Yet more controversial news regarding the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) has surfaced. Several regional chairmen of MUI branches called for a ban on the movie 2012, the Hollywood blockbuster about doomsday occurring in December 2012 (The Jakarta Post, Nov. 18, 2009). They argued that 2012 would only imbue Muslims with negative teaching counter to Islamic teaching.
Therefore they recommended the government ban the movie. Not surprisingly, this statement received a gamut of responses. As we can see easily on the Internet, most people disagree with the MUI by stating that is inappropriate for the council to issue such a claim and forbid people from watching the movie. Some even speak harshly, judging the MUI's act as silly and irrational. Even though this is not an edict or recommendation, only a media statement from its chairmen, people still responded disapprovingly and rejected the argument.
It is interesting to see how the MUI condemns all and sundry so easily. This is not the first controversial stance taken by the MUI. Throughout the year, we have heard so much about them and their acts, from edicts concerning vote abstention to edicts outlawing begging on the streets of the capital.
However, these knee-jerk reactions by the MUI seem to be ineffective in convincing people. The response of the people is mostly the same. They ignore the edicts or statements. Many of them argue that it would be better for the MUI to issue an edict outlawing corruption, or even regarding the judicial corruption that has come to the public fore recently in the antigraft commission saga.
This fact, when people start to ignore the MUI and even criticize their notions, implies a shift in terms of the position of the clerics among the Indonesian people. Before, mostly in the Soeharto era, clerics were among the most prominent stakeholders in society. Geertz called them cultural brokers (1960). By this, he explained that clerics (he used the term Kiai) stood guard over the crucial junctures of synapses of relationships that connect the local system to the larger whole.
This function emerged at that time because most of society was not well educated yet. Most people were illiterate and lived in rural areas. The central position of the clerics among the people put them in an important role, especially with regard to interpreting information from the outside world. In this situation, the people relied upon the authority of the clerics to decide what was appropriate and what was not. Not only were the clerics relied upon by the people in terms of religious matters, but also on social and political issues.
Their second function was born from the strong restriction of the Soeharto regime on how much information could reach the people. This policy was created by the government to attain national stability without any opposition. Furthermore, the MUI as a government institution was in support of this policy and once again clerics became the cultural brokers for the government's interests. The indication can be seen in several MUI edicts and recommendations that authenticated Soeharto policy.
Nonetheless, this condition changed after Soeharto's fall in 1998. The government was not strong enough compared to previously during the authoritarian regime of Soeharto. The public arena was opened and freedom of speech was guaranteed. The number of people who received an education increased. As a result, they are now able to read and obtain more and more knowledge. On the other hand, the role of the media, which was restricted under the Soeharto regime, is now more accessible. And with the widespread reach of the Internet, people can access any information they want. It can be said that no one is able to restrict any information reaching the people.
Moreover, this changing situation looks set to influence the role of clerics as cultural brokers. People no longer believe they need brokers to interpret information. We can see this trend from the public's rejection of the MUI's call for a ban on 2012. This rejection confirms that the people are now smart enough, especially in deciding what is right and what is wrong, including in religious matters.
For them, 2012 is not a big deal that can undermine their faith. It is just mindless entertainment that is forgotten after the movie finishes. And for my own experience after watching the movie, it is not centered on the Mayan doomsday prophecy; it is just a visual effects show, just as any other Hollywood movies that display visual effects, such as Armageddon in 1998 or Transformers in 2007.
The writer is a graduate of IAIN Surabaya and a master's degree student at Leiden University, the Netherlands.
| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|