct. 16 — Chinese officials warned the United States on Tuesday not to honor the Dalai Lama, saying a planned award ceremony in Washington for the Tibetan spiritual leader would have “an extremely serious impact” on relations between the countries.
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
The Dalai Lama arrived at his hotel in Washington on Tuesday before a meeting with President Bush.
Speaking at a Foreign Ministry briefing and on the sidelines of the Communist Party’s 17th National Congress, the officials condemned the Dalai Lama as a resolute separatist and said foreign leaders must stop encouraging his “splittist” mission.
“Such a person who basely splits his motherland and doesn’t even love his motherland has been welcomed by some countries and has even been receiving this or that award,” Tibet’s Communist Party boss, Zhang Qingli, told reporters during the congress.
“We are furious,” Mr. Zhang said. “If the Dalai Lama can receive such an award, there must be no justice or good people in the world.”
The Dalai Lama, a Nobel laureate, has lived in exile since the Chinese army crushed an uprising in his homeland in 1959 and is revered as the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists. He is scheduled to receive the Congressional Gold Medal on Wednesday.
President Bush met with the Dalai Lama at the White House on Tuesday.
The meeting was clearly a matter of great sensitivity at the White House, which did not release a photograph of the Dalai Lama and the president, as it has in the past. “We in no way want to stir the pot and make China feel that we are poking a stick in their eye,” said Dana Perino, the chief White House spokeswoman. “We understand that the Chinese have very strong feelings about this.”
In fact, the Bush administration’s attempts to soothe Chinese feelings began more than a month ago in Sydney, when Mr. Bush accepted an invitation from President Hu Jintao to attend the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.
Mr. Bush told Mr. Hu at the time that he would attend the ceremony at which the Dalai Lama will receive a Congressional Gold Medal. And the White House emphasized Tuesday that Mr. Bush has always gone to the medal ceremonies, and that by protocol he will speak for about three minutes.
The visit comes as the United States has been either seeking or relying on Chinese cooperation on an array of difficult issues: the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, the mass killings in Darfur and the recent crackdown on protesters in Myanmar.
China has pressed the United States to cancel the award event for months. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao said today that Beijing was “strong dissatisfied” and warned of an “extremely serious impact” if the events are held as scheduled. But he did not say what steps China planned to take.
This week, Beijing pulled out of a meeting at which leading world powers are to discuss Iran’s nuclear program. Chinese officials cited “technical reasons” for not participating, but they left the clear impression that they might downgrade support for international efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program if foreign powers interfere in China’s internal affairs.
China also recently canceled its annual human rights dialogue with Germany to protest the September meeting between Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Dalai Lama.
But Beijing often uses strong language when warning other countries about interfering in its internal affairs without taking strong action. Giving an award to the Dalai Lama is highly unlikely to seriously disrupt relations with the United States, which has often sought to protect Chinese dissidents and has maintained close ties to Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province.
Both Washington and Beijing say relations between the two countries have been warm, especially after they worked together to bring about an agreement to end North Korea’s nuclear program.
In recent months, China has stepped up its attacks on the Dalai Lama even though Chinese officials and envoys from the Tibetan leader have engaged in a on-and-off dialogue over terms of reconciliation.
While Beijing says it is willing to allow the Dalai Lama to return to China if he promises to respect Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, the Chinese have dismissed his efforts to work for a “middle way” that gives Tibet a higher measure of autonomy under continued Chinese rule.
Tibet’s governor, Qiangba Puncog, said at the party congress that the dialogue with the Dalai Lama had gone poorly.
“He should resolutely abandon his Tibetan independence stance and activities,” Mr. Qiangba Puncog said. “But in my opinion, some of those activities are actually escalating and setting a lot of obstacles for further progress.”
Ethnic tensions have risen in Tibet in recent months, prompting tough police action.
Rights groups said a group of Tibetan boys were detained in the northwestern province of Gansu last month after they were accused of scribbling slogans on walls calling for the Dalai Lama’s return.
Four of the boys, all 15 years old, were still in detention. Police officers used electric prods on them and were demanding payment for their release, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch say.
Brian Knowlton contributed reporting from Washington
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Saturday, October 13, 2007
A Common Word
Call for a Common Word between Muslims and Christians
http://www.acommonword.com/
http://www.acommonword.com/lib/downloads/CW-Total-Final-v-12g-Eng-9-10-07.pdf
http://www.acommonword.com/
http://www.acommonword.com/lib/downloads/CW-Total-Final-v-12g-Eng-9-10-07.pdf
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Rasa Sayange
The Feeling of Love which (could) Undermine a True Love
The current debate on the song Rasa Sayang (Feeling of Love) between two Malay neigbors Malaysians and Indonesians is apparently contra-productive to the idea of love the core idea of the matter being debated. Some Indonesian figures claimed that Malaysians had stolen the song they said belongs to Indonesia not Malaysia. Malaysians replied that the song belong not to Indonesians, but to all Malays.
Traditional Malay people did not have the concept of copy-right as this is a new international concept embraced and adopted by them from their interactions with international laws. It would be difficult to claim and counter-claim about who own a song already sung popularly in the Indo-Malay world. As this has for long (not sure for how many decades or centuries) been sung by many without thinking of who authored it and when it was composed, nobody, including the Malaysians, could be ethically and culturally justified to manipulate the song for the sake of economic and political interests without respect of others who share it. If a supposedly shared cultural product is claimed for one party's economic interest, not simply for cultural enrichment and enjoyment of everyone, then there is a problem.
Malaysians are insensitive when they simply adopted that song for their commercial purposes and for their exclusive claims of Malaysia being a true Asia, thus excluding Indonesians, Bruneians, Filipinos, Singaporeans, and others.
Indonesians are also not aware of the historical fact that they and Malaysians are actually one race and once were one before the Dutch and the British colonialized divided them into two separate countries. Although Indonesians are ethnically more diverse (not only Malays as they are Javanese, Sundanese, Buginese, Papuans, etc) than Malaysians, they have all been engaged in regional networks of religion, trade, politics, culture, and society. Their interactions are more intense and closed than they come to realize, especially when issues of political economy awakens their mind and sense of nationalism.
Historically, Malaysians have long won the battle of claiming Malayness of their country, when they only, excluding Indonesians, regard Malacca as their true ancestors. Malaysians also win the struggle over some territorial boundaries. And this time Malaysians is successful in claiming a Malay song to be their own. Malaysian diplomats appear to be smarter than Indonesian diplomats and politicians in manipulating their cultures and natural resources for their national development and international images.
The problem of this debate over the song might be resolved by cultural dialogue and political diplomacy, but the resolution will depend on the intelligent ways in which Indonesians and Malaysians come to terms with their past, present and future. They have to learn more about their own histories, their common histories and their distinct histories. There is certainly no monolithic reading of history, but a politicization of history is often dangerous, subjective, and destructive when exclusions are deliberately intended for the economic and political self-interest of one country at the expense of the feeling of love of other countries which obviously without doubt are their forever brothers and neighbors.
Muhamad Ali, Riverside, October 9, 2007
The current debate on the song Rasa Sayang (Feeling of Love) between two Malay neigbors Malaysians and Indonesians is apparently contra-productive to the idea of love the core idea of the matter being debated. Some Indonesian figures claimed that Malaysians had stolen the song they said belongs to Indonesia not Malaysia. Malaysians replied that the song belong not to Indonesians, but to all Malays.
Traditional Malay people did not have the concept of copy-right as this is a new international concept embraced and adopted by them from their interactions with international laws. It would be difficult to claim and counter-claim about who own a song already sung popularly in the Indo-Malay world. As this has for long (not sure for how many decades or centuries) been sung by many without thinking of who authored it and when it was composed, nobody, including the Malaysians, could be ethically and culturally justified to manipulate the song for the sake of economic and political interests without respect of others who share it. If a supposedly shared cultural product is claimed for one party's economic interest, not simply for cultural enrichment and enjoyment of everyone, then there is a problem.
Malaysians are insensitive when they simply adopted that song for their commercial purposes and for their exclusive claims of Malaysia being a true Asia, thus excluding Indonesians, Bruneians, Filipinos, Singaporeans, and others.
Indonesians are also not aware of the historical fact that they and Malaysians are actually one race and once were one before the Dutch and the British colonialized divided them into two separate countries. Although Indonesians are ethnically more diverse (not only Malays as they are Javanese, Sundanese, Buginese, Papuans, etc) than Malaysians, they have all been engaged in regional networks of religion, trade, politics, culture, and society. Their interactions are more intense and closed than they come to realize, especially when issues of political economy awakens their mind and sense of nationalism.
Historically, Malaysians have long won the battle of claiming Malayness of their country, when they only, excluding Indonesians, regard Malacca as their true ancestors. Malaysians also win the struggle over some territorial boundaries. And this time Malaysians is successful in claiming a Malay song to be their own. Malaysian diplomats appear to be smarter than Indonesian diplomats and politicians in manipulating their cultures and natural resources for their national development and international images.
The problem of this debate over the song might be resolved by cultural dialogue and political diplomacy, but the resolution will depend on the intelligent ways in which Indonesians and Malaysians come to terms with their past, present and future. They have to learn more about their own histories, their common histories and their distinct histories. There is certainly no monolithic reading of history, but a politicization of history is often dangerous, subjective, and destructive when exclusions are deliberately intended for the economic and political self-interest of one country at the expense of the feeling of love of other countries which obviously without doubt are their forever brothers and neighbors.
Muhamad Ali, Riverside, October 9, 2007
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Ramadhan in America
Ramadhan in America: A lesson for everyone
Muhamad Ali, Riverside, California
In a secular nation like the United States, observing religious obligations is recognized because religious freedom is implemented seriously. I have had many experiences concerning religious freedom in the country, but the most recent one is worth reflecting on.
Obviously fasting in America is unlike fasting in Indonesia, where almost everyone joins you in your quest. The University of California at Riverside, where I teach, is one of the most diverse campuses in America. People of Hispanic, Asian, African, Middle Eastern and Caucasian origin are all proud to be American.
In the second week of Ramadhan, the Islamic Center of Riverside hosted a public gathering. The event was specifically organized for Muslims to break the fast, but everyone invited also enjoyed the food and drinks provided, including non-Muslims. Everyone who attended, regardless of their religion or identity, conversed in a friendly and respectful manner, despite the fact they had never met.
A Jewish rabbi shared jokes with the crowd and thanked the leaders of the city's Muslim community for the invitation. He said rabbis should not feel uneasy congratulating Muslims during Ramadhan. He said he hoped there would come a time when people greeted people of other religions without even thinking about it.
Symbolic gestures and greetings, however trivial they may seem, are significant in the creation of an inclusive and respectful social environment. A Catholic said he understood the feelings of Muslims, and that in Northern Ireland terror attacks have also occurred, pointing toward the fact terrorism is not associated with a particular religion.
The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack was a turning point for different religious communities in the U.S., during which they were forced to come to terms with differences and prejudices. In a secular country like the U.S., efforts to foster interfaith dialogue and meetings are taken seriously. Muslims and non-Muslims work together to overcome misunderstandings and misperceptions between them.
In a touching speech, UCR Professor June O'Connor, a Catholic and an expert on comparive religious ethics, emphasized the need to go beyond tolerance. One has to show true willingness to know more about others in order to achieve peace and harmony, she said. She invited the audience to strengthen common ethics shared by conflicting religious beliefs.
Another interesting aspect of the gathering was that the city's Islamic community handed out awards to recognize the contributions certain figures had made to the Islamic community and the general public.
The mayor of the city has been a leader in the areas of inclusivism and multiculturalism. He initiated a forum aimed at building a more inclusive Riverside community. In his speech, he said the inclusive community was a type of social capital that could be seen as a great asset.
Having observed this particular event, I have some lessons to share. First, a religious community has to reach out, to embrace inclusiveness and pluralism. No one should express the idea that one religion is superior over others. One should embrace others, seek common values and set aside differences.
Second, this relationship must not be built in terms of majority-minority because everyone is equal. In the U.S., the value of inclusiveness was developed by a Catholic, John F. Kennedy, who become a president in a predominantly Protestant country. It was also developed by a Muslim who became a senator, and in the future, may be developed by anyone from any ethnic group or religion. Inclusiveness means everyone should be included without exception.
Interfaith meetings are an excellent beginning to reducing racialism, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism, anti-Christianism and so forth. However, such meetings are not without long processes of engagement. They require moral courage and sincerity in building a cooperative, inclusive and prosperous community.
Third, everyone's contribution to the community must be recognized and acknowledged regardless of their race, gender or religion. Recognition is important and must be given by the state and/or civil society.
Fourth, Muslims can actually live a prosperous, Islamic life in a country where the constitution separates the church from the state. Muslims are proud of being American Muslims and they do not endorse the idea of an Islamic state or the formal implementation of sharia. Muslims in America hope that the current secular constitution will last forever as it benefits rather than harms people in terms of community building.
However, this secular constitution does not mean everyone takes distrust, prejudices and stigmas for granted as if problems do not exist. The secular constitution does not necessarily mean that religious communities and leaders can not speak and stand up to express their religious views. But they speak in terms of their contributions to the larger community and to the state.
Lastly, people should speak their mind without pressure because they are speaking in a civilized and a non-threatening manner. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution, and is practiced by many local politicians and civil society leaders.
A sheik from al-Azhar University, for example, who clearly has a different viewpoint regarding how society needs to be educated, has continually been invited to give Ramadhan lectures and lead prayers in the mosque as part of his contribution to the community at large.
The secular state allows its citizens to speak their mind as long as what they say does not harm the rights of others. The most important thing is not what is said, but how it is said.
There remain many challenges ahead. Interfaith meetings are important, but not sufficient. Leaders must return to the grassroots level and reach out to the marginalized, oppressed, poor, backward and illiterate.
These people need more than just meetings. They also need interfaith social work and social, economic, cultural and political networks that reflect practical pluralism.
Like in Indonesia where such interfaith meetings are common, the challenge is the same. How can we move further toward the grassroots level?
People of different religions can learn from each other's beliefs and practices. Muslims in particular countries can learn from other cultures about how religious freedom and social inclusivity is upheld.
The writer is an assistant professor at the University of California's Religious Studies Department in Riverside. He can be reached at muhali74@hotmail.com.
Muhamad Ali, Riverside, California
In a secular nation like the United States, observing religious obligations is recognized because religious freedom is implemented seriously. I have had many experiences concerning religious freedom in the country, but the most recent one is worth reflecting on.
Obviously fasting in America is unlike fasting in Indonesia, where almost everyone joins you in your quest. The University of California at Riverside, where I teach, is one of the most diverse campuses in America. People of Hispanic, Asian, African, Middle Eastern and Caucasian origin are all proud to be American.
In the second week of Ramadhan, the Islamic Center of Riverside hosted a public gathering. The event was specifically organized for Muslims to break the fast, but everyone invited also enjoyed the food and drinks provided, including non-Muslims. Everyone who attended, regardless of their religion or identity, conversed in a friendly and respectful manner, despite the fact they had never met.
A Jewish rabbi shared jokes with the crowd and thanked the leaders of the city's Muslim community for the invitation. He said rabbis should not feel uneasy congratulating Muslims during Ramadhan. He said he hoped there would come a time when people greeted people of other religions without even thinking about it.
Symbolic gestures and greetings, however trivial they may seem, are significant in the creation of an inclusive and respectful social environment. A Catholic said he understood the feelings of Muslims, and that in Northern Ireland terror attacks have also occurred, pointing toward the fact terrorism is not associated with a particular religion.
The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack was a turning point for different religious communities in the U.S., during which they were forced to come to terms with differences and prejudices. In a secular country like the U.S., efforts to foster interfaith dialogue and meetings are taken seriously. Muslims and non-Muslims work together to overcome misunderstandings and misperceptions between them.
In a touching speech, UCR Professor June O'Connor, a Catholic and an expert on comparive religious ethics, emphasized the need to go beyond tolerance. One has to show true willingness to know more about others in order to achieve peace and harmony, she said. She invited the audience to strengthen common ethics shared by conflicting religious beliefs.
Another interesting aspect of the gathering was that the city's Islamic community handed out awards to recognize the contributions certain figures had made to the Islamic community and the general public.
The mayor of the city has been a leader in the areas of inclusivism and multiculturalism. He initiated a forum aimed at building a more inclusive Riverside community. In his speech, he said the inclusive community was a type of social capital that could be seen as a great asset.
Having observed this particular event, I have some lessons to share. First, a religious community has to reach out, to embrace inclusiveness and pluralism. No one should express the idea that one religion is superior over others. One should embrace others, seek common values and set aside differences.
Second, this relationship must not be built in terms of majority-minority because everyone is equal. In the U.S., the value of inclusiveness was developed by a Catholic, John F. Kennedy, who become a president in a predominantly Protestant country. It was also developed by a Muslim who became a senator, and in the future, may be developed by anyone from any ethnic group or religion. Inclusiveness means everyone should be included without exception.
Interfaith meetings are an excellent beginning to reducing racialism, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism, anti-Christianism and so forth. However, such meetings are not without long processes of engagement. They require moral courage and sincerity in building a cooperative, inclusive and prosperous community.
Third, everyone's contribution to the community must be recognized and acknowledged regardless of their race, gender or religion. Recognition is important and must be given by the state and/or civil society.
Fourth, Muslims can actually live a prosperous, Islamic life in a country where the constitution separates the church from the state. Muslims are proud of being American Muslims and they do not endorse the idea of an Islamic state or the formal implementation of sharia. Muslims in America hope that the current secular constitution will last forever as it benefits rather than harms people in terms of community building.
However, this secular constitution does not mean everyone takes distrust, prejudices and stigmas for granted as if problems do not exist. The secular constitution does not necessarily mean that religious communities and leaders can not speak and stand up to express their religious views. But they speak in terms of their contributions to the larger community and to the state.
Lastly, people should speak their mind without pressure because they are speaking in a civilized and a non-threatening manner. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution, and is practiced by many local politicians and civil society leaders.
A sheik from al-Azhar University, for example, who clearly has a different viewpoint regarding how society needs to be educated, has continually been invited to give Ramadhan lectures and lead prayers in the mosque as part of his contribution to the community at large.
The secular state allows its citizens to speak their mind as long as what they say does not harm the rights of others. The most important thing is not what is said, but how it is said.
There remain many challenges ahead. Interfaith meetings are important, but not sufficient. Leaders must return to the grassroots level and reach out to the marginalized, oppressed, poor, backward and illiterate.
These people need more than just meetings. They also need interfaith social work and social, economic, cultural and political networks that reflect practical pluralism.
Like in Indonesia where such interfaith meetings are common, the challenge is the same. How can we move further toward the grassroots level?
People of different religions can learn from each other's beliefs and practices. Muslims in particular countries can learn from other cultures about how religious freedom and social inclusivity is upheld.
The writer is an assistant professor at the University of California's Religious Studies Department in Riverside. He can be reached at muhali74@hotmail.com.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
religion and politics in America
The news below indicates how in America the problem of connection between religion and politics is not entirely resolved.
McCain criticized for religious remarks
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Mon Oct 1, 5:50 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Several Jewish organizations criticized John McCain on Monday after the Republican candidate said he would prefer a Christian president over someone of a different faith.
In an interview with Beliefnet, a multi-denominational Web site that covers religion and spirituality, the White House hopeful was asked if a Muslim candidate could be a good president.
"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles ... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith," McCain said. "But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president."
Later, McCain said, "I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values." He added that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."
The interview was published Saturday.
The American Jewish Committee, an international think tank and advocacy organization based in New York, issued a statement criticizing the Arizona senator, arguing that McCain should know that the United States is a democratic society without a religious test for public office.
"To argue that America is a Christian nation, or that persons of a particular faith should by reason of their faith not seek high office, puts the very character of our country at stake," Jeffrey Sinensky, the group's general counsel, said Monday in a statement.
A partisan organization, the National Jewish Democratic Council, also called McCain's comments repugnant.
Amid the criticism, Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an Orthodox Jew, came to the defense of his Senate colleague.
"I have known John McCain very well for many years and I know that he does not have a bigoted bone in his body. I know that he is fair and just to all Americans regardless of their faith," Lieberman said.
Over the past few days, McCain has sought to clarify his remarks.
While campaigning in New Hampshire on Sunday, he said that the most qualified person could be president, no matter his or her religion.
"It's almost Talmudic. We are a nation that was based on Judeo-Christian values. That means respect for all of human rights and dignity. That's my principle values and ideas, and that's what I think motivated our founding fathers," McCain said.
Also Sunday, in a statement, his spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said: "The senator did not intend to assert that members of one religious faith or another have a greater claim to American citizenship over another."
McCain criticized for religious remarks
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Mon Oct 1, 5:50 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Several Jewish organizations criticized John McCain on Monday after the Republican candidate said he would prefer a Christian president over someone of a different faith.
In an interview with Beliefnet, a multi-denominational Web site that covers religion and spirituality, the White House hopeful was asked if a Muslim candidate could be a good president.
"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles ... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith," McCain said. "But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president."
Later, McCain said, "I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values." He added that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."
The interview was published Saturday.
The American Jewish Committee, an international think tank and advocacy organization based in New York, issued a statement criticizing the Arizona senator, arguing that McCain should know that the United States is a democratic society without a religious test for public office.
"To argue that America is a Christian nation, or that persons of a particular faith should by reason of their faith not seek high office, puts the very character of our country at stake," Jeffrey Sinensky, the group's general counsel, said Monday in a statement.
A partisan organization, the National Jewish Democratic Council, also called McCain's comments repugnant.
Amid the criticism, Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an Orthodox Jew, came to the defense of his Senate colleague.
"I have known John McCain very well for many years and I know that he does not have a bigoted bone in his body. I know that he is fair and just to all Americans regardless of their faith," Lieberman said.
Over the past few days, McCain has sought to clarify his remarks.
While campaigning in New Hampshire on Sunday, he said that the most qualified person could be president, no matter his or her religion.
"It's almost Talmudic. We are a nation that was based on Judeo-Christian values. That means respect for all of human rights and dignity. That's my principle values and ideas, and that's what I think motivated our founding fathers," McCain said.
Also Sunday, in a statement, his spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said: "The senator did not intend to assert that members of one religious faith or another have a greater claim to American citizenship over another."
Monday, October 01, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
NATION, RELIGION, AND GLOBALIZATION
NATION AND RELIGION IN THE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION:
American and Indonesian Cases
Muhamad Ali
The question whether nation and religion are still important for most peoples in this contemporary era of globalization when they have more access to knowledge and get more freedom to choose what they want from the increased quantity of sources, thus undermining the traditional nationalist and religious authorities, can not be answered in an either/or way. It can be argued that nation and religion may coexist, overlap, and even reinforce each other, but may also be conflicting. Be that it may, the complexity of relations between nation and religion today should not hinder peoples in this era of
globalization from living in coexistence and peace. Nationalism is for many a common project for the present and the future, and so is religion. Both are also projects that demand sacrifice, but not the sacrificing of others. Both the American nation and the Indonesian nation should be large-hearted and broad-minded enough to accept the real variety and complexity of the national society in each country, and at the same time to promote shared human values.
Nationalism and Religions
In contemporary era of globalization, nationalism and religious identity are for many still important. They regard both as constructive forces in political, economical, social and cultural interactions. The self-determination, the love for one’s country and the readiness to defend her, the development projects that the state designed and implemented to the welfare of many of the country’s people, and the diplomatic relationship between nation-states for cooperation in many fields of life, have demonstrated how nationalism provides good things to them. On the other hand, religion has played a different, yet crucial role. In America, according to public opinions, religion has become important in public life, in their voting, in American foreign policy, in issues like marriage, abortion, and other socio-political issues. In Indonesia, religion has been even more crucial. In many interfaith meetings, different religions attempt to argue that nationalism and patriotism are sanctioned by their religious beliefs, and their Gods teach them to love their country and to work hard for her prosperity.
Especially after the 9/11 attack, national security became the American government’s first priority, often jeopardizing religious freedom and civil rights of individuals and groups. The American Constitution upholds religious freedom, but some discriminatory cases still exist against African Americans, Arabs, and other minorities. There are American peoples and scholars who still see minorities, including Muslims, as a threat to American nationalism. For them, American nationalism should be defended against external and internal threats, but these threats have been determined by partial and biased parameters. The American war on terror, in the name of national security, has perpretated different kinds of terrors against the accused (See Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies, 2004). Problems of racial prejudices, Islam-phobia, immigrations, health, education, gay marriage and abortion, are debated often within the context of nationalist and religious sentiments.
American nationalism has a variety of meaning among Americans. For some, American nationalism means a project against the Other, including Muslim extremists as they define them (rather than Protestant evangelical extremists, or Jewish extremists inside America or in Israel). For these groups, extremism only applies to others. For them, nationalism demands absolute categories of good and bad (rather than relatively good and relatively bad). Thus Samuel Huntington argues that America is a Protestant country which is under threat from multiculturalism (Huntington, Who Are We?, 2006). But this inherent connection between American nation and religion has been contested. In 1796, for example, President George Washington linked religion to morality and virtue and linked the cultivation of virtue to education. In 1802, however, Thomas Jefferson contended that American legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus binding a wall of separation between Church and State.” Many of the U.S. presidents, including Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush junior, made Biblical references in their public speeches, and interpreted them according to the circumstances. In 2005, George W. Bush, for example, quoted Isaiah 40:31:”But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength….” Today Americans broaden their discourse of nationalism to include liberal democracy, free-trade capitalism, human rights, and peace, not only in the country but also in the Middle East and other parts of the world. The will to spread democracy is one manifestation of American nationalism.
In Indonesia, the public discourse of nationalism, including the relation between religion and nationalism, has not emerged until the early 20th century. In 1928, the birth of Indonesia was marked by The Oath of the Youth declaring one fatherland, one nation, one language, (but no “one religion”). The Indonesian independence in 1945 was followed by the declaration of Pancasila, the semi-secular state ideology mixing theology, humanism, nationalism, democracy and social justice. The New Order Regime (1966-1998) built some alliances with the military against communism, perceived as the inside threat. The 1945 Constitution guarantees religious freedom, but discriminatory policies and attitudes still occur against indigenous believers, Chinese, and other minorities. In former East Timor, Aceh, and Papua, Indonesian nationalism has been a nightmare because force was used in trying to “civilize” and subjugate the marginalized economically, culturally and politically.
Indonesian self-image centered on the elitist discourse, including the Pancasila state, neither secular nor Islamic, the largest Muslim democratic moderate country (after 2004 general elections), and unity in diversity (Bhineka Tunggal Ika). But the country has suffered from conflicts of ideologies, ethno-religious conflicts, lack of and uneven access to education, poor health services, poor public services (transport, cleanliness), population density, and so on.
Nationalisms and Globalization
In 1996, historian Eric Hobsbawm characterized the twentieth century as “the age of extremes” because different ideologies, especially liberalism and socialism, competed for dominance. But, according to Fukuyama, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberalism was believed to have triumphed (Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History”, 1989). Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, however, saw a clash of civilizations (Bernard Lewis, 1992; Huntington, “Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of New World Order”, 1993). For Huntington, writing in 1993, “a central focus for the conflict for the immediate future will be between the West and several Islamic-Confucian states”. In the middle, however, the United Nations, European Union, and other international organizations have advocated a dialogue of civilizations, building a common space for co-operation.
For Huntington, civilizations become fault lines. But globalization continues to be more powerful. An American journalist Thomas Friedman suggests that globalization is not simply a trend or a fad but is, rather, an international system. It is the system that has now replaced the old Cold War system, and globalization has its own rules and logic that today directly or indirectly influence the politics, environment, geopolitics, and economics of virtually every country in the world. Challenging Fukuyama and Huntington, Friedman depicts this new era of globalization: “under the globalization system you will find both clashes of civilization and the homogenization of civilizations, both environmental disasters and amazing environmental rescues, both the triumph of liberal, free-market capitalism and a backlash against it.”(The Lexus and the Olive Three, 2000). Friedman however concludes that American national pride, globalization, and sense of community (including religion) are not contradictory and even should coexist.
In Indonesia, there are some debates of whether Islamic solidarity (umma) or the Indonesian nation-state comes first, especially when they see Palestine-Israel conflict, Iraqi conflicts, American war against terrorism, and other global events. For many Indonesians, globalization has been perceived as modernization and modernization as Westernization and more recently Westernization as Americanization (McDonalds, Microsoft, American companies). At the same time, many Muslim liberals have seen global Islamism and Arab or Middle Eastern kind of Islam as not compatible with the Indonesian situation. There is an Indonesian sort of Islam, more accommodative and tolerant toward diverse local cultures. For others, globalization is a blessing and could reinforce sense of nationalist pride, by improving the image of Indonesia not as a terrorist haven, Indonesia as moderate and tolerant as well as a beautiful and culturally-rich country. Nationalism for Indonesians at home and abroad remains strong and even stronger amidst the widespread use of internet and travel (the two icons of globalization).
Prevailing Extremisms
But we are facing excesses of nationalism and excesses of religion. We find aggressive nationalism which tries to impose one’s nationalism onto other nations near and afar. Absolute boundaries based on nationalities and religion can create conflicts and even wars. Absolutism comes from extreme ideologies and attitudes. We know different kinds of extremisms: within the nation-state (between the state and marginalized groups, between civil societies), between the nation-state, between non-state groups and the state, and between one state and the state and the people in other states. The reasons, dynamics, and implications of each kind of extremism vary, but the main features are social disorder and human and natural destruction.
In Indonesia, the regime at times killed the true and the alleged communists in 1965-1966. Indonesian nationalism, either religiously or secularly based, can have excesses and extreme sides. The extreme nationalism, for example, forces minorities to adopt the overarching political agenda that they reject because the agenda do not suit their needs and interests. An extreme nationalism wants to civilize the margins (indigenous believers, religious sects, new religious movements, mountain and jungle tribes, and so forth) by ways of imposition without respect to their particular conditions and needs. Within a nation, there needs to be a balance between nationalism and multiculturalism.
In the U.S., racism still exists, not simply by the white majority against the black or the color, but also by the black against the white. The media, which are supposed to be neutral, are not always neutral; the media could be misinformed about particular groups and events. The association of Islam with Arabs, violence, and terrorism is not yet over in some of American media, although there is some improvement for a more balances accounts.
The nation, according to Benedict Anderson, is an imagined community. It is a fraternity that makes it possible for so many millions of people to die for such limited imaginings. But this willing to die can be noble or can be foolish and destructive of others’ existence and peace. Wars between nationalisms have occurred. As Enrique Dussel put it, “evils accompany war: the clamor of arms, sudden, impetuous, and furious attacks and invasion; ferocity and grave perturbations; scandals, deaths, and carnage; havoc, rape, and dispossessions; the lost of parents and children; captivities and the dethronement of lords; the devastation and desolation of cities, innumerable villages and other sites.”(The Invention of the Americas, 1995).
Nationalist leaders may speak in the name of “democracy”, “civilization”, “peace”, but at the same time could act in a non-democratic and uncivilized manner, in the name of nationalist security or interest. In addition, while they can claim to seek international peace, they are actually harboring hegemonic or imperialist designs. Here nationalism becomes aggressive. Thus, as history shows us, forced nationalism extends abroad: Pan-Americanism, Pan-Britannica, Pan-Romana, Pan-Arabism, Pan-Islamism, etc. In fact, imperialism in the name of nationalism has become a mix of love and hatred, peace and war, blessings and sufferings.
The will for wealth and domination has not ended yet. Jacques Derrida, in his The Other Heading: Reflections of Today’s Europe, wrote: “Europe takes itself to be a promontory, an advance – the avant-garde of geography and history. It advances and promotes itself as an advance, and it will never have ceased to make advances on the other: to induce, seduce, produce, and conduce, to spread out, to cultivate, to love or to violate, to love to violate, to colonize, and colonize itself.” These can occur not only in Europe, but also in the U.S., Middle East, Asia, and elsewhere.
Such will for domination has been made possible because many leaders still view the world in terms of core and periphery, their own nation being at the core, and other nations at the periphery. Self-glorification often corresponds with diminishing others.
I would argue that nationalism, religion, and globalization should have limits to themselves. First, nationalism is socially constructed. Religion, although believed as divine and sacral, is historically constructed. Globalization, although it is regarded as a pervasive force and a system in itself with the communication technology, in fact carries different meanings for different people. Generally, in the secular paradigm, globalization is perceived as more neutral than religion, whereas nationalism is more neutral than religion. Neutrality is however no less constructed according to different perspectives.
Given its negative excesses, nationalism should not be an absolute ideology. There are always reason and unreason in nationalist ideology. As history shows, nationalism can be excessive and aggressive. Religion can also be moderate and extreme. Even religion can be made to justify aggressive nationalism. Religious fundamentalism can be secular or religious, but it has the potential for absolutism.
Tolerant Nationalism and Tolerant Religiosity
It is a time to promote more substantive and tolerant nationalism: strong, solid, but respecting other concepts of nationalism and nationalities within and without the country. Tolerant nationalism is a love of one’s country manifested in various aspects of life, but not at the expense of the destruction of other peoples within and beyond the constructed boundaries. Indonesian nationalism should be tolerant in the sense that, whether religious or secular or mixed according to different communities, it should respect the minorities and the marginalized, and at the same time should respect other nationalisms outside it. One of the outcomes of such tolerant nationalism is continued participation within the nation and peaceful coexistence and fruitful cooperation outside it.
Tolerant nationalism recognizes multiculturalism. Multiculturalism should not be merely a descriptive category, by simply saying that the world is diverse and multicultural. It needs to be normative as well, that requires certain attitudes and practical foreign policies. As Fred Halliday (2001) put it, ”multiculturalism becomes a deliberate approach to diversity, a type of normative discourse.”
Tolerant nationalism also promotes humanism which encourages common human values. As Vaclav Havel eloquently put it, “Different cultures or spheres of civilization can share only what they perceive as genuine common ground, not something that few merely offer to or even force upon others. The tenets of human coexistence on this earth can hold up only if they grow out of the deepest experience of everyone, not just some of us.”
Nationalism, multiculturalism, religion, and humanism can coexist in international relations as global conversation or global dialogue becomes priority before anything else. Thus, voices of dialogue, such as Hans Kung’s Global Ethics, Muhammad Khatami’s Dialogue of Civilizations, Anwar Ibrahim’s Global Convivencia, need to be provided a greater space in public discourse and world politics. There are also World Peace through World Law and World Order Models Projects (WOMP). In these theses, there is a positive escape from self-absolutism which negates the others, which drives a healthy skeptical epistemology. There is also a will to be self-critical that avoids cultural imposition and military aggression, that paves the way to pluralism, which in turn leads to global coexistence and peace.
Humanity has been created to form tribes, races, nations, religions, and other identities, whose differences in physical characteristics, languages, and modes of thought are but the means for the purpose of lita’arafu, to borrow an Islamic term, meaning “getting to know one another”. Exchange and dialogue become an imperative at a time when the world has shrunk into a global village. For it is a pre-condition for the establishment of a global coexistence and peace, a harmonious and enriching experience of living together among people of diverse identities. Clash of identities can be diminished by a conscious attitude in order that they could coexist and cooperate in resolving common world problems such as terrorism, poverty, and environmental disaster.
Strengthening Communities of Noble Purpose
Nation and religion are part of communities. Despite the multiplicity of meanings of “community”, it is a sense of membership to a group either based on place or based on purpose. Community of space is a collectivity based on place (village or city, island, country, region, continent, and so forth), but community of purpose is more based on a common purpose with a shared vision, mission, interest, or hobby. Internet has shaped the creation and development of such communities of purpose, through mailing list, website, blog, and so forth. Travel has also conditioned the greater access to knowledge and experience among individuals.
From 1960s to date, the East-West Center has recognized national identities (food, dress, life style, language), but has promoted interchanges, dialogues, and cooperation among them. For many international participants in the East-West Center, nationalism has become even stronger abroad than they are in their home countries. Exchange of ideas and experiences, exchange of food and dress; national boundaries remain recognized, but this recognition does not preclude the respect of other boundaries. Of course they are still those students who fail to respect other cultures, languages, religions, and nationalities, but the vision of the building of Asia-Pacific Community has continued at least to broaden ethnicities and nationalities to a wider region, which is Asia, the Pacific, and America. The extent to which such mission is successful will depend on how the EWC management, teachers, and the participants are able to connect their particular identities and moralities not only to their nationalities and ethnicities, but to the Asia-Pacific region and more broadly to a global citizenship based on shared humanity norms and values as well. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and for the Asia-Pacific region, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Forum, among others, are regional forums that should serve as communities of space but more importantly communities of noble purpose, in improving the welfare of the people in these regions, thus helping to improve the wellbeing of the people in other parts of the world.
American and Indonesian Cases
Muhamad Ali
The question whether nation and religion are still important for most peoples in this contemporary era of globalization when they have more access to knowledge and get more freedom to choose what they want from the increased quantity of sources, thus undermining the traditional nationalist and religious authorities, can not be answered in an either/or way. It can be argued that nation and religion may coexist, overlap, and even reinforce each other, but may also be conflicting. Be that it may, the complexity of relations between nation and religion today should not hinder peoples in this era of
globalization from living in coexistence and peace. Nationalism is for many a common project for the present and the future, and so is religion. Both are also projects that demand sacrifice, but not the sacrificing of others. Both the American nation and the Indonesian nation should be large-hearted and broad-minded enough to accept the real variety and complexity of the national society in each country, and at the same time to promote shared human values.
Nationalism and Religions
In contemporary era of globalization, nationalism and religious identity are for many still important. They regard both as constructive forces in political, economical, social and cultural interactions. The self-determination, the love for one’s country and the readiness to defend her, the development projects that the state designed and implemented to the welfare of many of the country’s people, and the diplomatic relationship between nation-states for cooperation in many fields of life, have demonstrated how nationalism provides good things to them. On the other hand, religion has played a different, yet crucial role. In America, according to public opinions, religion has become important in public life, in their voting, in American foreign policy, in issues like marriage, abortion, and other socio-political issues. In Indonesia, religion has been even more crucial. In many interfaith meetings, different religions attempt to argue that nationalism and patriotism are sanctioned by their religious beliefs, and their Gods teach them to love their country and to work hard for her prosperity.
Especially after the 9/11 attack, national security became the American government’s first priority, often jeopardizing religious freedom and civil rights of individuals and groups. The American Constitution upholds religious freedom, but some discriminatory cases still exist against African Americans, Arabs, and other minorities. There are American peoples and scholars who still see minorities, including Muslims, as a threat to American nationalism. For them, American nationalism should be defended against external and internal threats, but these threats have been determined by partial and biased parameters. The American war on terror, in the name of national security, has perpretated different kinds of terrors against the accused (See Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies, 2004). Problems of racial prejudices, Islam-phobia, immigrations, health, education, gay marriage and abortion, are debated often within the context of nationalist and religious sentiments.
American nationalism has a variety of meaning among Americans. For some, American nationalism means a project against the Other, including Muslim extremists as they define them (rather than Protestant evangelical extremists, or Jewish extremists inside America or in Israel). For these groups, extremism only applies to others. For them, nationalism demands absolute categories of good and bad (rather than relatively good and relatively bad). Thus Samuel Huntington argues that America is a Protestant country which is under threat from multiculturalism (Huntington, Who Are We?, 2006). But this inherent connection between American nation and religion has been contested. In 1796, for example, President George Washington linked religion to morality and virtue and linked the cultivation of virtue to education. In 1802, however, Thomas Jefferson contended that American legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus binding a wall of separation between Church and State.” Many of the U.S. presidents, including Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush junior, made Biblical references in their public speeches, and interpreted them according to the circumstances. In 2005, George W. Bush, for example, quoted Isaiah 40:31:”But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength….” Today Americans broaden their discourse of nationalism to include liberal democracy, free-trade capitalism, human rights, and peace, not only in the country but also in the Middle East and other parts of the world. The will to spread democracy is one manifestation of American nationalism.
In Indonesia, the public discourse of nationalism, including the relation between religion and nationalism, has not emerged until the early 20th century. In 1928, the birth of Indonesia was marked by The Oath of the Youth declaring one fatherland, one nation, one language, (but no “one religion”). The Indonesian independence in 1945 was followed by the declaration of Pancasila, the semi-secular state ideology mixing theology, humanism, nationalism, democracy and social justice. The New Order Regime (1966-1998) built some alliances with the military against communism, perceived as the inside threat. The 1945 Constitution guarantees religious freedom, but discriminatory policies and attitudes still occur against indigenous believers, Chinese, and other minorities. In former East Timor, Aceh, and Papua, Indonesian nationalism has been a nightmare because force was used in trying to “civilize” and subjugate the marginalized economically, culturally and politically.
Indonesian self-image centered on the elitist discourse, including the Pancasila state, neither secular nor Islamic, the largest Muslim democratic moderate country (after 2004 general elections), and unity in diversity (Bhineka Tunggal Ika). But the country has suffered from conflicts of ideologies, ethno-religious conflicts, lack of and uneven access to education, poor health services, poor public services (transport, cleanliness), population density, and so on.
Nationalisms and Globalization
In 1996, historian Eric Hobsbawm characterized the twentieth century as “the age of extremes” because different ideologies, especially liberalism and socialism, competed for dominance. But, according to Fukuyama, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberalism was believed to have triumphed (Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History”, 1989). Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, however, saw a clash of civilizations (Bernard Lewis, 1992; Huntington, “Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of New World Order”, 1993). For Huntington, writing in 1993, “a central focus for the conflict for the immediate future will be between the West and several Islamic-Confucian states”. In the middle, however, the United Nations, European Union, and other international organizations have advocated a dialogue of civilizations, building a common space for co-operation.
For Huntington, civilizations become fault lines. But globalization continues to be more powerful. An American journalist Thomas Friedman suggests that globalization is not simply a trend or a fad but is, rather, an international system. It is the system that has now replaced the old Cold War system, and globalization has its own rules and logic that today directly or indirectly influence the politics, environment, geopolitics, and economics of virtually every country in the world. Challenging Fukuyama and Huntington, Friedman depicts this new era of globalization: “under the globalization system you will find both clashes of civilization and the homogenization of civilizations, both environmental disasters and amazing environmental rescues, both the triumph of liberal, free-market capitalism and a backlash against it.”(The Lexus and the Olive Three, 2000). Friedman however concludes that American national pride, globalization, and sense of community (including religion) are not contradictory and even should coexist.
In Indonesia, there are some debates of whether Islamic solidarity (umma) or the Indonesian nation-state comes first, especially when they see Palestine-Israel conflict, Iraqi conflicts, American war against terrorism, and other global events. For many Indonesians, globalization has been perceived as modernization and modernization as Westernization and more recently Westernization as Americanization (McDonalds, Microsoft, American companies). At the same time, many Muslim liberals have seen global Islamism and Arab or Middle Eastern kind of Islam as not compatible with the Indonesian situation. There is an Indonesian sort of Islam, more accommodative and tolerant toward diverse local cultures. For others, globalization is a blessing and could reinforce sense of nationalist pride, by improving the image of Indonesia not as a terrorist haven, Indonesia as moderate and tolerant as well as a beautiful and culturally-rich country. Nationalism for Indonesians at home and abroad remains strong and even stronger amidst the widespread use of internet and travel (the two icons of globalization).
Prevailing Extremisms
But we are facing excesses of nationalism and excesses of religion. We find aggressive nationalism which tries to impose one’s nationalism onto other nations near and afar. Absolute boundaries based on nationalities and religion can create conflicts and even wars. Absolutism comes from extreme ideologies and attitudes. We know different kinds of extremisms: within the nation-state (between the state and marginalized groups, between civil societies), between the nation-state, between non-state groups and the state, and between one state and the state and the people in other states. The reasons, dynamics, and implications of each kind of extremism vary, but the main features are social disorder and human and natural destruction.
In Indonesia, the regime at times killed the true and the alleged communists in 1965-1966. Indonesian nationalism, either religiously or secularly based, can have excesses and extreme sides. The extreme nationalism, for example, forces minorities to adopt the overarching political agenda that they reject because the agenda do not suit their needs and interests. An extreme nationalism wants to civilize the margins (indigenous believers, religious sects, new religious movements, mountain and jungle tribes, and so forth) by ways of imposition without respect to their particular conditions and needs. Within a nation, there needs to be a balance between nationalism and multiculturalism.
In the U.S., racism still exists, not simply by the white majority against the black or the color, but also by the black against the white. The media, which are supposed to be neutral, are not always neutral; the media could be misinformed about particular groups and events. The association of Islam with Arabs, violence, and terrorism is not yet over in some of American media, although there is some improvement for a more balances accounts.
The nation, according to Benedict Anderson, is an imagined community. It is a fraternity that makes it possible for so many millions of people to die for such limited imaginings. But this willing to die can be noble or can be foolish and destructive of others’ existence and peace. Wars between nationalisms have occurred. As Enrique Dussel put it, “evils accompany war: the clamor of arms, sudden, impetuous, and furious attacks and invasion; ferocity and grave perturbations; scandals, deaths, and carnage; havoc, rape, and dispossessions; the lost of parents and children; captivities and the dethronement of lords; the devastation and desolation of cities, innumerable villages and other sites.”(The Invention of the Americas, 1995).
Nationalist leaders may speak in the name of “democracy”, “civilization”, “peace”, but at the same time could act in a non-democratic and uncivilized manner, in the name of nationalist security or interest. In addition, while they can claim to seek international peace, they are actually harboring hegemonic or imperialist designs. Here nationalism becomes aggressive. Thus, as history shows us, forced nationalism extends abroad: Pan-Americanism, Pan-Britannica, Pan-Romana, Pan-Arabism, Pan-Islamism, etc. In fact, imperialism in the name of nationalism has become a mix of love and hatred, peace and war, blessings and sufferings.
The will for wealth and domination has not ended yet. Jacques Derrida, in his The Other Heading: Reflections of Today’s Europe, wrote: “Europe takes itself to be a promontory, an advance – the avant-garde of geography and history. It advances and promotes itself as an advance, and it will never have ceased to make advances on the other: to induce, seduce, produce, and conduce, to spread out, to cultivate, to love or to violate, to love to violate, to colonize, and colonize itself.” These can occur not only in Europe, but also in the U.S., Middle East, Asia, and elsewhere.
Such will for domination has been made possible because many leaders still view the world in terms of core and periphery, their own nation being at the core, and other nations at the periphery. Self-glorification often corresponds with diminishing others.
I would argue that nationalism, religion, and globalization should have limits to themselves. First, nationalism is socially constructed. Religion, although believed as divine and sacral, is historically constructed. Globalization, although it is regarded as a pervasive force and a system in itself with the communication technology, in fact carries different meanings for different people. Generally, in the secular paradigm, globalization is perceived as more neutral than religion, whereas nationalism is more neutral than religion. Neutrality is however no less constructed according to different perspectives.
Given its negative excesses, nationalism should not be an absolute ideology. There are always reason and unreason in nationalist ideology. As history shows, nationalism can be excessive and aggressive. Religion can also be moderate and extreme. Even religion can be made to justify aggressive nationalism. Religious fundamentalism can be secular or religious, but it has the potential for absolutism.
Tolerant Nationalism and Tolerant Religiosity
It is a time to promote more substantive and tolerant nationalism: strong, solid, but respecting other concepts of nationalism and nationalities within and without the country. Tolerant nationalism is a love of one’s country manifested in various aspects of life, but not at the expense of the destruction of other peoples within and beyond the constructed boundaries. Indonesian nationalism should be tolerant in the sense that, whether religious or secular or mixed according to different communities, it should respect the minorities and the marginalized, and at the same time should respect other nationalisms outside it. One of the outcomes of such tolerant nationalism is continued participation within the nation and peaceful coexistence and fruitful cooperation outside it.
Tolerant nationalism recognizes multiculturalism. Multiculturalism should not be merely a descriptive category, by simply saying that the world is diverse and multicultural. It needs to be normative as well, that requires certain attitudes and practical foreign policies. As Fred Halliday (2001) put it, ”multiculturalism becomes a deliberate approach to diversity, a type of normative discourse.”
Tolerant nationalism also promotes humanism which encourages common human values. As Vaclav Havel eloquently put it, “Different cultures or spheres of civilization can share only what they perceive as genuine common ground, not something that few merely offer to or even force upon others. The tenets of human coexistence on this earth can hold up only if they grow out of the deepest experience of everyone, not just some of us.”
Nationalism, multiculturalism, religion, and humanism can coexist in international relations as global conversation or global dialogue becomes priority before anything else. Thus, voices of dialogue, such as Hans Kung’s Global Ethics, Muhammad Khatami’s Dialogue of Civilizations, Anwar Ibrahim’s Global Convivencia, need to be provided a greater space in public discourse and world politics. There are also World Peace through World Law and World Order Models Projects (WOMP). In these theses, there is a positive escape from self-absolutism which negates the others, which drives a healthy skeptical epistemology. There is also a will to be self-critical that avoids cultural imposition and military aggression, that paves the way to pluralism, which in turn leads to global coexistence and peace.
Humanity has been created to form tribes, races, nations, religions, and other identities, whose differences in physical characteristics, languages, and modes of thought are but the means for the purpose of lita’arafu, to borrow an Islamic term, meaning “getting to know one another”. Exchange and dialogue become an imperative at a time when the world has shrunk into a global village. For it is a pre-condition for the establishment of a global coexistence and peace, a harmonious and enriching experience of living together among people of diverse identities. Clash of identities can be diminished by a conscious attitude in order that they could coexist and cooperate in resolving common world problems such as terrorism, poverty, and environmental disaster.
Strengthening Communities of Noble Purpose
Nation and religion are part of communities. Despite the multiplicity of meanings of “community”, it is a sense of membership to a group either based on place or based on purpose. Community of space is a collectivity based on place (village or city, island, country, region, continent, and so forth), but community of purpose is more based on a common purpose with a shared vision, mission, interest, or hobby. Internet has shaped the creation and development of such communities of purpose, through mailing list, website, blog, and so forth. Travel has also conditioned the greater access to knowledge and experience among individuals.
From 1960s to date, the East-West Center has recognized national identities (food, dress, life style, language), but has promoted interchanges, dialogues, and cooperation among them. For many international participants in the East-West Center, nationalism has become even stronger abroad than they are in their home countries. Exchange of ideas and experiences, exchange of food and dress; national boundaries remain recognized, but this recognition does not preclude the respect of other boundaries. Of course they are still those students who fail to respect other cultures, languages, religions, and nationalities, but the vision of the building of Asia-Pacific Community has continued at least to broaden ethnicities and nationalities to a wider region, which is Asia, the Pacific, and America. The extent to which such mission is successful will depend on how the EWC management, teachers, and the participants are able to connect their particular identities and moralities not only to their nationalities and ethnicities, but to the Asia-Pacific region and more broadly to a global citizenship based on shared humanity norms and values as well. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and for the Asia-Pacific region, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Forum, among others, are regional forums that should serve as communities of space but more importantly communities of noble purpose, in improving the welfare of the people in these regions, thus helping to improve the wellbeing of the people in other parts of the world.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Recent Publications
Recent Publications,
Muhamad Ali
A. Books
Published
1. Teologi Pluralis Multikultural (Multicultural-Pluralist Theology) (Jakarta: Penerbit Kompas, 2003), 292 pp, plus bibliography.
In Progress
2. Islam and the West: Bridging the Gulf after 9/11, Publisher: LibforAll Foundation (www.libforall.org), Winston-Salem, North Caroline, 27160, USA, submitted on December 2006, 106 pp.
3. Religious Tolerance and Pluralism in Indonesia, Publisher: LibforAll Foundation (www.libforall.org), Winston-Salem, North Caroline, 27160, USA, submitted on December 2006, 106 pp.
4. Religion and Colonialism: Islamic Knowledge in South Sulawesi and Kelantan, 1905-1945
B. Journal Articles
Published
1. “Fatwas on Interfaith Marriage in Indonesia,” Studia Islamika, 9:3, 2002, 1-25. [Refereed]
2. “The Umma and the Nation-State: Western and Islamic Perspective,” Kultur, 1:3, 2002, 46-59. [Refereed]
3. “Dialogue Amongst Civilizations,” Resonansi, 1:2, 2003, 1-7. [Invited]
4. “Honoring Religions,” Peace & Policy, 9, 2004, 86-9. [Refereed]
5. “The Rise of the Liberal Islamic Netwok (JIL) in Contemporary Indonesia,” American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 22:1, Winter 2005, 1-27. [Refereed]
6. “Transmission of Islamic Knowledge in Kelantan,” The Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 79:2:291, 2006. [Refereed]
7. “Menengok Barat, Mengembangkan Tradisi Ilmiah di Indonesia” (Learning from the West, Developing Scientific Tradition in Indonesia), Mimbar Agama dan Budaya (Pulpit of Religion and Culture), vol.23, no.1, 2006, 25-41. [Refereed]
8. “Categorizing Muslims in Postcolonial Indonesia,” Moussons, Paris, no. 11, 2007. [Refereed]
C. Chapters in Books
Published
1. “Mengapa Membumikan Kemajemukan dan Kebebasan Beragama di Indonesia?” (Why Promoting Religious Pluralism and Freedom in Indonesia?), in Kebebasan Beragama di Indonesia (Religious Freedom in Indonesia), Jakarta: Paramadina University, June 2006, pp.78-90 [Invited]
2. “Gerakan Islam Moderat di Indonesia” (Moderate Islamic Movements in Indonesia), in Peta Gerakan Islam di Indonesia (Islamic Movements in Indonesia) Jakarta: PPIM & CSIS, August 2006, pp. 182-197 [Invited]
In Progress
3. “Islam in Southeast Asia”, a chapter in a book to be published in Denmark, 2007/2008
D. Encyclopedia Articles
Published
1. “Women, Gender, and Jihad: East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Australia,” The Encyclopaedia of Women and Islamic Culture (Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden), 2004, 231-234.
E. Book Reviews
Published
1. Robert Day McAmis, Malay Muslims: the History and Challenge of Resurgent Islam in Southeast Asia (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002), in (Journal of Asian Studies, 62:4, 2003): 1130-1132.
2. Giora Eliraz, Islam in Indonesia: Modernism, Radicalism, and the Middle East Dimension (Brighton and Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2004), (American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 22:3, 2005): 136-9.
3. Anna M. Gade, Perfection Makes Practice: Learning, Emotion, and the Recited Qur’an in Indonesia (Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2004), (American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 23:3: 2006): 89-91.
4. Mike Millard, Jihad in Paradise: Islam and Politics in Southeast Asia (New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004), (American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 23:3; 2006): 91-94.
F. Working Papers
Published
1. “Islam and Economic Development in New Order’s Indonesia,” 1967-1998,” East-West Center Working Papers, 12, 2004, 1-26.
2. “Chinese Muslims in Indonesia: A Post-Diasporic Experience,” Explorations, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, the University of Hawaii at Manoa, vol.3, no.2, Spring 2007, pp. 1-22.
Muhamad Ali
A. Books
Published
1. Teologi Pluralis Multikultural (Multicultural-Pluralist Theology) (Jakarta: Penerbit Kompas, 2003), 292 pp, plus bibliography.
In Progress
2. Islam and the West: Bridging the Gulf after 9/11, Publisher: LibforAll Foundation (www.libforall.org), Winston-Salem, North Caroline, 27160, USA, submitted on December 2006, 106 pp.
3. Religious Tolerance and Pluralism in Indonesia, Publisher: LibforAll Foundation (www.libforall.org), Winston-Salem, North Caroline, 27160, USA, submitted on December 2006, 106 pp.
4. Religion and Colonialism: Islamic Knowledge in South Sulawesi and Kelantan, 1905-1945
B. Journal Articles
Published
1. “Fatwas on Interfaith Marriage in Indonesia,” Studia Islamika, 9:3, 2002, 1-25. [Refereed]
2. “The Umma and the Nation-State: Western and Islamic Perspective,” Kultur, 1:3, 2002, 46-59. [Refereed]
3. “Dialogue Amongst Civilizations,” Resonansi, 1:2, 2003, 1-7. [Invited]
4. “Honoring Religions,” Peace & Policy, 9, 2004, 86-9. [Refereed]
5. “The Rise of the Liberal Islamic Netwok (JIL) in Contemporary Indonesia,” American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 22:1, Winter 2005, 1-27. [Refereed]
6. “Transmission of Islamic Knowledge in Kelantan,” The Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 79:2:291, 2006. [Refereed]
7. “Menengok Barat, Mengembangkan Tradisi Ilmiah di Indonesia” (Learning from the West, Developing Scientific Tradition in Indonesia), Mimbar Agama dan Budaya (Pulpit of Religion and Culture), vol.23, no.1, 2006, 25-41. [Refereed]
8. “Categorizing Muslims in Postcolonial Indonesia,” Moussons, Paris, no. 11, 2007. [Refereed]
C. Chapters in Books
Published
1. “Mengapa Membumikan Kemajemukan dan Kebebasan Beragama di Indonesia?” (Why Promoting Religious Pluralism and Freedom in Indonesia?), in Kebebasan Beragama di Indonesia (Religious Freedom in Indonesia), Jakarta: Paramadina University, June 2006, pp.78-90 [Invited]
2. “Gerakan Islam Moderat di Indonesia” (Moderate Islamic Movements in Indonesia), in Peta Gerakan Islam di Indonesia (Islamic Movements in Indonesia) Jakarta: PPIM & CSIS, August 2006, pp. 182-197 [Invited]
In Progress
3. “Islam in Southeast Asia”, a chapter in a book to be published in Denmark, 2007/2008
D. Encyclopedia Articles
Published
1. “Women, Gender, and Jihad: East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Australia,” The Encyclopaedia of Women and Islamic Culture (Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden), 2004, 231-234.
E. Book Reviews
Published
1. Robert Day McAmis, Malay Muslims: the History and Challenge of Resurgent Islam in Southeast Asia (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002), in (Journal of Asian Studies, 62:4, 2003): 1130-1132.
2. Giora Eliraz, Islam in Indonesia: Modernism, Radicalism, and the Middle East Dimension (Brighton and Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2004), (American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 22:3, 2005): 136-9.
3. Anna M. Gade, Perfection Makes Practice: Learning, Emotion, and the Recited Qur’an in Indonesia (Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2004), (American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 23:3: 2006): 89-91.
4. Mike Millard, Jihad in Paradise: Islam and Politics in Southeast Asia (New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004), (American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 23:3; 2006): 91-94.
F. Working Papers
Published
1. “Islam and Economic Development in New Order’s Indonesia,” 1967-1998,” East-West Center Working Papers, 12, 2004, 1-26.
2. “Chinese Muslims in Indonesia: A Post-Diasporic Experience,” Explorations, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, the University of Hawaii at Manoa, vol.3, no.2, Spring 2007, pp. 1-22.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Dr. Muhamad Ali
Dr. Muhamad Ali, 2006-2007
Muhamad Ali was newly appointed assistant professor in religious studies at the University of California at Riverside, recently earned his Ph.D from the University of Hawaii at Manoa and completed his fellowship at the East-West Center, Honolulu. He was awarded the Toyota Foundation Southeast Asian National Research Grant for publishing his dissertation on colonialism and Islamic knowledge in Indonesia and Malaysia. He was invited as speaker on Olelo TV station, Hawaii, on Islam in Indonesia and on promoting religious pluralism, and as trainer of the workshop on Islam in Southeast Asia for school teachers. During the past year, he published articles, including on the transmission of Islamic knowledge (The Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society), on categorizing Muslims (Moussons, Paris), book chapters on moderate Islamic movements in Indonesia and on religious pluralism, and is writing a chapter on Islam in Southeast Asia for a book to published in Denmark, apart from his newspaper articles on various religious and socio-political issues.
Muhamad Ali was newly appointed assistant professor in religious studies at the University of California at Riverside, recently earned his Ph.D from the University of Hawaii at Manoa and completed his fellowship at the East-West Center, Honolulu. He was awarded the Toyota Foundation Southeast Asian National Research Grant for publishing his dissertation on colonialism and Islamic knowledge in Indonesia and Malaysia. He was invited as speaker on Olelo TV station, Hawaii, on Islam in Indonesia and on promoting religious pluralism, and as trainer of the workshop on Islam in Southeast Asia for school teachers. During the past year, he published articles, including on the transmission of Islamic knowledge (The Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society), on categorizing Muslims (Moussons, Paris), book chapters on moderate Islamic movements in Indonesia and on religious pluralism, and is writing a chapter on Islam in Southeast Asia for a book to published in Denmark, apart from his newspaper articles on various religious and socio-political issues.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200708/INT20070813a.html
'Biggest Ever' Rally Calls for Revival of Islamic Caliphate
By Patrick GoodenoughCNSNews.com
International EditorAugust 13, 2007(CNSNews.com) -
An estimated 80,000 Islamists packed a sports stadium in the Indonesian capital Sunday to call for the re-establishment of a single Islamic state or caliphate, uniting Muslims around the world under Islamic law.Video footage posted on the group's websites showed tens of thousands of people, men and women seated apart in the stadium in Jakarta, waving black and white flags and shouting "Allah is greater."The event was organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), which called it the biggest event calling for the revival of a caliphate since the last time one existed in the 1920s.Hizb ut-Tahrir is a transnational Sunni group that says it shuns violence, but it has been outlawed or restricted in Germany , Russia and parts of the Middle East and Central Asia. The British government said it planned to ban the group after the July 2005 London bombings, although it has not yet happened.
Muhammad Ismail Yusanto, the group's Indonesian spokesman, said on the sidelines of the meeting that the group rejects democracy, because sovereignty is in the hands of Allah, not the people.In a statement, he called secularism "the mother of all destruction," and he called on all Muslims to join the struggle to implement Islam and Islamic law.Most of those attending were said to be Indonesians, although supporters of the group also came from the Middle East, Africa and Europe.The Indonesian authorities blocked two foreign leaders, from Britain and Australia, from attending.The Australian, Sheikh Ismail al-Wahwah from Sydney, said he was turned around at the airport and sent home, and the group's British office said the same thing happened to Imran Waheed, a member of its executive committee who was to have addressed the gathering."Whether this is the desperate action of the Indonesian regime or the regime following the orders of an overseas government is unclear," Abdul Wahid, chairman of the UK executive committee, said in a statement."What is clear is that there is an attempt to prevent Dr. Waheed from speaking. One has to ask, do they fear our arguments so much?"Wahid said the meeting in Indonesia had been a great success, and that the concept of a caliphate "is increasingly seen as the alternative to corruption and tyranny in the Muslim world, where the population see Islamic governance as an inherent part of their way of life."
'Utopia'
But in Indonesia, the world's most populous Islamic nation, not all Muslim leaders are supportive of Hizb ut-Tahrir's ideology.Hasyim Muzadi, chairman of the mainstream Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), said earlier this year that groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir "tend to use the Islamic religion as the political ideology rather than the way of life," and cautioned against movements "that do not spring from Indonesian traditions."Muzadi said that NU and Hizb ut-Tahrir "have different views dealing with the concept of nationality and Indonesia in nature," with the latter supportive of the unitary state of Indonesia while the latter was focusing on struggling for a caliphate.Claiming a membership of 40 million, NU is the biggest Muslim organization in Indonesia.
In an opinion survey earlier this year of attitudes in four key Muslim countries -- Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia -- University of Maryland pollsters found 36 percent of respondents "strongly" in favor of "unify[ing] all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate."Scholars say a caliphate has not existed in any form since 1924, when Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk formerly abolished the institution, following the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire during and after World War I.
Muhamad Ali, an Indonesian scholar of Islam currently at the University of California Riverside, said Monday he thought Hizb ut-Tahrir's push for a caliphate (also known as a khalifa or khilafa) was neither necessary or realistic."Coming back to the so-called golden age of Islam is an utopia, and is not sanctioned in the Koran and in the Hadith," he told Cybercast News Service, referring to the Islamic sacred text and the traditions of Mohammed, the Muslim prophet."The call will take away Muslims' energy toward something unrealizable and ineffective," Ali said.
In Indonesia, he noted, both NU and another major mainstream organization, Muhammadiyah, had never regarded a caliphate as crucial."The real challenge for Indonesian Muslims are to improve education, health, and public services, without a khalifa. Presidents, governors, regents, and the religious scholars and non-religious intellectuals in Indonesia are trying to realize reform in all aspects of life without a khalifa," Ali said."The imagined khalifa will not be realized and will not be accepted by many let alone most Muslims in Indonesia and other places."
'Clandestine, radical'
Hizb ut-Tahrir was founded in 1953 by a Palestinian Arab and works openly -- except in those countries where it is proscribed -- for the revival of the caliphate. Even regimes like the one ruling Saudi Arabia are not sufficiently Islamic for the group."It can, in no way, be claimed that any of the current Muslim countries are representative of Islam and the Islamic system of government which is the Islamic [caliphate]," it group says on a website.Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesmen insist it does not promote violence, but experts regard it as dangerous.Heritage Foundation scholar Ariel Cohen has described it as "a clandestine, cadre-operated, radical Islamist political organization" that is "transnational, secretive, and extremist in its anti-Americanism.""Like al-Qaeda, it [Hizb ut-Tahrir] advocates an Islamic Caliphate in which [Islamic law] will be supreme, but says it wants to achieve it through peaceful mass agitations and not by resort to terrorism or other acts of armed violence," according to South Asian political and security analyst Bahukutumbi Raman. "What the al-Qaeda seeks to propagate through jihadi terrorism, it propagates through political means."
"[Hizb ut-Tahrir ] is not a terrorist organization, but it can usefully be thought of as a conveyor belt for terrorists," Zeyno Baran, director of the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute, wrote in 2005. "It indoctrinates individuals with radical ideology, priming them for recruitment by more extreme organizations where they can take part in actual operations."On
Monday, Islam scholar Ali said the group was "not very significant" in Indonesia."It represents [a] minority, most of them educated not in religious schools and universities," he said. "They simply want a short-cut toward the realization of [an] Islamic community."Ali said most Indonesian Muslims do not embrace such "foreign" concepts as that of a caliphate.
'Biggest Ever' Rally Calls for Revival of Islamic Caliphate
By Patrick GoodenoughCNSNews.com
International EditorAugust 13, 2007(CNSNews.com) -
An estimated 80,000 Islamists packed a sports stadium in the Indonesian capital Sunday to call for the re-establishment of a single Islamic state or caliphate, uniting Muslims around the world under Islamic law.Video footage posted on the group's websites showed tens of thousands of people, men and women seated apart in the stadium in Jakarta, waving black and white flags and shouting "Allah is greater."The event was organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), which called it the biggest event calling for the revival of a caliphate since the last time one existed in the 1920s.Hizb ut-Tahrir is a transnational Sunni group that says it shuns violence, but it has been outlawed or restricted in Germany , Russia and parts of the Middle East and Central Asia. The British government said it planned to ban the group after the July 2005 London bombings, although it has not yet happened.
Muhammad Ismail Yusanto, the group's Indonesian spokesman, said on the sidelines of the meeting that the group rejects democracy, because sovereignty is in the hands of Allah, not the people.In a statement, he called secularism "the mother of all destruction," and he called on all Muslims to join the struggle to implement Islam and Islamic law.Most of those attending were said to be Indonesians, although supporters of the group also came from the Middle East, Africa and Europe.The Indonesian authorities blocked two foreign leaders, from Britain and Australia, from attending.The Australian, Sheikh Ismail al-Wahwah from Sydney, said he was turned around at the airport and sent home, and the group's British office said the same thing happened to Imran Waheed, a member of its executive committee who was to have addressed the gathering."Whether this is the desperate action of the Indonesian regime or the regime following the orders of an overseas government is unclear," Abdul Wahid, chairman of the UK executive committee, said in a statement."What is clear is that there is an attempt to prevent Dr. Waheed from speaking. One has to ask, do they fear our arguments so much?"Wahid said the meeting in Indonesia had been a great success, and that the concept of a caliphate "is increasingly seen as the alternative to corruption and tyranny in the Muslim world, where the population see Islamic governance as an inherent part of their way of life."
'Utopia'
But in Indonesia, the world's most populous Islamic nation, not all Muslim leaders are supportive of Hizb ut-Tahrir's ideology.Hasyim Muzadi, chairman of the mainstream Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), said earlier this year that groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir "tend to use the Islamic religion as the political ideology rather than the way of life," and cautioned against movements "that do not spring from Indonesian traditions."Muzadi said that NU and Hizb ut-Tahrir "have different views dealing with the concept of nationality and Indonesia in nature," with the latter supportive of the unitary state of Indonesia while the latter was focusing on struggling for a caliphate.Claiming a membership of 40 million, NU is the biggest Muslim organization in Indonesia.
In an opinion survey earlier this year of attitudes in four key Muslim countries -- Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia -- University of Maryland pollsters found 36 percent of respondents "strongly" in favor of "unify[ing] all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate."Scholars say a caliphate has not existed in any form since 1924, when Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk formerly abolished the institution, following the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire during and after World War I.
Muhamad Ali, an Indonesian scholar of Islam currently at the University of California Riverside, said Monday he thought Hizb ut-Tahrir's push for a caliphate (also known as a khalifa or khilafa) was neither necessary or realistic."Coming back to the so-called golden age of Islam is an utopia, and is not sanctioned in the Koran and in the Hadith," he told Cybercast News Service, referring to the Islamic sacred text and the traditions of Mohammed, the Muslim prophet."The call will take away Muslims' energy toward something unrealizable and ineffective," Ali said.
In Indonesia, he noted, both NU and another major mainstream organization, Muhammadiyah, had never regarded a caliphate as crucial."The real challenge for Indonesian Muslims are to improve education, health, and public services, without a khalifa. Presidents, governors, regents, and the religious scholars and non-religious intellectuals in Indonesia are trying to realize reform in all aspects of life without a khalifa," Ali said."The imagined khalifa will not be realized and will not be accepted by many let alone most Muslims in Indonesia and other places."
'Clandestine, radical'
Hizb ut-Tahrir was founded in 1953 by a Palestinian Arab and works openly -- except in those countries where it is proscribed -- for the revival of the caliphate. Even regimes like the one ruling Saudi Arabia are not sufficiently Islamic for the group."It can, in no way, be claimed that any of the current Muslim countries are representative of Islam and the Islamic system of government which is the Islamic [caliphate]," it group says on a website.Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesmen insist it does not promote violence, but experts regard it as dangerous.Heritage Foundation scholar Ariel Cohen has described it as "a clandestine, cadre-operated, radical Islamist political organization" that is "transnational, secretive, and extremist in its anti-Americanism.""Like al-Qaeda, it [Hizb ut-Tahrir] advocates an Islamic Caliphate in which [Islamic law] will be supreme, but says it wants to achieve it through peaceful mass agitations and not by resort to terrorism or other acts of armed violence," according to South Asian political and security analyst Bahukutumbi Raman. "What the al-Qaeda seeks to propagate through jihadi terrorism, it propagates through political means."
"[Hizb ut-Tahrir ] is not a terrorist organization, but it can usefully be thought of as a conveyor belt for terrorists," Zeyno Baran, director of the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute, wrote in 2005. "It indoctrinates individuals with radical ideology, priming them for recruitment by more extreme organizations where they can take part in actual operations."On
Monday, Islam scholar Ali said the group was "not very significant" in Indonesia."It represents [a] minority, most of them educated not in religious schools and universities," he said. "They simply want a short-cut toward the realization of [an] Islamic community."Ali said most Indonesian Muslims do not embrace such "foreign" concepts as that of a caliphate.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Winning Over Indonesia's Pluralism Skeptics
Winning over Indonesia's pluralism skeptics Friday, August 24, 2007
Muhamad Ali, Jakarta
Many people say that Indonesia is a plural nation with a Muslim majority. Hardly anyone would deny the current plurality of ethnicity, languages, and religions in Indonesia. A recent interfaith group said they viewed pluralism as the nation's social capital, which should be revitalized and developed, thereby helping the Republic of Indonesia grow strong and prosper.
The problem is there are still many Indonesians who do not see such diversity as being positive and constructive in the struggle to improve the well-being of the nation. In other words, pluralism remains alien to them. Although plurality is argued to have historical roots in Indonesia, pluralism has been condemned as a foreign, Western concept.
There are some reasons why pluralism needs to be recultivated in Indonesia. Many publications continue to sow anger and hatred against others perceived to be enemies, threats and foreign forces, often without strong evidence. Such publications are filled with prejudices, stereotyping and rumors. Meanwhile, very rare public speeches and religious sermons highlight the good value of empathy, mutual understanding, respect, tolerance and pluralism. When pluralism is talked about, it is viewed merely as a passive understanding of the fact that "yes, we are different", without further active and proactive attitude and commitment.
Indeed, pluralism is a concept which has various and changing meanings.
Plurality is simply a fact, a condition or a reality of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity, while pluralism is an ideal or an impulse to accept and encourage diversity.
Pluralism suggests the absence of persecution and the right to be different or defiant. It also tends to recognize outsiders and underscores the participation and responsibility of individuals and groups to form and implement society's agenda. In the political context, pluralism requires the state to give room to a variety of social customs, religious and moral beliefs, as well as groupings.
Many leaders, however, tend to emphasize consensus, unity, solidarity but ignore the value of difference and disagreement in society. They attempt to make use of the public as a sphere for mainstream ideologies and ideas, while eliminating others. Individual and group interests are pursued under the guise of public interests. They warn that pluralism is a threat to consensus and social cohesion
In Indonesia today, political cohesion and unity often win over differences and thus over the willingness to accept and encourage diversity. Many fear that to accept diversity means giving away their own convictions.
Instead, pluralism perceives that all religions are limited, partial, incomplete and that "other religions are equally valid ways to the same truth", or that "other religions speak of different but equally valid truths".
What seems potentially attractive to many Indonesians is the nation's pluralism, which is not confined to theological or religious aspects. The idea of Bhineka Tunggal Ika, or unity in diversity, is historically revolutionary. Pancasila as a creative and fascinating state ideology that goes beyond religious, ethnic, linguistic and political boundaries can be seen as a philosophy of tolerance and pluralism.
The first principle, belief in one God, has been and will be interpreted differently by different religious groups in Indonesia because naturally humans have different and changing conceptions of God. The state and religious groups cannot be tempted to force one particular conception of God on others by any sort of compulsion such as a physical threat, social pressure or rewards in the form of wealth or position.
The second pillar, justice and civilized humanism, signifies humane and just treatment for all, regardless of differences in age, gender, civilization and sociopolitical status. As the golden rule says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
The third principle, Indonesian unity, comes from the positive recognition of Indonesia's diversity in ethnicity, religion, island, political affiliation and other identity categories. Indonesian unity means Indonesians are to work for social cohesion as a community sharing common history and future. As a political community, Indonesians need to unite to improve their well-being, solve their problems, face their challenges and manage their differences. However, this sense of unity should not mean uniformity, which may lead to indoctrination or the politicization of sectarian beliefs.
The forth pillar, democracy based on wisdom and consultation, carries fundamental principles such as the absence of authoritarianism and absolutism, the presence of empathy, being considerate of others, being wise when making decisions concerning others, mutual listening, understanding and respect.
Democracy also means social equity. This is connected to the last pillar, social justice for all Indonesians, which means individuals in Indonesia should be treated as equal citizens who deserve equal access to resources, education, health and other public opportunities. Indonesian pluralism is the basis for equal citizenship and equal treatment before the law. There is no place for the majority simply because of their major quantity that a group claims to represent that majority while in reality in that majority there is so much difference.
Pluralism is an advanced philosophy and attitude to be shown by the state or civil society. It requires sincerity, empathy, mutual understanding and commitment to dialogues and cooperation. Indonesia's plurality can be a great and invaluable asset for the just and prosperous nation. The challenge is for all Indonesians to master the ways of making differences and disagreements work for them, rather than against them.
Muhamad Ali, Jakarta
Many people say that Indonesia is a plural nation with a Muslim majority. Hardly anyone would deny the current plurality of ethnicity, languages, and religions in Indonesia. A recent interfaith group said they viewed pluralism as the nation's social capital, which should be revitalized and developed, thereby helping the Republic of Indonesia grow strong and prosper.
The problem is there are still many Indonesians who do not see such diversity as being positive and constructive in the struggle to improve the well-being of the nation. In other words, pluralism remains alien to them. Although plurality is argued to have historical roots in Indonesia, pluralism has been condemned as a foreign, Western concept.
There are some reasons why pluralism needs to be recultivated in Indonesia. Many publications continue to sow anger and hatred against others perceived to be enemies, threats and foreign forces, often without strong evidence. Such publications are filled with prejudices, stereotyping and rumors. Meanwhile, very rare public speeches and religious sermons highlight the good value of empathy, mutual understanding, respect, tolerance and pluralism. When pluralism is talked about, it is viewed merely as a passive understanding of the fact that "yes, we are different", without further active and proactive attitude and commitment.
Indeed, pluralism is a concept which has various and changing meanings.
Plurality is simply a fact, a condition or a reality of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity, while pluralism is an ideal or an impulse to accept and encourage diversity.
Pluralism suggests the absence of persecution and the right to be different or defiant. It also tends to recognize outsiders and underscores the participation and responsibility of individuals and groups to form and implement society's agenda. In the political context, pluralism requires the state to give room to a variety of social customs, religious and moral beliefs, as well as groupings.
Many leaders, however, tend to emphasize consensus, unity, solidarity but ignore the value of difference and disagreement in society. They attempt to make use of the public as a sphere for mainstream ideologies and ideas, while eliminating others. Individual and group interests are pursued under the guise of public interests. They warn that pluralism is a threat to consensus and social cohesion
In Indonesia today, political cohesion and unity often win over differences and thus over the willingness to accept and encourage diversity. Many fear that to accept diversity means giving away their own convictions.
Instead, pluralism perceives that all religions are limited, partial, incomplete and that "other religions are equally valid ways to the same truth", or that "other religions speak of different but equally valid truths".
What seems potentially attractive to many Indonesians is the nation's pluralism, which is not confined to theological or religious aspects. The idea of Bhineka Tunggal Ika, or unity in diversity, is historically revolutionary. Pancasila as a creative and fascinating state ideology that goes beyond religious, ethnic, linguistic and political boundaries can be seen as a philosophy of tolerance and pluralism.
The first principle, belief in one God, has been and will be interpreted differently by different religious groups in Indonesia because naturally humans have different and changing conceptions of God. The state and religious groups cannot be tempted to force one particular conception of God on others by any sort of compulsion such as a physical threat, social pressure or rewards in the form of wealth or position.
The second pillar, justice and civilized humanism, signifies humane and just treatment for all, regardless of differences in age, gender, civilization and sociopolitical status. As the golden rule says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
The third principle, Indonesian unity, comes from the positive recognition of Indonesia's diversity in ethnicity, religion, island, political affiliation and other identity categories. Indonesian unity means Indonesians are to work for social cohesion as a community sharing common history and future. As a political community, Indonesians need to unite to improve their well-being, solve their problems, face their challenges and manage their differences. However, this sense of unity should not mean uniformity, which may lead to indoctrination or the politicization of sectarian beliefs.
The forth pillar, democracy based on wisdom and consultation, carries fundamental principles such as the absence of authoritarianism and absolutism, the presence of empathy, being considerate of others, being wise when making decisions concerning others, mutual listening, understanding and respect.
Democracy also means social equity. This is connected to the last pillar, social justice for all Indonesians, which means individuals in Indonesia should be treated as equal citizens who deserve equal access to resources, education, health and other public opportunities. Indonesian pluralism is the basis for equal citizenship and equal treatment before the law. There is no place for the majority simply because of their major quantity that a group claims to represent that majority while in reality in that majority there is so much difference.
Pluralism is an advanced philosophy and attitude to be shown by the state or civil society. It requires sincerity, empathy, mutual understanding and commitment to dialogues and cooperation. Indonesia's plurality can be a great and invaluable asset for the just and prosperous nation. The challenge is for all Indonesians to master the ways of making differences and disagreements work for them, rather than against them.
Islamic Caliphate Unnecessary
Islamic caliphate revival unnecessary, unrealistic Friday, August 10, 2007
Muhamad Ali, Hawai, Manoa
Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) will host an international caliphate conference on Sunday in Jakarta, inviting speakers from various Islamic organizations. It remains to be seen the extent to which the idea of an international caliphate gains support in Indonesia and the Muslim world, but the revival of the world Islamic caliphate is neither a religious obligation nor a realistic endeavor.
According to the HTI, the caliphate is a form of leadership aimed at unifying all Muslim people around the world, with the objective of implementing Islamic sharia and conducting Islamic proselytizing (da'wa) throughout the world. The Islamic caliphate is a political system with a caliph or imam as the head of government with his deputies and functionaries.
In their reading, the last Islamic caliphate had to end in 1924 when the Ottoman Empire fell during the World War I. For them, the Muslim community today is no longer under the true Islamic leadership that is the caliphate, and they have lived under a secular political order which appears to have failed to meet Islamic needs.
According to them, it is not the existing presidents, monarchs or prime ministers of the nation-states that should lead, serve, and protect the Muslim people. Only one world Islamic leader, a sort of Muslim papacy, should lead Muslims; the caliph has to be trustworthy and should base his policies upon Islamic sharia only.
The goal of this modern caliphate movement remains the unity of both sentiment and politics, which has been a compelling but unrealized dream. Hizbut Tahrir was intellectually founded by Taqiyuddin al-Nabhany (1905-1978) in Lebanon.
He produced a number of works, including Nizham al-Islam (Islamic government) in which he promotes the ideas of Islamic unity, male leadership, of Arabic as the only Islamic language, the punishment for Muslim conversion to other religions.
He also proposed the prohibition of political parties not based on Islam, the unlimited period of the caliph, the definition of jihad as the military force, the shu'ra as the right of Muslims and not the right of non-Muslims, and other ideas.
There is some appeal to unite all Muslims when they feel under siege and they see they are subjugated by "foreign" forces. There is a strong spirit among its leaders and followers to pursue an Islamic order they believe is not being achieved within the existing political order.
The above observation seems to make sense among desperate and utopian Muslim scholars and leaders. However, there is no instruction to create a political caliphate system in the Koran and in the Hadith. The term khalifah in one verse of the Koran denotes vice regent in its general term.
The history of Muslim rulers, imams, sultans, or caliphs, is not a perfect history; Islamic history is not a history without dark sides of its actors; it contains glories and weaknesses, rises and falls, justice and exploitation, successes and crises, integration and conflicts. There is no guarantee that having caliphs solve all problems.
It is misleading to believe that to revive an Islamic political caliphate is a religious obligation for every Muslim. This argument is not based on a sound interpretation of the Koran, the Hadith, and complex Muslim history.
It is also misleading to view Western civilization as the opposite of an Islamic civilization. It is historically untrue to believe that there is one unified Western civilization and that there is only a destructive Western civilization.
There is no such thing as an Islamic civilization without interaction with other civilizations and cultures. There is no such thing as a unique Western civilization without interactions with various cultures. A shared civilization is the rule rather than the exception when Muslims and non-Muslims lived together and protected their common countries.
The caliphate system is more historical than normative; it cannot be seen as a universal practice to be applied today and in the future. A political system has changed and will change according to time and place. To strengthen the ties of the Muslims wherever they may be does not demand such world political unity as caliphate.
It is historically wrong to blame that all rulers in the West were corrupt, despot, and anti-Islamic. Muslim societies had different experiences under non-Muslim rulers. Many Muslims lived peacefully and could be good Muslims under different religious and non-religious rulers. A more objective reading of both Muslim and non-Muslim histories is crucial.
Today the rulers of Muslims as well as others are the presidents, the prime ministers, the governors, the regents, and other titles within different strata. There is no necessary conflict between the Islamic ummah and the nation-state. The meaning of nation varies and changes, but it has a soul or spiritual principle.
It is a community of people who feel that they belong together in the double sense that they share significant elements of a common heritage and that they have a common destiny for the future. The scope of an Islamic ummah can be international, but can also be national, regional, local, and organizational.
The real challenge facing Muslims today is not the unified political leadership such as caliph, let alone with characteristics promoted by scholars unaware of diverse local histories, cultures, and political systems of Muslims, such as in Indonesia.
Strong, clean and good governance, improved education, cleanness and health, law and order, and other more fundamental issues can be achieved within the existing nation-state system. The real challenges for Muslims today include law enforcement without the formalization of sharia, cultural empowerment without changing the basic political system of the Indonesian nation-state. Other challenges are how to strengthen civil society, and the consolidation of civilized democracy with strong and good governance. Muslims today do not need a caliphate to solve their real problems.
Criticisms against the revival of the caliphate are usually attacked as cynical, secular, anti-Islamic, Islamophobic, and given other labels. If this still comes from some people, they need to reread and reexamine their interpretations of the Koran, the Hadith, Muslim history, and world history, by developing more objective and contextual interpretations.
Muhamad Ali, Hawai, Manoa
Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) will host an international caliphate conference on Sunday in Jakarta, inviting speakers from various Islamic organizations. It remains to be seen the extent to which the idea of an international caliphate gains support in Indonesia and the Muslim world, but the revival of the world Islamic caliphate is neither a religious obligation nor a realistic endeavor.
According to the HTI, the caliphate is a form of leadership aimed at unifying all Muslim people around the world, with the objective of implementing Islamic sharia and conducting Islamic proselytizing (da'wa) throughout the world. The Islamic caliphate is a political system with a caliph or imam as the head of government with his deputies and functionaries.
In their reading, the last Islamic caliphate had to end in 1924 when the Ottoman Empire fell during the World War I. For them, the Muslim community today is no longer under the true Islamic leadership that is the caliphate, and they have lived under a secular political order which appears to have failed to meet Islamic needs.
According to them, it is not the existing presidents, monarchs or prime ministers of the nation-states that should lead, serve, and protect the Muslim people. Only one world Islamic leader, a sort of Muslim papacy, should lead Muslims; the caliph has to be trustworthy and should base his policies upon Islamic sharia only.
The goal of this modern caliphate movement remains the unity of both sentiment and politics, which has been a compelling but unrealized dream. Hizbut Tahrir was intellectually founded by Taqiyuddin al-Nabhany (1905-1978) in Lebanon.
He produced a number of works, including Nizham al-Islam (Islamic government) in which he promotes the ideas of Islamic unity, male leadership, of Arabic as the only Islamic language, the punishment for Muslim conversion to other religions.
He also proposed the prohibition of political parties not based on Islam, the unlimited period of the caliph, the definition of jihad as the military force, the shu'ra as the right of Muslims and not the right of non-Muslims, and other ideas.
There is some appeal to unite all Muslims when they feel under siege and they see they are subjugated by "foreign" forces. There is a strong spirit among its leaders and followers to pursue an Islamic order they believe is not being achieved within the existing political order.
The above observation seems to make sense among desperate and utopian Muslim scholars and leaders. However, there is no instruction to create a political caliphate system in the Koran and in the Hadith. The term khalifah in one verse of the Koran denotes vice regent in its general term.
The history of Muslim rulers, imams, sultans, or caliphs, is not a perfect history; Islamic history is not a history without dark sides of its actors; it contains glories and weaknesses, rises and falls, justice and exploitation, successes and crises, integration and conflicts. There is no guarantee that having caliphs solve all problems.
It is misleading to believe that to revive an Islamic political caliphate is a religious obligation for every Muslim. This argument is not based on a sound interpretation of the Koran, the Hadith, and complex Muslim history.
It is also misleading to view Western civilization as the opposite of an Islamic civilization. It is historically untrue to believe that there is one unified Western civilization and that there is only a destructive Western civilization.
There is no such thing as an Islamic civilization without interaction with other civilizations and cultures. There is no such thing as a unique Western civilization without interactions with various cultures. A shared civilization is the rule rather than the exception when Muslims and non-Muslims lived together and protected their common countries.
The caliphate system is more historical than normative; it cannot be seen as a universal practice to be applied today and in the future. A political system has changed and will change according to time and place. To strengthen the ties of the Muslims wherever they may be does not demand such world political unity as caliphate.
It is historically wrong to blame that all rulers in the West were corrupt, despot, and anti-Islamic. Muslim societies had different experiences under non-Muslim rulers. Many Muslims lived peacefully and could be good Muslims under different religious and non-religious rulers. A more objective reading of both Muslim and non-Muslim histories is crucial.
Today the rulers of Muslims as well as others are the presidents, the prime ministers, the governors, the regents, and other titles within different strata. There is no necessary conflict between the Islamic ummah and the nation-state. The meaning of nation varies and changes, but it has a soul or spiritual principle.
It is a community of people who feel that they belong together in the double sense that they share significant elements of a common heritage and that they have a common destiny for the future. The scope of an Islamic ummah can be international, but can also be national, regional, local, and organizational.
The real challenge facing Muslims today is not the unified political leadership such as caliph, let alone with characteristics promoted by scholars unaware of diverse local histories, cultures, and political systems of Muslims, such as in Indonesia.
Strong, clean and good governance, improved education, cleanness and health, law and order, and other more fundamental issues can be achieved within the existing nation-state system. The real challenges for Muslims today include law enforcement without the formalization of sharia, cultural empowerment without changing the basic political system of the Indonesian nation-state. Other challenges are how to strengthen civil society, and the consolidation of civilized democracy with strong and good governance. Muslims today do not need a caliphate to solve their real problems.
Criticisms against the revival of the caliphate are usually attacked as cynical, secular, anti-Islamic, Islamophobic, and given other labels. If this still comes from some people, they need to reread and reexamine their interpretations of the Koran, the Hadith, Muslim history, and world history, by developing more objective and contextual interpretations.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Clash of Civilizations: Real or Imagined?
Clash of civilizations: Real or imagined?
Juwono Sudarsono, the Jakarta Post, June, 23, 2007
I have been asked to address the topic presented for this meeting: "Clash of Civilizations: Real or Imagined?" I have come to the conclusion that the clash is both real as well as imagined, simply because "facts", or reality, are often inseparable from perceptions, or the "imagined". The more so because much of the debate has been exacerbated and distorted by the media.
Western media have used such expressions as "Islamic fundamentalism", "Islamic terrorism", "Islamic jihadists" and even "Islamic fascists". Some television and radio stations, as well as trash tabloids, are prone to using these terms. They feed on one another so that "fact" becomes fiction, and fiction "ignites" facts.
The Muslim world as a whole has suffered from this massive media manipulation. It has given rise to many different sets of perceptions about "clashes within civilizations", including among Muslims in the Middle East, Asia and Southeast Asia. You can also say that it is a clash of ideas about civilizations across all continents.
The notion of a "clash of civilizations" was first publicly raised in 1993 in an article written in Foreign Affairs magazine by Professor Samuel Huntington, and it is useful to remind ourselves of the context of when and why the question of a clash of civilizations was brought up.
First, it appeared in the wake of the "victory" of liberal capitalism over communism, symbolized by the unification of the two Germanys in October 1991 and the dismantling of the Soviet Union in December. The 1991 Gulf War over Kuwait added to the sense of western triumphalism. American hegemony was at its peak.
Second, the crises in the Middle East and the rise of militant Islamist movements against Western interests throughout the world in the mid-1980s began to be perceived by many in the West as "radical Islam" supplanting Communism as the principal challenge in the global ideological contest. Bombings against western interests in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Gulf region resulted in the rise of faith-based neo-conservatism.
Thereafter, the events of Sept. 11, 2001, confirmed the notion in the West that there would be a global contest between the liberal capitalist world led by the United States and the Islamic world led by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda movement.
While there may be superficial truth about this worldwide contest for ideological supremacy, the fact of the matter is that there were even more serious clashes within civilizations, both in "the West" and even more so in the "Muslim world". Within the Western world, there began a series of cleavages between Christian fundamentalists and progressive schools, both in the Protestant as well as Catholic churches, in North America, Europe as well as in Latin America.
In the U.S., the role of the Christian right representing various church denominations became powerful in influencing both domestic and foreign policy debates. From prayer in schools, abortion, gay marriages and stem cell research, to preaching Christian civilization and pushing western-style "democracy" abroad, these self-righteous views influenced the perception that the current American administration has been subtly influenced by the right-wing constituencies.
In Europe, crises of identity among Muslims within each of the European democracies in part have been compounded by worries over illegal immigration.
Contrary to popular opinion both in the West and within the Muslim world itself, there began serious clashes about civilization in the Islamic world itself. While a tiny minority may have been attracted to the notion of a "worldwide caliphate" imbued by Islamic values, as propounded by Osama Bin Laden, there have been different "realities " at the ground level.
Serious differences of the interpretation of Islam in Africa, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia began to proliferate. Differing interpretations of the practical application of Muslim values are present in the Middle East among and within each Arab state, between Arab states and Iran, between the larger Middle East and Turkey, between Muslims in Pakistan and Muslims in India. And indeed, among Muslims within Malaysia and Indonesia.
At the end of the day, it is the clash of local political interests that define and divide the conflict in the Middle East. Much of the root causes of these conflicts ultimately rest on tribal rivalry and clan contests for access to status, group privilege, personal power or a combination of the three.
The Palestine Authority is divided by factionalism between Fatah and Hamas, which, ironically, has little to do with Islamic values. In contemporary Iraq, violent clashes occur between Sunnis and Shiites, as well as among Sunni parochial groups. And then there are the criminals and thugs who profit from incessant chaos. The issue of anti-Americanism is marginal to all of these situations.
Historically, the Muslim world in the Middle East has been marginalized by the structural juxtaposition of three issues:
First, the Palestine-Israel conflict going back to the early 20th century,
Second, the nexus of energy dependence and strategic military projection of the West going back to the 1930s.
Third, the conflicting claims by Islam, Christianity and Judaism over the heritage of the holy sites in the region. There has to date been no international initiative that has been able to sustain the painstaking tribal and clan accords that are imperative to make any progress viable. Thus far, all manner of agreements have unraveled by these micro-dimensions of clashes of civilization.
Indonesia has often been seen as a model "moderate" Muslim country which can play a significant contributing role to the peace process in the Middle East. But we all realize that the realities of the Muslim world in the Middle East are strikingly different from the situation in Southeast Asia.
We must not be too tempted to preach, much less transpose, our version of Islam on the situation in the Arab world in particular and the Middle East in general.
Within Indonesia itself, there is much work to be done in the days, months and years ahead to prevent clashes within our own micro-civilizations at the ground level.
Only then can we be vindicated by our common commitment to not only promote dialogue and cooperation among Indonesians of all faiths, but provide real-world practical solutions on the ground that replenish the true traditions of pluralism, tolerance and openness within the widening embrace of Indonesian-ness. Let us conduct dialogue and work cooperatively. Let us all practice what we preach.
The writer is Indonesia's Defense Minister. This article is based on a presentation given at the launch of the Center for Dialogue and Cooperation among Civilizations, in Jakarta on June 15
Juwono Sudarsono, the Jakarta Post, June, 23, 2007
I have been asked to address the topic presented for this meeting: "Clash of Civilizations: Real or Imagined?" I have come to the conclusion that the clash is both real as well as imagined, simply because "facts", or reality, are often inseparable from perceptions, or the "imagined". The more so because much of the debate has been exacerbated and distorted by the media.
Western media have used such expressions as "Islamic fundamentalism", "Islamic terrorism", "Islamic jihadists" and even "Islamic fascists". Some television and radio stations, as well as trash tabloids, are prone to using these terms. They feed on one another so that "fact" becomes fiction, and fiction "ignites" facts.
The Muslim world as a whole has suffered from this massive media manipulation. It has given rise to many different sets of perceptions about "clashes within civilizations", including among Muslims in the Middle East, Asia and Southeast Asia. You can also say that it is a clash of ideas about civilizations across all continents.
The notion of a "clash of civilizations" was first publicly raised in 1993 in an article written in Foreign Affairs magazine by Professor Samuel Huntington, and it is useful to remind ourselves of the context of when and why the question of a clash of civilizations was brought up.
First, it appeared in the wake of the "victory" of liberal capitalism over communism, symbolized by the unification of the two Germanys in October 1991 and the dismantling of the Soviet Union in December. The 1991 Gulf War over Kuwait added to the sense of western triumphalism. American hegemony was at its peak.
Second, the crises in the Middle East and the rise of militant Islamist movements against Western interests throughout the world in the mid-1980s began to be perceived by many in the West as "radical Islam" supplanting Communism as the principal challenge in the global ideological contest. Bombings against western interests in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Gulf region resulted in the rise of faith-based neo-conservatism.
Thereafter, the events of Sept. 11, 2001, confirmed the notion in the West that there would be a global contest between the liberal capitalist world led by the United States and the Islamic world led by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda movement.
While there may be superficial truth about this worldwide contest for ideological supremacy, the fact of the matter is that there were even more serious clashes within civilizations, both in "the West" and even more so in the "Muslim world". Within the Western world, there began a series of cleavages between Christian fundamentalists and progressive schools, both in the Protestant as well as Catholic churches, in North America, Europe as well as in Latin America.
In the U.S., the role of the Christian right representing various church denominations became powerful in influencing both domestic and foreign policy debates. From prayer in schools, abortion, gay marriages and stem cell research, to preaching Christian civilization and pushing western-style "democracy" abroad, these self-righteous views influenced the perception that the current American administration has been subtly influenced by the right-wing constituencies.
In Europe, crises of identity among Muslims within each of the European democracies in part have been compounded by worries over illegal immigration.
Contrary to popular opinion both in the West and within the Muslim world itself, there began serious clashes about civilization in the Islamic world itself. While a tiny minority may have been attracted to the notion of a "worldwide caliphate" imbued by Islamic values, as propounded by Osama Bin Laden, there have been different "realities " at the ground level.
Serious differences of the interpretation of Islam in Africa, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia began to proliferate. Differing interpretations of the practical application of Muslim values are present in the Middle East among and within each Arab state, between Arab states and Iran, between the larger Middle East and Turkey, between Muslims in Pakistan and Muslims in India. And indeed, among Muslims within Malaysia and Indonesia.
At the end of the day, it is the clash of local political interests that define and divide the conflict in the Middle East. Much of the root causes of these conflicts ultimately rest on tribal rivalry and clan contests for access to status, group privilege, personal power or a combination of the three.
The Palestine Authority is divided by factionalism between Fatah and Hamas, which, ironically, has little to do with Islamic values. In contemporary Iraq, violent clashes occur between Sunnis and Shiites, as well as among Sunni parochial groups. And then there are the criminals and thugs who profit from incessant chaos. The issue of anti-Americanism is marginal to all of these situations.
Historically, the Muslim world in the Middle East has been marginalized by the structural juxtaposition of three issues:
First, the Palestine-Israel conflict going back to the early 20th century,
Second, the nexus of energy dependence and strategic military projection of the West going back to the 1930s.
Third, the conflicting claims by Islam, Christianity and Judaism over the heritage of the holy sites in the region. There has to date been no international initiative that has been able to sustain the painstaking tribal and clan accords that are imperative to make any progress viable. Thus far, all manner of agreements have unraveled by these micro-dimensions of clashes of civilization.
Indonesia has often been seen as a model "moderate" Muslim country which can play a significant contributing role to the peace process in the Middle East. But we all realize that the realities of the Muslim world in the Middle East are strikingly different from the situation in Southeast Asia.
We must not be too tempted to preach, much less transpose, our version of Islam on the situation in the Arab world in particular and the Middle East in general.
Within Indonesia itself, there is much work to be done in the days, months and years ahead to prevent clashes within our own micro-civilizations at the ground level.
Only then can we be vindicated by our common commitment to not only promote dialogue and cooperation among Indonesians of all faiths, but provide real-world practical solutions on the ground that replenish the true traditions of pluralism, tolerance and openness within the widening embrace of Indonesian-ness. Let us conduct dialogue and work cooperatively. Let us all practice what we preach.
The writer is Indonesia's Defense Minister. This article is based on a presentation given at the launch of the Center for Dialogue and Cooperation among Civilizations, in Jakarta on June 15
Some Pressing Interfaith Issues
Asia-Europe interfaith talks urge new attitude
Ati Nurbaiti, The Jakarta Post, Nanjing, China
Participants in the latest round of interfaith talks in the region have spoken of the need to reach out to all communities across the world.
The Nanjing Statement on Interfaith Dialog issued Thursday stressed "the need to create more possibilities and favorable conditions for deepening interfaith and intercultural dialog, especially at the grassroots level."
Religious leaders and observers had separately raised the urgent need for such dialogs to move beyond government officials, religious leaders and academics, although a number of civil society groups already participate in similar events.
Recent interfaith talks have been held in the Philippines and in New Zealand.
The Nanjing talks from June 19 to 21 were a follow up to similar talks held at the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Larnaca, Cyprus in January, and earlier in Bali in 2005.
The statement added that the favorable conditions for more dialogs at the grassroots would need at a national level an "environment of understanding and mutual respect in which all people, be they religious or non-religious, shall be living in peace, practice and communicate their faiths and convictions."
A working group on social cohesion had raised the need to also include people who do not adhere to any faith.
The host country China, which is officially communist, claims among its 1.3 billion population 100 million followers of Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Taoism and Islam, its five state-sanctioned faiths.
Although the constitution protects the right to religious beliefs, members of several unrecognized faiths claim to have been harassed. The most known to the outside world, Falun Gong, is banned.
The assistant minister of foreign affairs, Cui Tian Kai, said the government would "seriously and earnestly implement all our commitments enshrined in the statement", in following up the statement's appeal for Asian and European countries to "respect freedom of religion or belief, diversity in social system..."
However, "as to the evil cult which you referred to, that is of course an anti-humanity and anti-social cult and it runs counter to the tenets of all religions."
"And evil cults like this will have to banned in every country," he said.
Among other issues touched on in the statement were the recognition of the migrant communities that had increased ethnic, religious and cultural diversity in Asian and Europe countries.
The statement raised the need to adopt the best policies possible "to help legal migrants while respecting and preserving as much as possible their original faith and cultural traditions so as to promote social cohesion and peaceful co-existence."
Tension between largely Muslim migrant communities and recipient countries such as the United Kingdom and France has particularly drawn attention in the past years.
Government officials from European countries explained their policies in the talks, with tiny Singapore also sharing its policies of ensuring that representatives of all groups including "hard liners" join top-to-bottom intergroup-level dialogs in each community to overcome any misunderstanding.
The talks were attended by representatives of 35 of the 45 country "partners" of ASEM.
Indonesian moderator Din Syamsuddin, leader of the Muhammadiyah Islamic organization, said to be effective interfaith dialogs needed "a new formula, a new approach".
He said his proposals "to include the excluded" posed a dilemma when referring to groups that are considered "hard-line" or "extremist". Attempts to reach out to these groups must be continued in Indonesia, he said.
One of the Indonesian speakers, Komaruddin Hidayat, said a "more personal approach" would be needed regarding "hard-line groups".
"Who really wants to live a life hunted by the police and isolated by society?" he said. Violent religious expressions were far from sanctioned by communities, he said
Ati Nurbaiti, The Jakarta Post, Nanjing, China
Participants in the latest round of interfaith talks in the region have spoken of the need to reach out to all communities across the world.
The Nanjing Statement on Interfaith Dialog issued Thursday stressed "the need to create more possibilities and favorable conditions for deepening interfaith and intercultural dialog, especially at the grassroots level."
Religious leaders and observers had separately raised the urgent need for such dialogs to move beyond government officials, religious leaders and academics, although a number of civil society groups already participate in similar events.
Recent interfaith talks have been held in the Philippines and in New Zealand.
The Nanjing talks from June 19 to 21 were a follow up to similar talks held at the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Larnaca, Cyprus in January, and earlier in Bali in 2005.
The statement added that the favorable conditions for more dialogs at the grassroots would need at a national level an "environment of understanding and mutual respect in which all people, be they religious or non-religious, shall be living in peace, practice and communicate their faiths and convictions."
A working group on social cohesion had raised the need to also include people who do not adhere to any faith.
The host country China, which is officially communist, claims among its 1.3 billion population 100 million followers of Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Taoism and Islam, its five state-sanctioned faiths.
Although the constitution protects the right to religious beliefs, members of several unrecognized faiths claim to have been harassed. The most known to the outside world, Falun Gong, is banned.
The assistant minister of foreign affairs, Cui Tian Kai, said the government would "seriously and earnestly implement all our commitments enshrined in the statement", in following up the statement's appeal for Asian and European countries to "respect freedom of religion or belief, diversity in social system..."
However, "as to the evil cult which you referred to, that is of course an anti-humanity and anti-social cult and it runs counter to the tenets of all religions."
"And evil cults like this will have to banned in every country," he said.
Among other issues touched on in the statement were the recognition of the migrant communities that had increased ethnic, religious and cultural diversity in Asian and Europe countries.
The statement raised the need to adopt the best policies possible "to help legal migrants while respecting and preserving as much as possible their original faith and cultural traditions so as to promote social cohesion and peaceful co-existence."
Tension between largely Muslim migrant communities and recipient countries such as the United Kingdom and France has particularly drawn attention in the past years.
Government officials from European countries explained their policies in the talks, with tiny Singapore also sharing its policies of ensuring that representatives of all groups including "hard liners" join top-to-bottom intergroup-level dialogs in each community to overcome any misunderstanding.
The talks were attended by representatives of 35 of the 45 country "partners" of ASEM.
Indonesian moderator Din Syamsuddin, leader of the Muhammadiyah Islamic organization, said to be effective interfaith dialogs needed "a new formula, a new approach".
He said his proposals "to include the excluded" posed a dilemma when referring to groups that are considered "hard-line" or "extremist". Attempts to reach out to these groups must be continued in Indonesia, he said.
One of the Indonesian speakers, Komaruddin Hidayat, said a "more personal approach" would be needed regarding "hard-line groups".
"Who really wants to live a life hunted by the police and isolated by society?" he said. Violent religious expressions were far from sanctioned by communities, he said
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Being Instructor at Islam and Southeast Asia Workshop
http://www.punahou.edu/page.cfm?p=560
Global Village Initiative
A Partnership with the Department of Education, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and the Honolulu Academy of Arts
Funded by the Freeman Foundation
2007-2008 Theme: Islam and Southeast Asia
We look forward to Year II of the Global Village Initiative.
Guided by Dr. Barbara Andaya, Director of Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Hawai`i, our Global Village Year II will include:
Annual June Workshop, June 12 - 16, 2007
Four Professional Development Workshops
June Workshop
This one-week workshop will provide rich content on Islam including an historical understanding (spread of Islam, key figures, major belief and value systems), Islam and economic networks, cultural and art traditions, impact of colonialism on the Islamic world, modern Islam in response to internationalism, and human rights issues and what does it mean to be Muslim? We will explore the Islamic diaspora to include Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East, and China.The workshop will be led by Muhamad Ali, doctoral candidate at the University of Hawaii in the Department of History. Born in Indonesia, Muhamad Ali attended Islamic schools his entire life. Before his graduate studies at the University of Hawaii and the East-West Center, he was an Assistant Lecturer in the Faculty of Religious Thought at Syarif Hidayattulah State Islamic University in Jakarta.Joining the teaching faculty will be Amy Landau, Curator for Shangri-La, the Honolulu home of Doris Duke which houses an impressive collection of Islamic art.The one-week workshop will also feature a teacher excursion to Shangri-La and the viewing of the Malaysian film, Sepet, an award winning love story about a Chinese boy and a Malay Muslim girl separated by religious and racial difference.
Download a pdf file of the Workshop Syllabus
Workshop Outcomes
Teachers will work collaboratively to co-create statewide model curriculum. Rubrics will be developed to assess teacher learning before and after workshop.
Extended Learning Opportunities
Four Professional Development workshops will focus on writing curriculum with DOE master teachers and on rubrics for assessment of student learning:
September 22, 2007December 8, 2007March 7, 2008May 3, 2008
PD 3-credit option;
School visits to the Honolulu Academy of Arts to view Islamic art galleries;
Student art work created as an outcome of the Global Village Initiative exhibited at the Honolulu Academy of Arts
Possible cultural performances
Global Village Initiative
A Partnership with the Department of Education, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and the Honolulu Academy of Arts
Funded by the Freeman Foundation
2007-2008 Theme: Islam and Southeast Asia
We look forward to Year II of the Global Village Initiative.
Guided by Dr. Barbara Andaya, Director of Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Hawai`i, our Global Village Year II will include:
Annual June Workshop, June 12 - 16, 2007
Four Professional Development Workshops
June Workshop
This one-week workshop will provide rich content on Islam including an historical understanding (spread of Islam, key figures, major belief and value systems), Islam and economic networks, cultural and art traditions, impact of colonialism on the Islamic world, modern Islam in response to internationalism, and human rights issues and what does it mean to be Muslim? We will explore the Islamic diaspora to include Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East, and China.The workshop will be led by Muhamad Ali, doctoral candidate at the University of Hawaii in the Department of History. Born in Indonesia, Muhamad Ali attended Islamic schools his entire life. Before his graduate studies at the University of Hawaii and the East-West Center, he was an Assistant Lecturer in the Faculty of Religious Thought at Syarif Hidayattulah State Islamic University in Jakarta.Joining the teaching faculty will be Amy Landau, Curator for Shangri-La, the Honolulu home of Doris Duke which houses an impressive collection of Islamic art.The one-week workshop will also feature a teacher excursion to Shangri-La and the viewing of the Malaysian film, Sepet, an award winning love story about a Chinese boy and a Malay Muslim girl separated by religious and racial difference.
Download a pdf file of the Workshop Syllabus
Workshop Outcomes
Teachers will work collaboratively to co-create statewide model curriculum. Rubrics will be developed to assess teacher learning before and after workshop.
Extended Learning Opportunities
Four Professional Development workshops will focus on writing curriculum with DOE master teachers and on rubrics for assessment of student learning:
September 22, 2007December 8, 2007March 7, 2008May 3, 2008
PD 3-credit option;
School visits to the Honolulu Academy of Arts to view Islamic art galleries;
Student art work created as an outcome of the Global Village Initiative exhibited at the Honolulu Academy of Arts
Possible cultural performances
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
