Senin, 21 November 2005
Pesantren dan Terorisme
Muhamad Ali
Anjuran jihad global melawan Amerika, sekutunya, dan siapa pun yang tidak sefaham, dengan teror bom, seperti terekam dalam video, menjadi bahan penting dan cambuk bagi pemerintah, ulama, dan masyarakat untuk lebih serius memberantas terorisme. Di dalamnya, terorisme sarat bahasa agama.
Dalam usaha ini, hampir semua pihak sepakat, sistem pesantren sama sekali tidak terkait terorisme. Dulu pesantren hanya terbagi menjadi tradisional dan modern karena beda kurikulum dan metode pendidikan. Pasca-11 September 2001, perang Afganistan, Taliban, dan seterusnya, dunia pendidikan Islam menjadi perhatian dunia. Bom Bali membuat banyak orang menengok sistem pendidikan Islam karena mereka yang diduga dan terbukti terlibat pernah menjadi santri.
Meneliti pesantren
Di Indonesia, ada beberapa pesantren dikenal ekstrem. Wapres dan beberapa cendekiawan berbeda pendapat, apakah beberapa pesantren itu harus ditutup. Wapres Jusuf Kalla mengatakan, ”Di antara 17.000 pesantren, ada satu dua pesantren amat ekstrem dan tidak sesuai ajaran yang diakui ulama-ulama kita. Maka, kita harus teliti dan awasi. Negeri Yaman menutup pesantren yang beraliran keras.”
Prof Azyumardi Azra mendukung wewenang pemerintah untuk meneliti beberapa pesantren yang mengajarkan pemahaman Islam yang sempit dan membenarkan untuk memerangi Muslim yang tak sepaham dan non-Muslim.
Departemen Agama pernah meneliti Pesantren Al-Mukmin Ngruki dan Al-Islam Tenggulun Lamongan tahun 2003. Hasilnya, dua pesantren itu memang mengajarkan salafi (faham kembali ke masa awal Islam), namun tidak ada kesimpulan apakah dua pesantren ini melakukan cuci otak dan mengajarkan terorisme. Beberapa pesantren lain, yang diduga keras, juga perlu diteliti sejauh mana kebenarannya.
Ada beberapa masalah harus dikaji sebelum pemerintah menindak pesantren ekstrem, mengingat begitu kompleksnya hubungan antara dunia pesantren (dan pendidikan secara umum) dan tindak kekerasan yang dilakukan sebagian alumninya.
Bagaimana menentukan ada tidaknya hubungan antara sistem pesantren dan kegiatan teroris beberapa alumninya? Faktor- faktor manakah yang membuat seorang santri atau mantan santri melakukan aksi terorisme? Di mana terjadi proses militanisasi, radikalisasi, militerisasi, dan terorisasi itu?
Proses radikalisasi
Sekadar ilustrasi. Kawan saya yang kini dipenjara karena didakwa terlibat bom Cimanggis berkisah. Sepanjang di pesantren tidak pernah mendengar kata jihad memerangi Barat, non-Muslim, terorisme, bom bunuh diri, dan bahasa kekerasan lain, baik dalam bacaan maupun pengajian-pengajian para ustadz. Saat itu yang diajarkan menjadi Muslim moderat, Mukmin demokrat, dan Muhsin diplomat.
Setelah lulus dari pesantren, teman ini melanjutkan di sekolah bahasa Arab, lalu mulai memisahkan diri. Tampaknya proses radikalisasi dialami saat ke Afganistan dan negara-negara konflik lainnya. Sebagai guru mengaji, dia didapati mengajarkan kekerasan. Sumber-sumber bacaan dan pergaulannya memengaruhi dia memilih ajaran kekerasan.
Meski beberapa orang yang muncul di video itu bukan santri, mereka pernah mengaji, seperti diakui keluarganya. Sebelumnya mereka dikenal sebagai anak muda biasa. Proses radikalisasi, militerisasi pikiran dan tindakan, mungkin terjadi dalam beberapa tahun terakhir melalui proses pergaulan, diisi pengajian tentang dakwah dan jihad sebagai perang melawan bangsa kafir.
Proses radikalisasi pemikiran ini terjadi seiring pengalaman kelompok mereka yang melihat dan mempersepsi ketertindasan, berikut justifikasi teks-teks Al Quran dan hadis yang ditarik sepotong-potong, literal, dan di luar konteks. Proses transmisi keilmuan semacam ini terjadi dalam konteks konflik politik global di Timur Tengah, Afganistan, Irak, Filipina selatan, dan sebagainya.
Meski proses radikalisasi terjadi di luar pesantren, tidak berarti pesantren tidak memiliki potensi pengaruh terhadap ideologi alumninya.
Karena itu, penelitian kembali atas kurikulum, pengajaran, dan jaringan alumni pesantren perlu dilakukan. Sejauh ini, kajian tentang pesantren baru memetakan pesantren menjadi tradisionalis, modernis, tetapi belum secara khusus dan mendalam meneliti keterkaitan pesantren-pesantren sebagai sistem dan kekerasan sebagai ideologi dan tindakan.
Perbedaan dalam wacana keagamaan tidak bisa dikontrol negara. Namun, negara wajib bertindak ketika ada potensi dan aksi yang mengancam keamanan dan ketertiban umum melalui proses hukum yang adil.
Negara juga harus mencegah perkembangan ideologi terorisme, seperti menutup lembaga atau organisasi, ketika terbukti ada keterlibatan dan aksi-aksi kekerasan. Tidak sekadar dugaan ada hubungan antara pesantren tertentu dan keterlibatan alumnusnya dalam terorisme.
Kalangan Muslim mainstream Muhammadiyah, Nahdlatul Ulama, dan lainnya harus terus melakukan dialog dan pertemuan dengan pesantren-pesantren, termasuk beberapa pesantren yang dianggap ekstrem. Dialog bisa mendiskusikan konsep-konsep jihad, kafir, dakwah, akhlak toleransi, moderasi, dan semacamnya dalam suasana kebersamaan dan komitmen membangun umat dan bangsa. Memelajari sejarah dunia, sejarah bangsa, dan sejarah agama-agama juga dapat membantu peserta didik memahami perbedaan secara bijak.
Lebih jauh, pembaruan pesantren harus mendapat perhatian masyarakat. Pembaruan pesantren bukan untuk mengubah jati diri seluruh pesantren menjadi ’modern’, menjadi ’madrasah’, atau menjadi sekadar sejalan dengan segala yang dimaui pemerintah. Tradisi, jati diri, dan independensi pesantren harus dijaga, tetapi adaptasi terhadap hal-hal yang lebih baik dan positif, dalam konteks keagamaan, kebangsaan, dan kemanusiaan, juga perlu dikembangkan dalam bentuk pengembangan sumber daya manusia guru, kurikulum, metodologi, dan fasilitas-fasilitas pendidikannya.
Setiap pesantren dan lembaga pendidikan secara umum memiliki kewajiban untuk terus mencerdaskan, bukan mengerdilkan pikiran dan menerorisasi perilaku anak-anak bangsa.
Muhamad Ali Dosen UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta; Alumnus MSc University of Edinburgh Jurusan Islam dan Politik; Menempuh PhD Sejarah di University of Hawaii at Manoa, AS
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Discounting A Theology of Terror
Working to discount the growing theology of terror
Opinion and Editorial - November 18, 2005
Muhamad Ali
Dr. Azahari is gone, but terrorism neither began with him, nor will it end with his death. The military and political efforts to crush terrorist networks have certainly reduced the terrorist threat, but a more serious systematic intellectual effort to de-legitimize a theology of terror, a worldview which justifies the unjustified killing of innocent people is no less crucial in our attempt to prevent it gaining widespread sympathy and following. In our preaching, teaching, and writing, we have not done enough to de-legitimize terrorism which has made the world a dangerous place to live.
The masterminds must have transmitted their knowledge and skills to new recruits. They have spread their worldview through various means: statements, books, the Internet and mass media. The terrorists may well have sympathizers in every country in the world.
In every religion or ideology radicalization of sacred texts has long existed. In Muslim history, theological prisms were born out of politics with a religious nuance. Khawarij was a splinter group which justified the killing of Muslims who according to them did not obey the law of God. Today's terrorists may be regarded as the khawarij of the early Islamic age.
Each sacred scripture or ideological book can be interpreted in many ways. But this semantic character of multi-interpretability does not mean that those of us who seek a peaceful world are to tolerate the intolerant interpretations of texts. In other words, we should refute the religious arguments of the terrorists -- or whatever they call themselves. It is really not enough to condemn terrorists as "un-Islamic" and leave their discourse publicly unchallenged.
To maintain that Islam allows multi-interpretations should not mean passivity, relativism, or nihilism as if there is no truth at all. To say that Islam is diverse should not mean that we should tolerate particular interpretations which not only denounce other interpretations but also wish to destroy universal humanity.
Muslim scholars now have to be more vocal to state that the terrorists are not martyrs. They should state that the terrorists will not go to heaven as they no doubt claim.
The khawarij-like-terrorists have used particular religious teachings for self-legitimatization, have read world events and legitimized their actions in such a way that they believe only they are genuine religious and only they go to paradise. Their interpretations of jihad, amar ma'ruf nahi munkar, and kufr are highly selective, literal and partial.
The terrorists have militarized the peaceful teachings of Islam. They are absolutist; they believe that their interpretations are the only genuine interpretation of Islam and the others are simply wrong.
Their definition of jihad as a holy war against unbelievers, infidels, and Muslims who do not share their views, should be declared foolish, delusive and false. They are misguided into false consciousness.
Jihad in its defensive meaning can only be carried out under particular conditions (shurut wal arkan), that is, legal conditions with a justified cause. The holy war waged by the terrorists has violated religious teachings by creating widespread destruction of humankind.
The terrorists do not treat the Koran justly and comprehensively. They entirely neglect the Koranic passages that urge the use knowledge and wisdom (hikma), good lessons (mauizha hasana) and better dialog (jadal) in their interaction with other people. The terrorists do not understand the essence of Islam to spread justice (adl), peace (salam), and blessings for the whole mankind and universe (rahmatan lil alamin).
The terrorists repeatedly state that they are waging a holy war against the enemies of Islam, the enemies of God, who have killed the Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They feel they are in a global war and are thus justified to kill any Americans or their allies in any parts of the world. They will wage a war until there is no progeny (fitna), a progeny according to their own definition. They believe they are commanding the good and forbidding the evil. They claim the West is entirely evil. The Arab and other Muslim governments if not infidels are apostates. And only through jihad such a progeny will not prevail. These interpretations are literal, selective, essentialist and dangerous.
Terrorists view the world events, a country, a religion, a people in essentialist ways, in a black and white fashion. They interpret the American presence in Saudi Arabia, the conflicts in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the Philippines, in such a way that all the enemies should be fought against everywhere.
They generalize one moment, one person, one place into the whole moment, all people, and the whole place. They cannot differentiate; they simplify the complex realities. They use myths, perceptions and sentiments, rather than reason which they do not trust. They are against reason and dialog.
They claim to follow the path of the earliest pious Muslims (al-salaf al-shalih), but they have actually followed the radical khawarij path. The Prophet and the earlier pious companions could not possibly justify the killing of innocent people and the waging of war in times of peace. The terrorists are simply misguided in their attempt at using the text and the golden age of Islam for their misreading of today's events, religions, and peoples.
It is not sufficient simply to understand the roots of terrorism. We have to deal with them seriously. The voices that resort to terror, violence, and murder, must be silenced.
Muhamad Ali is an academic staff at the State Islamic University, Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta, and is a PhD candidate in History at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He can be reached at muhali74@hotmail.com
Opinion and Editorial - November 18, 2005
Muhamad Ali
Dr. Azahari is gone, but terrorism neither began with him, nor will it end with his death. The military and political efforts to crush terrorist networks have certainly reduced the terrorist threat, but a more serious systematic intellectual effort to de-legitimize a theology of terror, a worldview which justifies the unjustified killing of innocent people is no less crucial in our attempt to prevent it gaining widespread sympathy and following. In our preaching, teaching, and writing, we have not done enough to de-legitimize terrorism which has made the world a dangerous place to live.
The masterminds must have transmitted their knowledge and skills to new recruits. They have spread their worldview through various means: statements, books, the Internet and mass media. The terrorists may well have sympathizers in every country in the world.
In every religion or ideology radicalization of sacred texts has long existed. In Muslim history, theological prisms were born out of politics with a religious nuance. Khawarij was a splinter group which justified the killing of Muslims who according to them did not obey the law of God. Today's terrorists may be regarded as the khawarij of the early Islamic age.
Each sacred scripture or ideological book can be interpreted in many ways. But this semantic character of multi-interpretability does not mean that those of us who seek a peaceful world are to tolerate the intolerant interpretations of texts. In other words, we should refute the religious arguments of the terrorists -- or whatever they call themselves. It is really not enough to condemn terrorists as "un-Islamic" and leave their discourse publicly unchallenged.
To maintain that Islam allows multi-interpretations should not mean passivity, relativism, or nihilism as if there is no truth at all. To say that Islam is diverse should not mean that we should tolerate particular interpretations which not only denounce other interpretations but also wish to destroy universal humanity.
Muslim scholars now have to be more vocal to state that the terrorists are not martyrs. They should state that the terrorists will not go to heaven as they no doubt claim.
The khawarij-like-terrorists have used particular religious teachings for self-legitimatization, have read world events and legitimized their actions in such a way that they believe only they are genuine religious and only they go to paradise. Their interpretations of jihad, amar ma'ruf nahi munkar, and kufr are highly selective, literal and partial.
The terrorists have militarized the peaceful teachings of Islam. They are absolutist; they believe that their interpretations are the only genuine interpretation of Islam and the others are simply wrong.
Their definition of jihad as a holy war against unbelievers, infidels, and Muslims who do not share their views, should be declared foolish, delusive and false. They are misguided into false consciousness.
Jihad in its defensive meaning can only be carried out under particular conditions (shurut wal arkan), that is, legal conditions with a justified cause. The holy war waged by the terrorists has violated religious teachings by creating widespread destruction of humankind.
The terrorists do not treat the Koran justly and comprehensively. They entirely neglect the Koranic passages that urge the use knowledge and wisdom (hikma), good lessons (mauizha hasana) and better dialog (jadal) in their interaction with other people. The terrorists do not understand the essence of Islam to spread justice (adl), peace (salam), and blessings for the whole mankind and universe (rahmatan lil alamin).
The terrorists repeatedly state that they are waging a holy war against the enemies of Islam, the enemies of God, who have killed the Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They feel they are in a global war and are thus justified to kill any Americans or their allies in any parts of the world. They will wage a war until there is no progeny (fitna), a progeny according to their own definition. They believe they are commanding the good and forbidding the evil. They claim the West is entirely evil. The Arab and other Muslim governments if not infidels are apostates. And only through jihad such a progeny will not prevail. These interpretations are literal, selective, essentialist and dangerous.
Terrorists view the world events, a country, a religion, a people in essentialist ways, in a black and white fashion. They interpret the American presence in Saudi Arabia, the conflicts in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the Philippines, in such a way that all the enemies should be fought against everywhere.
They generalize one moment, one person, one place into the whole moment, all people, and the whole place. They cannot differentiate; they simplify the complex realities. They use myths, perceptions and sentiments, rather than reason which they do not trust. They are against reason and dialog.
They claim to follow the path of the earliest pious Muslims (al-salaf al-shalih), but they have actually followed the radical khawarij path. The Prophet and the earlier pious companions could not possibly justify the killing of innocent people and the waging of war in times of peace. The terrorists are simply misguided in their attempt at using the text and the golden age of Islam for their misreading of today's events, religions, and peoples.
It is not sufficient simply to understand the roots of terrorism. We have to deal with them seriously. The voices that resort to terror, violence, and murder, must be silenced.
Muhamad Ali is an academic staff at the State Islamic University, Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta, and is a PhD candidate in History at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He can be reached at muhali74@hotmail.com
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Friday, July 22, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
