The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Fri, 11/23/2007 11:39 AM | Opinion
Bramantyo Prijosusilo, Ngawi, East Java
Our eccentric ex-president, Abdurrahman ""Gus Dur"" Wahid, recently made a thought-provoking statement in response to the current debate about the death penalty here. The gist of his statement was that from the point of view of humanism, the death penalty is wrong, but from the point of view of religion, it is necessary.
Does this mean that religion and humanism contradict each other on this point? When a contradiction like this happens what should a Muslim do? Should (s)he surrender her humanity to the collectively imagined ""Will of God"" and chose the path religion appears to lead, even though it contradicts her natural, human instincts? Or should (s)he do like the advice of Indonesian Shia and Sufi thinker Jalaludin Rakhmat, that always in times of doubt a Muslim should put humane morals (ahlak) before religious law (fikh)?
A state's decision to legally sanction the killing of its citizens is political. The state's argument supporting the death penalty here is that the death penalty protects the human rights of many whom would have been threatened or abused by the criminal actions of a convict.
For example, smugglers of heroin should be shot by a firing squad because their actions destroy the lives of thousands of addicts and their families. However, if the state so decided, an equally valid path of logic could be produced to condemn the death penalty.
Even in ""clean"" legal systems mistakes are too often made, and Indonesia, with its famous ""court mafia"", is still far from eradicating corruption in the courts. The political decision to keep the death penalty has deep and obvious cultural and religious roots. But while corruption is ingrained in our culture, surely executions are immoral. Even more so if the state assists the crime, by fulfilling the scenarios of jihadi bombers, for example.
The fact that most interpretations of Islam prescribe the death penalty for certain crimes makes those against the death penalty in Indonesia apologetic. It doesn't matter that the crimes punishable by death according to our Criminal Code are different from those punishable by death according to Sharia; if you are against the death penalty you are climbing a slippery slope where you might easily slip and be accused of being anti-sharia.
Much of what is punishable by death according to the traditional and literalist interpretations of Islam, such as apostasy, adultery and gay sex, are not even considered to be crimes by most modern societies. On the other hand, under-age heterosexual sex within a marriage is considered fine and blessed by some Islamic traditions but is a serious crime by modern values.
However, one aspect of sharia in relation to the punishing of murderers by death stands proud as being more advanced than most current legal systems. It is widely accepted that for the crime of murder the punishment is death. Nothing advanced in that, but Islamic tradition goes further. The victim's family is given power in the legal process and has the right to show mercy and receive blood money or even forgive and spare the condemned.
The idea that the families of murder victims are also victims of the murder and have the right to pass punishment or bestow mercy upon the murderer suits my sense of justice better than the idea that victims' families are not important stakeholders and must sit on the side and watch justice unfold without any power to influence the legal process.
The Koran also proclaims that there is more virtue in forgiveness and with that opens the path to healing after the destruction caused by violent crime. Forgiveness offers transcendence to the victims who could just as well demand an eye for an eye.
Traditionally the death penalty in Indonesia was practiced long before the arrival of Islam. In fact the question was not whether or not the death penalty should be given, but in what manner it should be administered. Javanese oral traditions describe many different ways of execution, including public and communal torture, as in the traditional ukum picis, where the condemned is tied to a frame in a public place and passersby are made to incise a cut which the torture master will then rub with chili, salt and lemon.
The families and descendants of a condemned could be further prosecuted just like the families of those accused of being communists by Soeharto's New Order. Historically in Java people were executed by whim of the powerful or by communal decision. The method could be beheading, stoning, drowning, burning, poisoning, lynching and more, just like in Europe in the Dark Ages. The small cultural difference would be that in Java the honored would be executed by the stabbing of a keris, preferably by the king himself.
It has been a long time since a person hanged in Europe and a longer time has passed since a Javanese king stabbed someone to death. Notions of justice, crime and punishment are cultural values that are ever changing, just as are our religious sentiments and ideas.
Muslim interpretations and ideas concerning the Koran and the light of Islam are also constantly changing, developing. The Koran allows slavery and even prescribes how one should treat slaves, yet we have never heard of literalist Muslims campaigning for the re-establishment of the slave trade.
No Muslim publicly calls for the rehabilitation of the international trade of blacks from Africa or the domestic slave market in Batavia and Pasuruan, even though the abolishment of slavery demands a different interpretation of the ""slave"" verses of the Koran, making a literal interpretation impossible as there are literally no more slaves.
In the recent debate here, some Islamic thinkers have come forward to oppose the death penalty. This is a great development. If Islamic thinking begins to support the abolishment of the death penalty it means that one day, legalized state murder, like slavery, might become abhorrent here too.
The writer is a farmer and artist. He can be reached at bramn4bi@yahoo.com.