Muslim Women Travelling Without Male Kin...

The fact that Indonesian migrant workers, especially women, are abused overseas is a tragedy. However, the fact that some would use this to push an agenda that says Muslim women should not travel far from home without male relatives by their side almost reads like, "well, you travel alone and against the wishes of Allah, then you get what you deserve!"

To then say that you are more interested in protecting the rights of women and calling for a moratorium on the sending of female Indonesian migrant workers abroad rings hollow and is hypocritical. Women do not deserve to be protected just because they are women. Women deserve to be protected because they are human beings. Women need to be protected, like men, because they have a right to earn a living and provide for their families. Women have a right to travel to find those opportunities if those opportunities exist outside of the village that they live in or the country they call home.

The reality here is that the laws exist in the migrant working sphere that should already be sufficient in most cases to protect migrant workers while they are overseas. The problem is one of enforcement on the Indonesian side of the equation. The other reality that most people fail to understand is that in most cases the prevailing laws and regulations of the country where the migrant working is employed are the ones that will operate when crimes are committed. So, an Indonesian migrant worker abused in Saudi Arabia will find that the perpetrators of violence against her are subject to Saudi laws and regulations. This is the nature of sovereignty.

I am certain that Indonesians would not want other nations riding roughshod over their sovereignty and seeking to impose their laws and regulations on them. So, why is it that in this instance Indonesians want their government to impose Indonesian laws extra-territorially on offenses being committed in Saudi Arabia?

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is not certainty of "fixing" the problems of abuse. Once again, the laws and regulations already exist, both in Indonesia and in Saudi Arabia, this is a case of enforcement.

But, alas, I digress. Back to the topic at hand.

My personal view is that where basic human rights and religion clash at the coal-face, then it is the basic human rights that must prevail. The idea that women do not have the intelligence to make decisions for themselves about what is in their best interests bothers me. The vast majority of women and men that I known are more than capable of making decisions for themselves about what is in their respective best interests. So, to suggest that for Indonesian Muslim women the best decision makers are crotchety old men in white robes is something I find offensive.

According to The Jakarta Globe, twelve Muslim organisations have come together and have decided to lobby the government for a moratorium. No news there with respect to the moratorium. The idea that the only way to solve the abuse problem is to ban Indonesian women from going to places like Saudi Arabia is akin to burying one's head in the sand. And, it is self-defeating as Saudi Arabia will just get its domestic servants from other places. It also fails to recognise that a lot of the funding that these Muslim organisations receive actually wends it way to them through processes that include remittances made by Indonesian migrant workers.

The Nahdlatul Ulama position is "let's lobby for a memorandum of understanding" and ban all Indonesians from going to Saudi Arabia until we get one. Although, I am guessing this would exclude Indonesians doing a pilgrimage to a holy place.

The more interesting of The Jakarta Globe quotes comes from Muhammadiyah which said "... under Islam, Muslim women were not allowed to travel far from home without being accompanied by male kin ...". This was then supported by Said Aqil Siradj, Chairman of NU, who said that Islam expressly forbade women from going abroad to seek money unless it was absolutely necessary, “If they just want to gain more wealth overseas, that is not allowed.”

This begs the question, "when is working for money not about generating wealth?" But, probably, more important is who should provide for these Muslim women who are prohibited from earning wealth for wealth's sake when they cannot find employment within Indonesia to support themselves or their families. The government is not able to provide or guarantee this. It is also pretty certain that the twelve Muslim organisations in this pact are not able to provide the same levels of financial security that these migrant workers, particularly women, can find from going overseas. This is definitely a more pressing issue than an MOU, isn't it?

Thus endeth another rant and rail at The RAB Experience.

NU Making Sense...

In contrast to the Indonesia Ulema Council (MUI) the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) makes much better use of common sense when it comes to the relationships between mosque and state. The NU also makes considerably more sense all of the time in contrast to the Islam Defenders' Front (FPI).

It is coming up to that time of year where Muslims begin the fasting month of Ramadan. In essence, Muslims are required to abstain from food and other pleasures during the daylight hours. Generally, in Indonesia, Ramadan also includes restrictions on trading hours for entertainment venues. Some venues are required to close down for the month. Those that do not close down open for shorter periods, and if they serve alcohol then this is done in plastic cups or coffee mugs, anything but bottles.

The Chairperson of the NU, Said Aqil Siradj, has instructed all members of the NU to 'cease and desist' in conducting raids and sweepings of places that open legitimately or who open in breach of the regulations / ordinances governing entertainment venues. Simply, he said something along the lines of, 'it is not out job to enforce the law. It is the job of law enforcement, if their enforcement is weak then we should encourage them to do better.'

Siradj then went onto encourage NU members to follow the lead of the Prophet who was focused on establishing a civilised state. And, the idea of sweepings and other raids on entertainment venues was tantamount to the NU taken matters into their own hands and creating a state within a state because they would be making their own rules.

It is still true that Indonesia is a secular state. And, even though the majority of citizens are Muslim, it must be noted that not all are. The question is one of respect and tolerance. Respect and tolerance are a two way street. You do not get respect because you demand it, you get respect because you earn it.

I would add that he has a number of good points there. It is time that people let law enforcement do the job they are supposed to. It is also time that the people held law enforcement accountable when they failed to do the job that they are tasked to do. However, demanding accountability does not include vigilante justice and taking matters of law and order into your own hands.

Despite the plea of the NU to show restraint, it is almost certain that the FPI will be out at some point during the month conducting raids and sweepings of entertainment venues, and generally terrorising innocent citizens going about their lives.

On a side note, I have always wondered about the wisdom of shutting down entertainment venues. From an economic standpoint, those people who work in them are in effect unemployed for a month. It is not a common practice for these individuals to be drawing a wage when they are not working. The trickle down effects of this must be significant.

The other side note is a simple question, "why force entertainment venues to close during Ramadan?" Muslims know and understand the tenets of their religion. They know what the rules are with respect to Ramadan, particularly what they can and cannot do and when they can and cannot do it. Are entertainment venues closed because they are against Islamic law? Or are they closed because Muslims need a little extra help to avoid temptation? Or are they closed to satisfy some perceived ideal that this is what the community at large wants the government to do?

Anyways, hopefully the members of NU will take heed of the call and focus on the obligations they have with respect to themselves of the month of Ramadan and let law enforcement and God take care of the rest!

(I am serious with the last little bit about God taking care of the rest. If one truly does believe in an all-powerful God, then it would make sense for us not to pre-judge the deity and act in the deity's name against others. For if the deity knows best then they will certainly "take care" of those that please and displease him / her)

MUI Facing Mecca...

One of the primary tenets of the Islamic faith is that no matter where you are in the world you are to face the holy city of Mecca when you pray. So, it is pretty important that you get your directions right. This is very much the case if you are thinking of building a new mosque and are thinking that you will have the mosque pointing in the right direction to start with.

Last time I thought about it, I thought that Mecca was in Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia is generally in a north-west direction from the archipelago that is Indonesia. Nevertheless, in their infinite wisdom the talking heads at the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) issued a fatwa that instructed Indonesian Muslims to face west when praying to Mecca. Now, my guess is that even some rudimentary geographical knowledge might lead one to suspect that facing west from Indonesia is going to have you facing Africa, probably somewhere in Somalia. By all reasonable accounts on the subject, Somalis is quite some distance from where good Muslims want to be facing when in prayer. The MUI issued the misdirected fatwa back in March.

The solution according to Cholil Ridwan of the MUI is that Muslims slightly alter the direction they are facing when they commence prayer. He was also quick to point out that there was no need to knock down any mosques that have been built facing Africa in accordance with the previous fatwa. Ridwan went on to say that it was no big deal in the sense that Allah still would have heard the people's prayers even though they were facing the wrong direction. This might be some comfort to some, but it really is not the point, is it?

The point is that the MUI is supposedly the peak body in Indonesia that has become the self-appointed authority on all things Islam. It is a little disheartening, to say the least, that as a group no-one picked up at the time in March when the original fatwa was issued that the direction was wrong, particularly when the issue is one that is so fundamental to the practice of the religion itself.

What is interesting is that Said Agil Siradj of the Nahdlatul Ulama, Indonesia's largest Muslim organisation, suggested that this fatwa shows that the MUI does not necessarily think these things through thoroughly enough before issuing a fatwa.

The big question here is whether or not the MUI learns anything from this significant error, or whether it is just going to be business as usual with knee-jerk fatwa issuing reactions to whatever the popular issue is of the day.

In any event, it would be reasonable to suggest that the MUI has now got some work to do to restore public confidence (assuming there was any to start with) in their ability to be the arbiters of all things Islam in Indonesia. Let's face it, if they cannot get their directions right then how much confidence can one have in their interpretations of the Koran (al-Qur'an / the Holy Qu'ran)?

Story sourced from here and here.

Compulsory and Optional Voting -- Indonesia

This has appeared previously on en.hukumonline.com - here.

Optional and compulsory voting is always an issue that draws a great deal of commentary. However, when in a country such as Indonesia where voting in a general election is optional, the issuance of a fatwa by the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulema Indonesia / MUI) is certain to ratchet up the rate in which commentators express their views, particularly when the fatwa states that not to vote is haram or prohibited where there are qualified Muslim candidates standing.

Indonesia has traditionally had a sizable number of individuals who choose not to exercise their democratic rights and vote. This group is referred to as the Golongan Putih or Golput group. They are in essence a group that abstains from voting. Whether this is an expression of dissatisfaction with the quality of the candidates being offered or a lack of interest is irrelevant. However, some have suggested that it is likely that somewhere around 40%, if not more, of registered voters will not exercise their right to vote in the 2009 elections.

The Muslim community seems split on whether Islam considers the expression of democratic freedom through a decision not to vote is haram. Abdurraham Wahid, who is affectionately known as Gus Dur and who is a former President of Indonesia and an influential figure in Nahdlatul Ulama (Indonesia’s largest Muslim organization), has been active in campaigning for people to take golput seriously.

On the other hand, the Prosperous Justice Party’s (PKS), Hidayat Nur Wahid, explicitly stated that golput is prohibited under Islam and has pro-actively campaigned for the MUI to issue the fatwa. Perhaps, somewhat cynically, Hidayat believes that the PKS is likely to benefit from those disaffected voters who feel compelled to comply with the fatwa.

The House of Representatives (DPR) have also weighed in on the matter with the Head of the DPR, Agung Laksono, arguing that the right to vote implicitly contains a right not to vote and as such golput cannot be haram. According to Laksono, political parties must take heed of the increasing numbers of golput-ers as a sign that political parties have failed in translating their respective visions into policies and action on the ground that positively affects the lives of their constituents. To his mind, the fatwa is a mistake.

The reaction to the fatwa has been widespread and varied. The National Commission on Human Rights (Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia / Komnas HAM) issued a press release on 2 February 2009 that states simply the fatwa is a violation of people’s human rights to exercise the right not to vote. Ifdhal Kasim, the Head of Komnas HAM, stated that the right to vote or not to vote was a basic human right that cannot and must not be interfered with.

He cites that this is a Constitutional guaranteed right that has been further strengthened with provisions in Law No. 39 of 199 and Law No. 2 of 2005. Ifdhal points out that the government has already ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which means that “societies or government could not limit this right through prohibition, criminalization, or imposing moral sanctions on people who did not use their right to vote”.

The General Election Commission (Komisi Pemilihan Umum / KPU) who is tasked in carrying out the election, according to Ifdhal, is restricted by its mandate in that it does not allow them to issue any regulations which would impinge on the absolute rights of individuals to choose whether they vote or do not vote in a general election. However, the Head of the KPU, Abdul Hafiz Anshary, has been vocal in his support of the fatwa issued by the MUI. He has openly and publicly wondered why the MUI has only acted now on this issue.

According to Hafiz it is the MUI’s responsibility to supervise Muslims in order to see that Muslims exercise their rights in terms of voting for qualified Muslim candidates. In fact, Hafiz was unequivocal in stating that “not only cigarette are haram, but golput also haram.” This is in reference to another MUI fatwa that prohibits cigarette smoking in certain circumstances.

It is worth noting that MUI fatwas are not binding in a legal sense and it remains to be seen whether the fatwa has any moral force in terms of convincing potential golput-ers to vote.

(RAB / SH)

NU Community Founded in the US

Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) has founded a Chapter of NU in the US. The intent is to foster understanding between Islam and the West. This is interesting for me in that the idea of fostering an understanding between Islam and the west presupposes that the problem is one of countries against a religion. I wonder why NU has not been founded to foster an inter-faith dialogue instead. An understanding of Islam by those who are non-Muslim?

However, the founders of the Chapter are Indonesians studying for post-graduate degrees in the US. Among them are Sumanto Al-Qurtubi and Achmad Tohe, both PhD candidates at Boston University, Achmad Munjid, PhD candidate at Temple University, and Ulil Abshar Abdalla, PhD candidate (pictured) at Harvard University.

Fostering relationships is a key to developing understanding. So, here's hoping they achieve what they set out to do.

Ahmadiyah - A Dilemma of Qur'anic Proportions

The Indonesian government is between a rock and a hard place in an area with convoluted laws, regulations, and decrees seemingly in direct opposition to guarantees provided under the Constitution and Pancasila. No where to turn and much to lose!

The simply reality is the government would seem to have the power to ban heretical sects of any religion under the auspices of maintaining public order and harmony, particular where the views of a group where counter to those of the mainstream. Ahmadiyah tends to hold views that are not within the mainstream of Indonesian Islam and perhaps Islam in general and have been deemed blasphemous and heretical.

If Sunday was any indication the ability of hard line groups like the FPI (Islamic Defenders Front) and the HTI (Hizbut Tharir Indonesia) to get thousands out into the street means that the government has one of two choices; be seen to be pandering to hardline views of Islam and ban Ahmadiyah or put in place protections that allow Ahmadiyah to continue unimpeded by those that would seek to destroy it!

This is a dilemma for many reasons. In a cynical sense, there is a general election coming up and being seen as being soft on issues like this will mean that swinging votes will tend to go towards parties seen with strong Islamic credentials. PKS (Prosperous Justice Party) seems more likely to benefit from this shift than any other parties.

Further, the legal implications and the test that this conceivably poses for judicial independence and reform. If the Constitution does provide protections in terms of freedom of religion then this will be a stern test of whether the government is able to live up to this constitutional ideal.

Finally, law and order; is the government going to have the commitment to ensure that law and order is maintained. The tone of the Sunday protest included suggestions that if the government did not dissolve Ahmadiyah by government decision then the protesters would take the law into their own hands and dissolve it themselves. This is a nightmare waiting to happen particularly if the police try and enforce the law and in doing so shoot those seeking to forcibly disband Ahmadiyah contrary to prevail laws and regulations or where police are seen to be complicit in allowing any kind of forcible disbanding to occur.

One of the more novel moments of the protest was a comment to the effect that Ahmadiyah had interfered with the human rights of the protesters by disturbing their tranquility in the practice of their faiths. This is novel for a number of reasons but none more important than highlighting some key points of human rights and democracy, namely: you cannot please all of the people all of the time. But taking this argument to the logical extreme then the practice of any faith that did not concur with the faith as practiced by the FPI and HTI must be deemed to be impinging on their human rights.

The NU (Nahdlatul Ulama) approach is to enter into dialogue with deviant sects, explain the error of that sects ways, and then encourage them back into the fold--back to the true path of God.

This seems destined to get messier before a final resolution is found!