TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Conservatism and politics of fatwa
The Indonesian Ulema Council’s (MUI) edicts on smoking, yoga and vote abstention have been challenged by many Muslim scholars and leaders, human rights activists and even some local ulema
Change Size
The Indonesian Ulema Council’s (MUI) edicts on smoking, yoga and vote abstention have been challenged by many Muslim scholars and leaders, human rights activists and even some local ulema.
As The Jakarta Post reported, most of them pointed out the edicts are out of date, pointless and counterproductive for the interests of the nation. Moreover, MUI’s edict (fatwa) on vote abstention is seen as enforcing people’s political behavior by using religious justification. This is considered to be against the spirit of human rights and democracy.
Endy M. Bayuni rightly argued that no one, not even the MUI, has the right to force or intimidate people into voting for fear that they will earn God’s wrath (The Jakarta Post, Jan. 1, 2009). Therefore, it is understandable that even Vice President Jusuf Kalla recently also criticized the edict on vote abstention as “extreme” and “not proper” for Indonesian Muslims.
In general, those edicts also demonstrate the MUI’s involvement in practical politics, which is definitely in contradiction with its mission as a religious body. It is important to note that Islam does not recognize the concept of priesthood. Unlike church hierarchy (especially in the Catholic Church), there is no authority, however eminent, that can claim sole right to enunciate any binding opinion for all Muslims. In Islam, a fatwa is a legal opinion issued by an individual or group of ulema who are recognized for their expertise in Islamic law. Muslims are allowed to accept or reject a fatwa depending on their religious thought and rational choice.
Regarding the above-mentioned MUI edicts, some crucial factors need to be taken into consideration.
First, the edicts show the failure of the MUI in bridging religious teaching and modernity. Issuing a fatwa is not a simple task.
Khaled Abu Fadl, professor of Islamic Law at UCLA, California, pointed out that in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh al Islam), anyone or group of ulema who issue edicts must be bound by a heightened level of scrutiny and by the obligation of utmost diligence.
Second, it is crucial to note that there are many requirements to issuing fatwas in the contemporary world. It requires the ulema to have the ability to bridge Islamic legal tradition with modernity. Consequently, it needs more than just knowledge of Islamic law.
Issuing edicts needs not only a highly qualified understanding of Islamic law, but also an accommodation with the spirit of modernity combined with a modern scientific approach and profound research methodology. The MUI should consider this advice in issuing edicts to improve its image and credibility.
Furthermore, the edicts basically represent the growing influence of religious conservatism in this country, particularly of those who are riding “the politics of fatwa”.
The edict on yoga, for instance, is not simply based on suspicion toward the Hindu ritual in this healthy physical and spiritual exercise. This is not only related to religious conservatism per se, but also to the exclusive and intolerant attitudes toward other religions.
We are reminded that the MUI had issued an edict to ban pluralism, secularism, and liberalism in July 2005. In terms of pluralism, it is believed that the spirit behind this edict was based on books, articles and reports provided by conservative ulema and certain militant activists who had joined the MUI board in the last four years.
Indeed, the MUI is currently chaired by moderate and highly respected ulema such as Sahal Mahfudz. However, he is too old and has limited ability to control the political maneuvers of those conservative ulema and militant activists, who often politicize fatwa for the sake of their own religiopolitical interests.
In so doing, they engage and build networks with many Islamic organizations, particularly for mobilizing mass support, carrying out street demonstrations and demanding the government accept their political agenda. The Ahmadiyah case has shown how the MUI was able to pressure the government to accommodate its fatwa and then issue a joint ministerial decree to freeze Ahmadiyah activities.
In fact, MUI itself recognizes the growing influence of its political power. A study by the International Crisis Group last year shows that the growing political influence of MUI was particularly due to the support of militant groups.
Politics of fatwa might benefit political actors, including the government, conservative ulema and political parties. It’s compulsory for civil society movements, rights activists, moderate Muslims and the media to keep a serious eye on MUI’s “fatwa” in years ahead.
The writer is the executive director of the International Center for Islam and Pluralism (ICIP). He obtained his PhD in history and political sociology from the University of Melbourne, Australia in 2005.
