Among others the writer mentioned the right of the state to protect its citizen from the influence of radical ideologies as a basis for the enactment of the Perppu. She highlighted the inadequacy of the currently revised 2016 Terrorism Law in dealing with suspected terrorists.

Read also: Crackdown on radicalism to protect pluralism

I agree that “the threat of extremism is not an illusion,” yet her article essentially fails to capture the difference between the intolerant and radical groups in Indonesia.

Both groups exhibit a set of very narrow interpretations of the scripture, which at times complicates their relationships with other Islamic groups in the country. But the two differ on whether or not they espouse or use violence as a means to achieve their delusional dreams of an Islamic caliphate.

This distinction should not be conflated as it has tremendous consequences for policy choice. The state’s job is to get rid of any groups or individuals who promote violence. But for those who don’t, the state’s approach should be more deliberately engaging.

In advocating their own version of Islamism, Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) never amplifies the use of force as many — including the leader of Nahdatul Ulama (NU) — have affirmed. HTI promotes their ideals peacefully through conferences, publications and big rallies – which reminds us of the methods used by the banned Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).

Popular

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Analysis: Indonesia denies normalization with Israel to enter OECD

Citroen to produce electric cars in Indonesia