HM Ismail Yusanto: “The Muslims in Indonesia Are Too Tolerant”

Some people claimed that Indonesian Muslims are increasingly becoming intolerant, what is your opinion about this?

The convention of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR II) UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, last May recorded the rising religious intolerance in Indonesia. This accusation is based on a number of cases blown up internationally such as the conflicts of Ahmadiyah, GKI Yasmin, HKBP Ciketing and other cases.

Those allegations are certainly questionable. What are the criteria? If the parameter is the case of Ahmadiyah, then it must be understood that the core of the problem is the blasphemy against Islam by the Ahmadiyah. It won’t be the case if Ahmadiyah is a separate religion in Indonesia. Similarly, the case of GKI Yasmin Bogor, West Java, cannot be used as a measure of intolerance. There are many churches that have been established, and have never been questioned. The case of GKI Yasmin is not about tolerance and freedom of religion, but it is about fraud.

If the parameter is a protest against the concert of Lady Gaga and the feminist Ershad Manji, then no nation in the world wants to have its values destroyed. If the parameter is human rights violation in Papua, then why were the military personnel, the police and the mosque imams, who were killed there, not questioned as human rights violations?

For sure, Indonesia is more tolerant than the Swiss,who do not allow the building of minarets. Indonesia is better than France,which bans niqab or Burqah; and it is also better than Denmark, Sweden and Norway which, like France, ban the niqab and give no respect for religion because of their same-sex marriage laws.
One of the survey agencies released results of their survey  of the increasing intolerance in this country. Your comment, Ustadz?

It is true that the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) on October 21, 2012 released the results of a survey which they think reveals the fact that there is increasing religious intolerance. According to them, the intolerance is shown by the inconvenience of religious differences, sexual orientation differences as well as the attitude against homosexuality and lesbianism.

The conclusion is clearly problematic, since the use of the term of intolerance has also been problematic. The term tolerance or intolerance is not a mere fact, but it contains a good and a bad judgment. ‘Tolerance’ is considered as a good thing, while ‘intolerance’ is considered as a bad thing.

Within this framework, the responses of the respondents in their personal matters such as refusing the family members who marry people of other faiths, disagreeing to change their religions, refusing conversion, refusing the establishment of places of worship of other religions, or disagreeing with those who do not profess any religions are called intolerance.

Similarly, the survey consider the respondents of the survey who refuse to accept Ahmadiyah and the followers of other perverted forms of Islam as being intolerant, as if it is a bad attitude. On the contrary, if they approve the marriage with people from other religions, agree with homosexuality and lesbianism and conversion to other religions, and disagree with the dissolution of Ahmadiyah, then it is a good attitude because those are the acts of tolerance.

In fact, it is a natural thing that the Muslim respondents behave like that. A Muslim is not supposed to accept things that are contrary to the Islamic faith and Syariah such as marrying a non-Muslim man for a woman, or leaving Islam (apostasy). A Muslim should not accept corruption, bribery, conspiracy, practicing homosexuality and lesbianism because those are all munkar(evil) and contrary to Islamic law.

While the Muslim attitude toward the rejection of the house of worships of other religions does not mean to reject the permissibility or freedom of worship for other religions. It is two different things. It is proven by the fact that there are numerous churches in Indonesia, in big cities, churches were built in the road sides in the Dutch colonial era. Those churches have been safe so far. What becomes an issue for Muslims is the illegal construction of the churches, not abide by the laws, and those who make missionary movements or apostasy.

Is it true that the muslims impede the development of churches in Indonesia? In reality, the number of churches continues to grow. According to the Head of the Research Department of Religion, Atho Mudzhar, the growth of churches from 1977 to 2004 have increased more than that of the mosques. Muslim houses of worship during this period increased by only 64.22 %, while Protestants 131.38 %, and Catholics 152 %.

Time Magazine report also showed similar findings. In a report entitled, “Christianity’s Surge in Indonesia,” the magazine suggests that the spirit of Christian worship in Indonesia continues to increase. Not only do the congregations come to the official churches, but they also worship in unofficial churches, such as in hotels and malls, competing with the increased visitors to those places on weekends. In the capital city of Jakarta, a ‘mega church’ is now under construction, a church with a tower rising high into the sky. The tallest statue of Jesus Christ was built in 2007 in the eastern city of Manado in Indonesia. There is also a cable TV Indonesia which broadcasts the propaganda of Christianity24-hour nonstop.

What becomes an issue for the muslim in the case of Ahmadiyah is their claim as a part of the religion of Islam. While in fact the Ahmadiyah degrades the basic principles of Islamic creed such as their recognition of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet after the Prophet Muhammad. It is certain they are not likely to go unpunished. Once again, if Ahmadiyah is a separate religion, it is certainly not questioned by Indonesian Muslims.

So, what is behind the conclusion of the increasing intolerance as mentioned above?

There is a clear tendency from the use of the term ‘intolerance’, including the conclusion of the survey that the basis of the assessment of being tolerance or not is the liberal concept (Human Rights). The correct attitude of the Muslims who hold tightly to their religion is considered intolerance as it is contrary to human rights.

This method is adopted without a purpose. Take a look at the Rand Corporation document entitled ‘Civil Democratic Islam, Partners, Resources and Strategies’, written by Cheryl Benard. It is mentioned that there are some ideas that should be constantly raised to discredit the image of Islam, such as: democracy and human rights, polygamy, criminal sanctions, Islamic justice, the issue of minorities, women, and the permissibility of a husband to beat his wife.

So, it is obvious that it is a package to corner Islam, especially in Indonesia. When you use your common sense, which religion allows the same-sex marriage, lesbianism and homosexuality?

There is an impression that the Muslims are always portrayed as the perpetrators of intolerance while the followers of other religions always become the victims?

That is something we can not understand. In fact, not only are the Muslims in Indonesia are very tolerant, they are even too tolerant. The muslims in Indonesia are so tolerant that the non-Muslims can live and move freely in this country, while developing their religions. Look at how the churchgrowth is even higher than the growth of the mosque. Many of the non-Muslims,  who are only about 15%, now become the members of parliament or officials such as mayors / regents, governors, ministers, central bankers and even military commanders. This only happens in Indonesia. Just compare with other countries where the Muslims are minority. In Singapore, for example, where the number of Muslims is almost the same as the number of the non-Muslims here, they face different treatments from that of the non-Muslims in Indonesia. In the current cabinet, there is only one Muslim minister, not in strategic posts, which is the minister of youth and sports. In the Philippines it is even worse. Since the independence until now, no more than 10 Muslims there who have served in the Senate. Not to mention becomingofficials or ministers. The Muslim minority in southern Thailand or the Rohingya, Burma even until today continue to live under the oppression. Where is the voice of the UN Human Rights Council against all these oppression?

Why are the cases of intolerance against the Muslims not considered intolerance? What is behind this unfair conclusion?

It all shows the weakness and the oppression. Even though we are the majority, the Muslims in Indonesia no longer have anything that can make people respect and be afraid to act arbitrarily.

 

It is really a strange fact. How is it possible that the majority of the people are oppressed by the minority?  As if to say, intolerance may have happened to the majority, but it should never happen to the minority. Such unjust treatment must be very detrimental to the people of this country which are predominantly Muslim.

The weakness is caused by the low quality of the Muslims themselves and the fact that this country is not founded to protect the Muslims. So, when the Muslims are oppressed, the state does not protect them.

Oppression also take place due to the weakness of the officials or the authorities of this country who, in fact, most of them are Muslims. Look at the cases affecting minorities in which the officials are quick to act. In the case of HKBP Ciketing Bekasi a while ago, for example, the President and a number of ministers gave special attention to the pastors and the congregation of HKBP who were hospitalized. Instead, they did not care at all with the Muslims Bekasi residents who were also injured and hospitalized. Even one of the nine residents of Bekasi,involved in the clash, were arrested while being treated at a hospital due to injuries inflicted by the HKBP congregation.

So, does Islam also manage the tolerance issue?

Islam distinguishes between freedom and munkar (evil things). It is allowed to embrace a religion other than Islam, because it is among the freedom guaranteed by Islam. They may also build a place of worship and pray in that place. Muslims should be tolerant of them. However, when they ask the Muslims to embrace their religion (apostasy), or spread the secular ideas such as capitalism, democracy, socialism, and communism, then this is among the munkar which must be prevented. Even if this is called freedom, it is kind of prohibited freedom, such as the prohibition of homosexuality, lesbianism, pornography and spreading the ideologies contrary to the Islamic creed and Islamic law. Muslims, for any reason, including that for human rights’, should not let the munkar take place in society.

Islam also distinguishes between ikhtilaf (difference) and inhiraf (deviation). Ikhtilaf in the cases of  furu'(branches) is the differences in detail of the procedures of prayer or the differences in the thinking of the fact of science (nature) is permissible. Instead, inhiraf in the cases of ushul (basis of religion) as the prophethood of Muhammad PBUH and the thought of the truth of Islam or behavioral aberrations such as lesbianism and homosexuality is not acceptable. So, we should be tolerant in this ikhtilaf, but must be firmly reject the problems of inhiraf.

How does Islam differentiate the position of people of different religions?

Islam and its sharia system was revealed to be a mercy to all mankind, both the Muslim and the non-Muslim. In the Islamic system, the non-Muslim citizens are called ahl-dhimmi. They are treated the same as Muslims. Their rights to keep their religion is guaranteed, including the freedom of worship. They should not be forced to follow the procedures of worship in Islam as they are now forcing the Muslims to follow their religious ceremonies.
Regarding the protection of ahl-dhimma, it is explained by the Prophet. “Whoever kills mu’ahid (the non-believer who is granted the pledge of the protection by the Muslims) without any acceptable reason shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance can be smelled from the distance of forty years of traveling.” (HR Ahmad).

 

According to Imam Qarafi, “Muslims have a responsibility towards the ahludz-dhimma to help, fulfill the needs of the poor, feed the hungry, provide the clothes, treat them well, and even forgive the mistakes of their neighbours …”

With regard to the situation of the non-Muslims in Islamic societies, TW Arnold wrote in his book, The Preaching of Islam, “…the treatment of their Christian subjects by the Ottoman emperors-at least for two centuries after their conquest of Greece-exhibits a toleration such as was at that time quite unknown in the rest of Europe...”[]RZ