RADIKALISME SUDAH KUNO
jaman perang dingin, 2 adidaya berhadap-hadapan
radikalisme kiri yaitu komunis
radikalisme kanan yaitu kapitalis
komunis takluk
berarti RADIKALISME pun BISA TAKLUK
tapi radikalisme kanan masih bertahan
lalu muncul lah radikalisme AGAMA
yang sebenarnya SAMA KANANNYA dengan radikalisme kapitalis
perang SUPREMASI KEUNGGULAN RADIKALISME KANAN masih berlangsung
namun AMAT SULIT BAGI RADIKALISME AGAMA karena AGAMA BUKAN PANGLIMA KEHIDUPAN GLOBAL saat ini
keunggulan RADIKALISME KAPITALIS pun SEBENARNYA MULAI LUNTUR
saat 2 radikalisme terakhir ini sedang berkelahi, maka muncul MODERASI KESEJAHTERAAN globalisasi
arus modal mengalir ke negara2 yang SEDANG BERUBAH STATUS MENJADI MAJU
ini sebuah persimpangan jalan bagi KELANGSUNGAN GLOBALISASI
radikalisme sudah sampai ke ujungnya, mari BERUBAH menuju MODERASI KESEJAHTERAAN GLOBAL
SYDNEY, May 19, 2011 (AFP)
Indonesian jails often act as incubators of terrorism and fail to stamp out violent jihadist beliefs, a study said Thursday, warning of a growing threat from "freelance terrorists".
The findings of "Jihadists in Jail", a year-long research project by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, is based on unprecedented interviews with 33 men convicted on terrorism charges by Indonesian courts.
They were spoken to in four prisons in Jakarta, Solo, Surabaya and Semarang and the study included former senior members of the Jemaah Islamiyah terror network and others associated with groups such as KOMPAK and Ring Banten.
The report's author, former Australian government intelligence analyst Dr Carl Ungerer, told national broadcaster ABC a group of hardcore jihadis were preparing to leave Indonesian jails over the next 18 months.
Some of them said they would bomb Western targets on their release.
"Several of the men we interviewed hold this view. One of them said to us directly that if he was released from prison today, he would bomb the US embassy tomorrow," he said.
Over the last decade, around 600 people have been arrested on terrorism charges in Indonesia, the report said. Many have been set free and not re-offended, but others have.
"Recidivism remains a genuine concern," said the report, adding that it was questionable whether Jakarta has learned any lessons from holding dangerous extremists.
"Not only is the further radicalisation of terrorist convicts in prison an issue, but the potential radicalisation of the inmate population and the prison officers is a problem as well," it said.
The report pointed to terror convicts frequently being placed in the same prison block and being allowed to mingle freely.
"This has helped expand their personal networks with the militant circle," it said.
"The men said they had the opportunity to meet individuals whom they wouldn't have otherwise met because of the small cell structures and the high level of secrecy surrounding their activities.
"These interactions allowed many of them to better understand their specific roles in the organisation and the broader structure of terrorist organisations."
In Cipinang prison in Jakarta, interviewees said convicted terrorists ganged up to form "shadow governments" to run the jails, with their reputations as fearless fighters gaining them respect.
"They use the time (in jail) to reflect on their past activities in order to find ways to better perform their jihad duties," it said.
A key concern was the use of prison mosques, which it said were places jihadists used to preach their gospel and attract new members.
Ungerer added that the men questioned said they no longer needed the backing of a large terror organisation like the now defunct Jemaah Islamiyah, which orchestrated the Bali bombing in 2002 that killed more than 200 people.
A growing number now call themselves freelance terrorists, willing to try smaller, more random attacks.
"We're no longer dealing with organisations or organisational hubs, we're dealing with individuals, some call them lone wolves, some call them freelancers," said Ungerer, who has researched Indonesian Islamic terrorism for nearly a decade.
"It means that the threat is not going away, if anything, it's getting worse," he told ABC.
The Institute is an independent, non-partisan organisation that was established by Canberra to "inform the public on strategic and defence issues".
Increased radicalism: The failure of moderate Islam
Al Makin, Yogyakarta | Mon, 05/16/2011 9:33 AM | Opinion
There is moderate Islam like there is moderate Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or even Marxism. However, lately we have been confronted mostly with “radical Islam” or worse “terrorism” in the name of Islam.
Islam, an ancient religion born in the Arabian Peninsula during late antiquity and related to an older Semitic religious tradition to which Judaism and Christianity also belong, has recently become a brand name for various bomb and suicide attacks.
Minority radical Muslims have hijacked Islam to justify their new radical faith. According to those radicals, the current world has deviated from the truth of Islam. Democracy embraced by most nations in the world, including Muslim nations, is seen as incompatible with Islamic dogma.
Moderate Islam, practiced by moderate Muslims around the world for 1,500 centuries, seems to have become extinct. Islam, like any other religion in the world that teaches spirituality and life after death, appears to challenge the current order of the world and to replace it with that of an “imagined” ancient religious dogmatic society.
Islamic radicalism has become a safe haven for those who are dissatisfied with the fast progress of the current world and those who feel marginalized within harsh global competition. This world is then blamed for its disagreement with old concepts of religious norms. In this regard, radical Muslims always pursue a dream to transform current society to the society in the Medina of the seventh century.
Radicals imagine that society in Medina then was the most ideal society in human history and guided by prophetic revelation. This can be achieved with all necessary cost and means. As in communism with a Machiavellian touch, violence is often used as a means to achieve a goal. Whereas Islam is old, radical Islam is a new school of thought emerging in a modern global context.
Islam came to Indonesia in the 13th century, and has become a political power since the 16th century. Indonesian Muslims have practiced Islam for five centuries.
But, they retained their local identity, tradition and culture. Indonesian Muslim women did not wear veils but traditional clothes that varied from one province to another. Indonesian Muslim men wore songkok (a traditional hat) and sarong, not the long gamis and turbans worn by their Middle Eastern counterparts.
Indonesians rarely grew beards, which have now become a sign of piety in certain Islamic circles. Unlike the pants worn by members of the Taliban, their pants are long, reaching their ankles. They eat rice, not khubz (Arab bread). They like sambal, not hummus.
In the current development, Islam in Indonesia has been used to assault people of other faiths, or other Muslims from different schools of thought. The peaceful Islam in Indonesia seems like an old story. This and the next generation will only listen to the story that Muslims used to be neighbors to Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and other people embracing other faiths. Those who still hold the idea of old inter-religious harmony are strangers in their own community.
In the current blatant process of “Talibanization” and “Pakistanization”, Indonesian Islam has turned out to be a new radical religion. Religious attributes, clothes, the increase in the number of mosques, religious expressions in the public domain and various attempts to sell religious sentiments in politics are nothing but indications of the resurgence of Islamic radicalism. There is little room, if any, left for moderation in practicing Islam in this country.
The radical voice has dominated the public, whereas moderate Muslims remain silent, failing to speak out and unwilling to preach their moderate faith and practices. They somehow let the radicals speak on behalf of their religion and watch their actions on TV. They seem to condemn extremism but not harshly enough.
Since I returned to Indonesia from Germany last year, I attended various conferences on Islam and Indonesia, among them were the “Annual Conference on Islamic Studies” held by the Religious Affairs Ministry in Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan, in November 2010; the “International Yale Indonesia Forum” held by the University of Diponegoro in Semarang in July 2010; the “Resurgence of Religions in Southeast Asia” held by Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta in January 2011. Some notable Indonesianists and Islamicists in these conferences came to the conclusion that Islamic radicalism and fundamentalism was on the rise in the archipelago. Indonesian Islam is therefore jeopardized.
Our ears have gotten used to hearing bombs, which have indeed already penetrated Indonesian Islam’s dictionary – three bombs disguised in books, a suicide bomb in Cirebon, a bomb attempt found near a gas pipeline close to a Catholic church in Tangerang and perhaps many more to come.
If these bomb threats on behalf of Islam continue uninterrupted, “Islam” and “bomb” will be tied together more tightly. As soon as the word Islam is pronounced, our imagination will be drawn to the idea of a “dangerous explosion”.
What is so shocking is that few students from the State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah in Jakarta – where the ideas of notable liberal Muslim scholars such as Nurcholish Madjid, Harun Nasution, Azyumardi Azra and many others have incubated – were involved in the recent wave of radicalism.
On the other hand, NU (Nahdlatul Ulama) and Muhammadiyah, two major Islamic organizations that should serve as pillars for moderate Islam in Indonesia, have failed to “delegitimize” Islamic radicalism. Worse still, radical ideas have penetrated the two organizations.
Some leaders and young members of the two organizations demonstrate their radical views publicly. They support the FPI’s (Islam Defenders Front) threatening actions and denounce their own fellows accused of embracing liberal stances.
It is uncertain whether the leaders of the two organizations just enjoy the support of radical members for political benefit or if they do not care about the latest developments within their organizations. It is indeed dangerous if these religious leaders prioritize their personal agendas of political pragmatism while neglecting the broader nation’s interest.
Bear in mind that there is no remedy for Islamic radicalism coming from outside the Muslim community, particularly one’s with alien power, using unfamiliar languages. Any attempt to cure the radical virus from outside Islam will likely be doomed to failure. Power outside Islam is regarded as alien, the enemy of Islam. Bans on the total veil (burqa) in France, for instance, will become a legitimate reason for radical Muslims to denounce the hegemony of the West with which Muslim progressive intellectuals are often associated.
Indeed, NU, Muhammadiyah, madrasah (Islamic schools), pesantren (traditional Islamic boarding schools) and Islamic institutes and universities spread across Indonesia should play a greater role in curbing the quick expansion of radicalism. Particularly the hearts and minds of the young generation should be shielded from any dangerous radical seduction.
These Islamic institutions, supported by the government, should shoulder the task. It is better now than too late, before a religious edict of prohibition of becoming a moderate Muslim is issued by the MUI (Indonesian Ulema Council), and another bomb is placed in front of your office’s door.
Islamic radicalism has become a safe haven for those who are dissatisfied with the fast progress of the current world and those who feel marginalized within harsh global competition
The writer is a lecturer at Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University
in Yogyakarta.
Islamic parties in the hands of the ideologues
Khairil Azhar, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Fri, 05/13/2011 9:37 AM | Opinion
A | A | A |
“Why do you work among the radicals?” a colleague asked me after I told him that since August 2011 I had been working for an Islamic school which is said to be “managed by radical Muslims”.
But I answered, “What’s wrong with being radical? A liberal is also a radical since he stands on an extreme position of the continuum.”
And many of the teachers I work with are supporters of a leading Islamic party called “radical” by those who are not members. They know that I graduated from an Islamic state university where many reformists have been born, such as the late Nurcholish Madjid, Musdah Mulia etcetera.
To my surprise, I haven’t found any problems. They even can accept the way I express some things, which is more open and straightforward than others usually are.
If I lead a congregational prayer, they join the religious service without reservations. If I read the Koran loudly, they listen to me and smile. We can hold a debate in which we sharply criticize one another about certain Islamic teachings but we then sit at a round table having lunch and laugh.
I can without a doubt tell you that they are kind, warm and highly respectful people with knowledge and skills (ahl al-‘ilm). They are well-educated and can be categorized as a part of the Indonesian middle class.
Most of them are hard-workers, and, for in performing religious-related activities they are extraordinary. One more thing, they are able to live simply; a rare quality amid today’s living styles, as something taken consciously and with perseverance.
Perhaps, that’s why the late Nurcholish frankly admitted that Islamic party PKS was a party with great potential.
Unfortunately, however, there are ideologues too, a small number of people with practically no ability to make decisions and disseminate selective religious teachings.
They are the masters of the puppets but not the target of critical edicts. Theirs is a world of commoditizing followers and engineering stories.
To explain this phenomenon, let’s start with the ma’sum concept, that a religious leader, with his presumed knowledge and qualities is convinced he is protected from making mistakes or doing bad deeds.
Ma’sum itself is usually used to refer to the prophets or God’s angels, and is something conceived as unreachable by any ordinary person.
With this more or less superiority in their hands, religious leaders of an Islamic party, who are usually positioned on the shari’a (religious advisory) board or are top executives, possess abundant power to orchestrate most things.
Fortunately for them this assumed legitimacy might make it easier for them to make applicative decisions on all levels as well as advance their individual agendas.
This structure then potentially creates a great wall of anti-criticism and, to a significant extent, allows the process of making a cult icon out of a religious leader.
At this juncture, despite claims of democratic decision-making within a party, democratization might only become a commoditized symbol with all of its derivatives and features.
Meanwhile, Islamic parties’ ideologues cannot be separated from what we might call the Middle East mind-set — that there are links of ideological thought and influence (or at least inspiration).
Beside many of Indonesian potential youths who study there from time to time, these links are also cemented by donations in the form of zakat, Islamic obligatory alms, or in any other kind of gifts derived from the abundance of petrodollars in the Middle East’s rich countries.
There are possibly no special direct “ideological offers” following the alms. But such cash-flow means so much for an imaging process and the possibility of copying and pasting what is enacted there, in the dominant countries in the Middle East.
An Islamic party activist told me that his party routinely received this kind of cash flow. That money might not be spent on the party itself since something like zakat in Islamic teachings must be used properly for the needy or social aims.
Yet, for instance, the petrodollars left-over can build schools and mosques, which nevertheless contribute to the way that party is comprehended by many Muslims, and therefore is included in its religious teachings which at times are harmful for democracy or social harmony.
For the ideologues themselves, in their reasoning process in the orchestra, there is a melee based on the feeling that Muslims are being suppressed or alienated by the current Indonesian political system.
Muslims as the majority, therefore, must be able to obtain the biggest portion of the pie, including the right to ratify something like shari’a law more symbolically.
However, the incessant fraud in the Middle East have not encouraged them to reassess their ideological reasoning models both on social and political utopia.
There is still a strong tendency to indulge in the glorification of many things that originate from the Middle East, and promote them as better than the more harmonious local traditions.
This situation makes my fellow teachers look so inopportune given that they never change their opinions despite their right to choose what they desire.
The writer is an associate researcher at Paramadina Foundation.
Sri Yunanto: Deradikalisasi Salah Bisa Picu Radikalisme Baru
Nurvita Indarini - detikNews
Jakarta - Deradikalisasi menjadi program penting bagi para terpidana teroris maupun bagi pihak lain yang ditengarai berpikiran radikal. Sayangnya deradikalisasi di Indonesia dinilai belum terlalu tepat sasaran. Soal deradikalisasi ini memang harus hati-hati. Kalau deradikalisasi salah justru bisa memicu radikalisme.
Terkait deradikalisasi dan terorisme di Indonesia menjadi bahan penelitian Dr Carl Ungerer. Peneliti dari Australian Strategic Policy Institute itu menyebut, 30 persen napi teroris di Indonesia tidak mempan deradikalisasi. Akibatnya beberapa napi teroris masih berniat melakukan teror setelah bebas dari penjara.
Dosen Pemikiran dan Gerakan Politik Islam, Program Sarjana dan Pasca Sarjana Ilmu Politik, Universitas Indonesia, Sri Yunanto, mengatakan, temuan Ungerer masuk akal. Sebab deradikalisasi yang selama ini dilakukan masih sporadis.
"Deradikalisasi yang sudah berjalan ini masih banyak kelemahan walaupun tidak bisa dikatakan tidak ada manfaatnya. Kelemahanannya antara lain karena dilakukan sporadis dan tidak terintegrasi," ujar Yunanto.
Berikut ini wawancara detikcom dengan pria yang juga aktif di Institute for Defense, Security and Peace Studies (IDSPS) ini, Jumat (20/5/2011):
Terkait penelitian Carl Ungerer, bagaimana Anda melihat deradikalisasi yang telah dilakukan di Indonesia?
Kita harus melihat deradikalisasi yang sudah berjalan dan yang akan berjalan. Kalau yang sudah berjalan ini masih banyak kelemahan walaupun tidak bisa dikatakan tidak ada manfaatnya. Kelemahanannya antara lain karena dilakukan sporadis dan tidak terintegrasi. Siapa yang melakukan tidak jelas. Ini sebelum ada Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Teror (BNPT).
Dulu memang ada Desk Koordinasi Pemberantasan Terorisme (DKPT) namun tidak bisa menjangkau keseluruhan proses deradikalisasi. Program ini mencakup berbagai aspek, sosial, ekonomi, ideologi dan lainnya yang belum terstruktur dengan baik. Apakah sudah ada kurikulum untuk mengkonter paham radikal.
Memang banyak juga orang yang menulis tentang pengkonteran paham radikal, namun sporadis, tersebar di mana-mana. Untuk upaya deradikalisasi ini banyak yang melakukan seperti Kementerian Agama, Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI) dan juga ada yang dari kepolisian. Namun evaluasi sangat minim, sehingga tidak tahu apa yang mau ditingkatkan.
Terpidana teroris ditengarai dapat menyebar paham dari dalam penjara. Komentar Anda?
Sistem di penjara belum membedakan teroris. Padahal klasifikasi terpidana di penjara seharusnya bukan hanya seperti kriminal berat dan narkotika. Untuk terorisme, level teroris itu sebenarnya beda. Padahal kan ada teroris yang merupakan pelaku penyebar ideologi, pembantu, pemasok logistik dna sebagainya. Nah mereka ini ibaratnya dimasukkan jadi satu ke dalam satu keranjang, sehingga terpidana teroris yang berbeda level ini bisa berinteraksi.
Yang radikalnya 10 persen bisa meningkat karena bersentuhan dengan ideolognya. Bisa jadi orang yang dulunya menyembunyikan Noordin M Top malah jadi pengganti Noordin di lapangan.
Jadi deradikalisasi kelompok tertentu beda dengan kelompok lainnya?
Belum ada pemetaan tentang paham radikal ini. Ini belum mengarah ke sini. Meradikalisasi orang-orang yang pernah bergabung dengan NII tentu beda dengan lainnya. Saya rasa banyak soal dalam deradikalisasi, menyangkut sasaran dan aktor yang belum tersusun dengan baik.
Deradikalisasi dengan aspek ekonomi ini penting juga mengingat banyak orang yang tidak punya pekerjaan layak lantas bergabung dengan kelompok radikal. Atau saat terpidana keluar penjara, mereka tidak punya pekerjaan yang layak. Untuk ini perlu menggandeng banyak pihak, misalnya saja UMKM ikut juga, bank ikut juga. Program deradikalisasi di Arab Saudi dilakukan dengan melibatkan banyak kalangan.
Integrasi sosial juga harus dilakukan karena orang-orang radikal yang biasanya eksklusif harus bisa masuk ke kalangan moderat. Nah, untuk ini bisa dengan menggandeng Ditjen Bimas Islam dan ormas yang ada. Perlu juga pendekatan persuasif, dengan mengikutsertakan peran perguruan tinggi.
Selepas terpidana teroris ini kembali ke masyarakat, radikalisme bisa kambuh lagi?
Di luar, pendukung ideologi ini tidak hilang. Yang keluar dari penjara juga bisa jadi tidak mengakui kesalahannya, masih berpegang pada pemikirannya yang radikal. Kita tidak cukup melakukan evaluasi, sehingga tidak ada kontrol pada mereka yang sudah keluar penjara. Kita tidak tahu kegiatannya apa.
Kelompok radikal ini berbeda-beda. Ada grup yang menargetkan pengeboman fasilitas asing dan ada juga yang targetnya masyarakat sipil. Juga ada yang menekankan kegiatannya di daerah konflik. Kelompok-kelompok ini tampaknya tidak ada hubungan, tapi tidak menutup kemungkinan akan ketemu karena ada kerjaan bersama.
Jadi deradikalisasi yang Anda lihat sekarang ini memang belum tepat sasaran?
Masih belum. Masih sporadis dan belum terintegrasi. Meski sudah ada manfaatnya. Tapi manfaat ini jika dibandingkan dengan penyakitnya, masih gede penyakitnya. Saya rasa negara kita ini masih sering ketinggalan dengan teroris. Sudah ada pengeboman, ada kekerasan, tapi pemerintah masih sibuk dengan urusan birokrasi yang ruwet.
Pemicu radikalisme apa saja?
Selain tidak diberi kesempatan melihat ajaran lainnya, penyebabnya memang tumpang tindih. Ada yang karena kebencian pada AS, bisa karena adanya latar belakang faktor ekonomi. Kesenjangan ekonomi membuat sekelompok orang tidak senang dengan kelompok tertentu karena sektor informal jauh dari tangan negara.
Lalu ada orang yang anti hermeneutik (penafsiran) di mana mereka membaca apa adanya suatu ajaran. Padahal tidak bisa langsung begitu, melainkan ada penafsiran, sejarah dan pandangan yang harus dipertimbangkan.
Keberhasilan atau kegagalan mengubah keyakinan dalam bentuk reinterpretasi reorientasi, reedukasi paham dan sikap radikal ditentukan oleh beberapa faktor seperti materi yang akan disosialisakan, cara atau saluran yang digunakan, aktor yang akan melakukan program deradikalisasi dan harapan yang realistis.
Seharusnya deradikalisasi bagaimana?
Sebaiknya istilahnya jangan deradikalisasi, dirumuskan lagi istilah yang lebih baik. Karena orang yang disebut radikal juga pasti kan tidak suka. Harus dibuat pemetaan yang jelas, siapa saja, kondisinya bagaimana, dan sebagainya. Ini kan macam-macam, jadi harus jelas. Katakanlah mereka ini sebagai orang sakit, jadi harus ada diagnosis awal yang bagus agar bisa diberi obat yang sesuai.
NII yang serang sana-sini tentu beda dengan kelompok yang mengebom di sana-sini. Penanganannya beda. Media yang dipakai untuk menderadikalisasi apa, lalu siapa saja aktor yang melakukan.
Kemenag, MUI, pemuka agama, UMKM, bank dan lainnya kalau bekerja maka harus dalam payung BNPT. Jangan di bawah polisi, karena kan tugas polisi itu untuk penegakan hukum, penindakan. Pencegahan memang polisi boleh saja bertindak, tapi jangan hanya polisi karena ini bukan tugas utama polisi. Lalu harus ada manajemen, kebijakan, dukungan dana dan indikator sukses yang jelas. Kalau ini dilakukan, saya kira akan lebih baik dari negara lainnya.
Deradikalisasi bisa saja salah?
Bisa saja deradikalisasi salah. Kalau salah, maka ini bisa picu radikalisme baru. Ini betul. Satu orang sudah ditangkap terkait kegiatan radikalisme, namun ternyata masih banyak yang radikal di luar sana. Ketika pemimpinnya ditangkap, ada yang lain yang jadi dendam, dan ini harus diluruskan dengan deradikalisasi.
Dendam ini ada yang jangka pendek dan jangka panjang. Misalnya saja, terpidana mati teroris seperti Imam Samudra dan Amrozi kan punya anak. Nah, ketika anak-anak ini besar jangan sampai menyimpan dendam karena ayahnya dibunuh. Karena itu, mereka harus didekati dan diberi pengertian bahwa ayahnya melakukan ijtihad yang kurang tepat. Nah adik-adik ini harus diurus negara. Lalu ibunya yang belum punya pekerjaan diberi pekerjaan, diberi masukan paham-paham moderat. Kalau ini tidak dilakukan maka bisa menumbuhkan benih radikalisme jangka pendek dan panjang.
Orang yang berpikiran radikal, seradikal apa pun, masih tetap berpeluang untuk diubah?
Sangat bisa. Pemikiran lahir dari argumen dan konteks tertentu. Semua pemikiran ideologis ada pemikiran dan sejarah. Mereka ini biasanya tidak sadar kalau konteks dan sejarah berbeda. Mereka sepertinya tidak memiliki peluang melihat pandangan yang lain. Tidak benar kalau orang yang berpikiran radikal tidak bisa berubah. Deradikalisasi ini bisa berujung baik, tapi kalau tidak dilakukan dengan baik bisa berujung tidak baik.
(vit/nrl)
radikalisme kiri yaitu komunis
radikalisme kanan yaitu kapitalis
komunis takluk
berarti RADIKALISME pun BISA TAKLUK
tapi radikalisme kanan masih bertahan
lalu muncul lah radikalisme AGAMA
yang sebenarnya SAMA KANANNYA dengan radikalisme kapitalis
perang SUPREMASI KEUNGGULAN RADIKALISME KANAN masih berlangsung
namun AMAT SULIT BAGI RADIKALISME AGAMA karena AGAMA BUKAN PANGLIMA KEHIDUPAN GLOBAL saat ini
keunggulan RADIKALISME KAPITALIS pun SEBENARNYA MULAI LUNTUR
saat 2 radikalisme terakhir ini sedang berkelahi, maka muncul MODERASI KESEJAHTERAAN globalisasi
arus modal mengalir ke negara2 yang SEDANG BERUBAH STATUS MENJADI MAJU
ini sebuah persimpangan jalan bagi KELANGSUNGAN GLOBALISASI
radikalisme sudah sampai ke ujungnya, mari BERUBAH menuju MODERASI KESEJAHTERAAN GLOBAL
SYDNEY, May 19, 2011 (AFP)
Indonesian jails often act as incubators of terrorism and fail to stamp out violent jihadist beliefs, a study said Thursday, warning of a growing threat from "freelance terrorists".
The findings of "Jihadists in Jail", a year-long research project by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, is based on unprecedented interviews with 33 men convicted on terrorism charges by Indonesian courts.
They were spoken to in four prisons in Jakarta, Solo, Surabaya and Semarang and the study included former senior members of the Jemaah Islamiyah terror network and others associated with groups such as KOMPAK and Ring Banten.
The report's author, former Australian government intelligence analyst Dr Carl Ungerer, told national broadcaster ABC a group of hardcore jihadis were preparing to leave Indonesian jails over the next 18 months.
Some of them said they would bomb Western targets on their release.
"Several of the men we interviewed hold this view. One of them said to us directly that if he was released from prison today, he would bomb the US embassy tomorrow," he said.
Over the last decade, around 600 people have been arrested on terrorism charges in Indonesia, the report said. Many have been set free and not re-offended, but others have.
"Recidivism remains a genuine concern," said the report, adding that it was questionable whether Jakarta has learned any lessons from holding dangerous extremists.
"Not only is the further radicalisation of terrorist convicts in prison an issue, but the potential radicalisation of the inmate population and the prison officers is a problem as well," it said.
The report pointed to terror convicts frequently being placed in the same prison block and being allowed to mingle freely.
"This has helped expand their personal networks with the militant circle," it said.
"The men said they had the opportunity to meet individuals whom they wouldn't have otherwise met because of the small cell structures and the high level of secrecy surrounding their activities.
"These interactions allowed many of them to better understand their specific roles in the organisation and the broader structure of terrorist organisations."
In Cipinang prison in Jakarta, interviewees said convicted terrorists ganged up to form "shadow governments" to run the jails, with their reputations as fearless fighters gaining them respect.
"They use the time (in jail) to reflect on their past activities in order to find ways to better perform their jihad duties," it said.
A key concern was the use of prison mosques, which it said were places jihadists used to preach their gospel and attract new members.
Ungerer added that the men questioned said they no longer needed the backing of a large terror organisation like the now defunct Jemaah Islamiyah, which orchestrated the Bali bombing in 2002 that killed more than 200 people.
A growing number now call themselves freelance terrorists, willing to try smaller, more random attacks.
"We're no longer dealing with organisations or organisational hubs, we're dealing with individuals, some call them lone wolves, some call them freelancers," said Ungerer, who has researched Indonesian Islamic terrorism for nearly a decade.
"It means that the threat is not going away, if anything, it's getting worse," he told ABC.
The Institute is an independent, non-partisan organisation that was established by Canberra to "inform the public on strategic and defence issues".
Increased radicalism: The failure of moderate Islam
Al Makin, Yogyakarta | Mon, 05/16/2011 9:33 AM | Opinion
There is moderate Islam like there is moderate Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or even Marxism. However, lately we have been confronted mostly with “radical Islam” or worse “terrorism” in the name of Islam.
Islam, an ancient religion born in the Arabian Peninsula during late antiquity and related to an older Semitic religious tradition to which Judaism and Christianity also belong, has recently become a brand name for various bomb and suicide attacks.
Minority radical Muslims have hijacked Islam to justify their new radical faith. According to those radicals, the current world has deviated from the truth of Islam. Democracy embraced by most nations in the world, including Muslim nations, is seen as incompatible with Islamic dogma.
Moderate Islam, practiced by moderate Muslims around the world for 1,500 centuries, seems to have become extinct. Islam, like any other religion in the world that teaches spirituality and life after death, appears to challenge the current order of the world and to replace it with that of an “imagined” ancient religious dogmatic society.
Islamic radicalism has become a safe haven for those who are dissatisfied with the fast progress of the current world and those who feel marginalized within harsh global competition. This world is then blamed for its disagreement with old concepts of religious norms. In this regard, radical Muslims always pursue a dream to transform current society to the society in the Medina of the seventh century.
Radicals imagine that society in Medina then was the most ideal society in human history and guided by prophetic revelation. This can be achieved with all necessary cost and means. As in communism with a Machiavellian touch, violence is often used as a means to achieve a goal. Whereas Islam is old, radical Islam is a new school of thought emerging in a modern global context.
Islam came to Indonesia in the 13th century, and has become a political power since the 16th century. Indonesian Muslims have practiced Islam for five centuries.
But, they retained their local identity, tradition and culture. Indonesian Muslim women did not wear veils but traditional clothes that varied from one province to another. Indonesian Muslim men wore songkok (a traditional hat) and sarong, not the long gamis and turbans worn by their Middle Eastern counterparts.
Indonesians rarely grew beards, which have now become a sign of piety in certain Islamic circles. Unlike the pants worn by members of the Taliban, their pants are long, reaching their ankles. They eat rice, not khubz (Arab bread). They like sambal, not hummus.
In the current development, Islam in Indonesia has been used to assault people of other faiths, or other Muslims from different schools of thought. The peaceful Islam in Indonesia seems like an old story. This and the next generation will only listen to the story that Muslims used to be neighbors to Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and other people embracing other faiths. Those who still hold the idea of old inter-religious harmony are strangers in their own community.
In the current blatant process of “Talibanization” and “Pakistanization”, Indonesian Islam has turned out to be a new radical religion. Religious attributes, clothes, the increase in the number of mosques, religious expressions in the public domain and various attempts to sell religious sentiments in politics are nothing but indications of the resurgence of Islamic radicalism. There is little room, if any, left for moderation in practicing Islam in this country.
The radical voice has dominated the public, whereas moderate Muslims remain silent, failing to speak out and unwilling to preach their moderate faith and practices. They somehow let the radicals speak on behalf of their religion and watch their actions on TV. They seem to condemn extremism but not harshly enough.
Since I returned to Indonesia from Germany last year, I attended various conferences on Islam and Indonesia, among them were the “Annual Conference on Islamic Studies” held by the Religious Affairs Ministry in Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan, in November 2010; the “International Yale Indonesia Forum” held by the University of Diponegoro in Semarang in July 2010; the “Resurgence of Religions in Southeast Asia” held by Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta in January 2011. Some notable Indonesianists and Islamicists in these conferences came to the conclusion that Islamic radicalism and fundamentalism was on the rise in the archipelago. Indonesian Islam is therefore jeopardized.
Our ears have gotten used to hearing bombs, which have indeed already penetrated Indonesian Islam’s dictionary – three bombs disguised in books, a suicide bomb in Cirebon, a bomb attempt found near a gas pipeline close to a Catholic church in Tangerang and perhaps many more to come.
If these bomb threats on behalf of Islam continue uninterrupted, “Islam” and “bomb” will be tied together more tightly. As soon as the word Islam is pronounced, our imagination will be drawn to the idea of a “dangerous explosion”.
What is so shocking is that few students from the State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah in Jakarta – where the ideas of notable liberal Muslim scholars such as Nurcholish Madjid, Harun Nasution, Azyumardi Azra and many others have incubated – were involved in the recent wave of radicalism.
On the other hand, NU (Nahdlatul Ulama) and Muhammadiyah, two major Islamic organizations that should serve as pillars for moderate Islam in Indonesia, have failed to “delegitimize” Islamic radicalism. Worse still, radical ideas have penetrated the two organizations.
Some leaders and young members of the two organizations demonstrate their radical views publicly. They support the FPI’s (Islam Defenders Front) threatening actions and denounce their own fellows accused of embracing liberal stances.
It is uncertain whether the leaders of the two organizations just enjoy the support of radical members for political benefit or if they do not care about the latest developments within their organizations. It is indeed dangerous if these religious leaders prioritize their personal agendas of political pragmatism while neglecting the broader nation’s interest.
Bear in mind that there is no remedy for Islamic radicalism coming from outside the Muslim community, particularly one’s with alien power, using unfamiliar languages. Any attempt to cure the radical virus from outside Islam will likely be doomed to failure. Power outside Islam is regarded as alien, the enemy of Islam. Bans on the total veil (burqa) in France, for instance, will become a legitimate reason for radical Muslims to denounce the hegemony of the West with which Muslim progressive intellectuals are often associated.
Indeed, NU, Muhammadiyah, madrasah (Islamic schools), pesantren (traditional Islamic boarding schools) and Islamic institutes and universities spread across Indonesia should play a greater role in curbing the quick expansion of radicalism. Particularly the hearts and minds of the young generation should be shielded from any dangerous radical seduction.
These Islamic institutions, supported by the government, should shoulder the task. It is better now than too late, before a religious edict of prohibition of becoming a moderate Muslim is issued by the MUI (Indonesian Ulema Council), and another bomb is placed in front of your office’s door.
Islamic radicalism has become a safe haven for those who are dissatisfied with the fast progress of the current world and those who feel marginalized within harsh global competition
The writer is a lecturer at Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University
in Yogyakarta.
Islamic parties in the hands of the ideologues
Khairil Azhar, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Fri, 05/13/2011 9:37 AM | Opinion
A | A | A |
“Why do you work among the radicals?” a colleague asked me after I told him that since August 2011 I had been working for an Islamic school which is said to be “managed by radical Muslims”.
But I answered, “What’s wrong with being radical? A liberal is also a radical since he stands on an extreme position of the continuum.”
And many of the teachers I work with are supporters of a leading Islamic party called “radical” by those who are not members. They know that I graduated from an Islamic state university where many reformists have been born, such as the late Nurcholish Madjid, Musdah Mulia etcetera.
To my surprise, I haven’t found any problems. They even can accept the way I express some things, which is more open and straightforward than others usually are.
If I lead a congregational prayer, they join the religious service without reservations. If I read the Koran loudly, they listen to me and smile. We can hold a debate in which we sharply criticize one another about certain Islamic teachings but we then sit at a round table having lunch and laugh.
I can without a doubt tell you that they are kind, warm and highly respectful people with knowledge and skills (ahl al-‘ilm). They are well-educated and can be categorized as a part of the Indonesian middle class.
Most of them are hard-workers, and, for in performing religious-related activities they are extraordinary. One more thing, they are able to live simply; a rare quality amid today’s living styles, as something taken consciously and with perseverance.
Perhaps, that’s why the late Nurcholish frankly admitted that Islamic party PKS was a party with great potential.
Unfortunately, however, there are ideologues too, a small number of people with practically no ability to make decisions and disseminate selective religious teachings.
They are the masters of the puppets but not the target of critical edicts. Theirs is a world of commoditizing followers and engineering stories.
To explain this phenomenon, let’s start with the ma’sum concept, that a religious leader, with his presumed knowledge and qualities is convinced he is protected from making mistakes or doing bad deeds.
Ma’sum itself is usually used to refer to the prophets or God’s angels, and is something conceived as unreachable by any ordinary person.
With this more or less superiority in their hands, religious leaders of an Islamic party, who are usually positioned on the shari’a (religious advisory) board or are top executives, possess abundant power to orchestrate most things.
Fortunately for them this assumed legitimacy might make it easier for them to make applicative decisions on all levels as well as advance their individual agendas.
This structure then potentially creates a great wall of anti-criticism and, to a significant extent, allows the process of making a cult icon out of a religious leader.
At this juncture, despite claims of democratic decision-making within a party, democratization might only become a commoditized symbol with all of its derivatives and features.
Meanwhile, Islamic parties’ ideologues cannot be separated from what we might call the Middle East mind-set — that there are links of ideological thought and influence (or at least inspiration).
Beside many of Indonesian potential youths who study there from time to time, these links are also cemented by donations in the form of zakat, Islamic obligatory alms, or in any other kind of gifts derived from the abundance of petrodollars in the Middle East’s rich countries.
There are possibly no special direct “ideological offers” following the alms. But such cash-flow means so much for an imaging process and the possibility of copying and pasting what is enacted there, in the dominant countries in the Middle East.
An Islamic party activist told me that his party routinely received this kind of cash flow. That money might not be spent on the party itself since something like zakat in Islamic teachings must be used properly for the needy or social aims.
Yet, for instance, the petrodollars left-over can build schools and mosques, which nevertheless contribute to the way that party is comprehended by many Muslims, and therefore is included in its religious teachings which at times are harmful for democracy or social harmony.
For the ideologues themselves, in their reasoning process in the orchestra, there is a melee based on the feeling that Muslims are being suppressed or alienated by the current Indonesian political system.
Muslims as the majority, therefore, must be able to obtain the biggest portion of the pie, including the right to ratify something like shari’a law more symbolically.
However, the incessant fraud in the Middle East have not encouraged them to reassess their ideological reasoning models both on social and political utopia.
There is still a strong tendency to indulge in the glorification of many things that originate from the Middle East, and promote them as better than the more harmonious local traditions.
This situation makes my fellow teachers look so inopportune given that they never change their opinions despite their right to choose what they desire.
The writer is an associate researcher at Paramadina Foundation.
Sri Yunanto: Deradikalisasi Salah Bisa Picu Radikalisme Baru
Nurvita Indarini - detikNews
Jakarta - Deradikalisasi menjadi program penting bagi para terpidana teroris maupun bagi pihak lain yang ditengarai berpikiran radikal. Sayangnya deradikalisasi di Indonesia dinilai belum terlalu tepat sasaran. Soal deradikalisasi ini memang harus hati-hati. Kalau deradikalisasi salah justru bisa memicu radikalisme.
Terkait deradikalisasi dan terorisme di Indonesia menjadi bahan penelitian Dr Carl Ungerer. Peneliti dari Australian Strategic Policy Institute itu menyebut, 30 persen napi teroris di Indonesia tidak mempan deradikalisasi. Akibatnya beberapa napi teroris masih berniat melakukan teror setelah bebas dari penjara.
Dosen Pemikiran dan Gerakan Politik Islam, Program Sarjana dan Pasca Sarjana Ilmu Politik, Universitas Indonesia, Sri Yunanto, mengatakan, temuan Ungerer masuk akal. Sebab deradikalisasi yang selama ini dilakukan masih sporadis.
"Deradikalisasi yang sudah berjalan ini masih banyak kelemahan walaupun tidak bisa dikatakan tidak ada manfaatnya. Kelemahanannya antara lain karena dilakukan sporadis dan tidak terintegrasi," ujar Yunanto.
Berikut ini wawancara detikcom dengan pria yang juga aktif di Institute for Defense, Security and Peace Studies (IDSPS) ini, Jumat (20/5/2011):
Terkait penelitian Carl Ungerer, bagaimana Anda melihat deradikalisasi yang telah dilakukan di Indonesia?
Kita harus melihat deradikalisasi yang sudah berjalan dan yang akan berjalan. Kalau yang sudah berjalan ini masih banyak kelemahan walaupun tidak bisa dikatakan tidak ada manfaatnya. Kelemahanannya antara lain karena dilakukan sporadis dan tidak terintegrasi. Siapa yang melakukan tidak jelas. Ini sebelum ada Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Teror (BNPT).
Dulu memang ada Desk Koordinasi Pemberantasan Terorisme (DKPT) namun tidak bisa menjangkau keseluruhan proses deradikalisasi. Program ini mencakup berbagai aspek, sosial, ekonomi, ideologi dan lainnya yang belum terstruktur dengan baik. Apakah sudah ada kurikulum untuk mengkonter paham radikal.
Memang banyak juga orang yang menulis tentang pengkonteran paham radikal, namun sporadis, tersebar di mana-mana. Untuk upaya deradikalisasi ini banyak yang melakukan seperti Kementerian Agama, Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI) dan juga ada yang dari kepolisian. Namun evaluasi sangat minim, sehingga tidak tahu apa yang mau ditingkatkan.
Terpidana teroris ditengarai dapat menyebar paham dari dalam penjara. Komentar Anda?
Sistem di penjara belum membedakan teroris. Padahal klasifikasi terpidana di penjara seharusnya bukan hanya seperti kriminal berat dan narkotika. Untuk terorisme, level teroris itu sebenarnya beda. Padahal kan ada teroris yang merupakan pelaku penyebar ideologi, pembantu, pemasok logistik dna sebagainya. Nah mereka ini ibaratnya dimasukkan jadi satu ke dalam satu keranjang, sehingga terpidana teroris yang berbeda level ini bisa berinteraksi.
Yang radikalnya 10 persen bisa meningkat karena bersentuhan dengan ideolognya. Bisa jadi orang yang dulunya menyembunyikan Noordin M Top malah jadi pengganti Noordin di lapangan.
Jadi deradikalisasi kelompok tertentu beda dengan kelompok lainnya?
Belum ada pemetaan tentang paham radikal ini. Ini belum mengarah ke sini. Meradikalisasi orang-orang yang pernah bergabung dengan NII tentu beda dengan lainnya. Saya rasa banyak soal dalam deradikalisasi, menyangkut sasaran dan aktor yang belum tersusun dengan baik.
Deradikalisasi dengan aspek ekonomi ini penting juga mengingat banyak orang yang tidak punya pekerjaan layak lantas bergabung dengan kelompok radikal. Atau saat terpidana keluar penjara, mereka tidak punya pekerjaan yang layak. Untuk ini perlu menggandeng banyak pihak, misalnya saja UMKM ikut juga, bank ikut juga. Program deradikalisasi di Arab Saudi dilakukan dengan melibatkan banyak kalangan.
Integrasi sosial juga harus dilakukan karena orang-orang radikal yang biasanya eksklusif harus bisa masuk ke kalangan moderat. Nah, untuk ini bisa dengan menggandeng Ditjen Bimas Islam dan ormas yang ada. Perlu juga pendekatan persuasif, dengan mengikutsertakan peran perguruan tinggi.
Selepas terpidana teroris ini kembali ke masyarakat, radikalisme bisa kambuh lagi?
Di luar, pendukung ideologi ini tidak hilang. Yang keluar dari penjara juga bisa jadi tidak mengakui kesalahannya, masih berpegang pada pemikirannya yang radikal. Kita tidak cukup melakukan evaluasi, sehingga tidak ada kontrol pada mereka yang sudah keluar penjara. Kita tidak tahu kegiatannya apa.
Kelompok radikal ini berbeda-beda. Ada grup yang menargetkan pengeboman fasilitas asing dan ada juga yang targetnya masyarakat sipil. Juga ada yang menekankan kegiatannya di daerah konflik. Kelompok-kelompok ini tampaknya tidak ada hubungan, tapi tidak menutup kemungkinan akan ketemu karena ada kerjaan bersama.
Jadi deradikalisasi yang Anda lihat sekarang ini memang belum tepat sasaran?
Masih belum. Masih sporadis dan belum terintegrasi. Meski sudah ada manfaatnya. Tapi manfaat ini jika dibandingkan dengan penyakitnya, masih gede penyakitnya. Saya rasa negara kita ini masih sering ketinggalan dengan teroris. Sudah ada pengeboman, ada kekerasan, tapi pemerintah masih sibuk dengan urusan birokrasi yang ruwet.
Pemicu radikalisme apa saja?
Selain tidak diberi kesempatan melihat ajaran lainnya, penyebabnya memang tumpang tindih. Ada yang karena kebencian pada AS, bisa karena adanya latar belakang faktor ekonomi. Kesenjangan ekonomi membuat sekelompok orang tidak senang dengan kelompok tertentu karena sektor informal jauh dari tangan negara.
Lalu ada orang yang anti hermeneutik (penafsiran) di mana mereka membaca apa adanya suatu ajaran. Padahal tidak bisa langsung begitu, melainkan ada penafsiran, sejarah dan pandangan yang harus dipertimbangkan.
Keberhasilan atau kegagalan mengubah keyakinan dalam bentuk reinterpretasi reorientasi, reedukasi paham dan sikap radikal ditentukan oleh beberapa faktor seperti materi yang akan disosialisakan, cara atau saluran yang digunakan, aktor yang akan melakukan program deradikalisasi dan harapan yang realistis.
Seharusnya deradikalisasi bagaimana?
Sebaiknya istilahnya jangan deradikalisasi, dirumuskan lagi istilah yang lebih baik. Karena orang yang disebut radikal juga pasti kan tidak suka. Harus dibuat pemetaan yang jelas, siapa saja, kondisinya bagaimana, dan sebagainya. Ini kan macam-macam, jadi harus jelas. Katakanlah mereka ini sebagai orang sakit, jadi harus ada diagnosis awal yang bagus agar bisa diberi obat yang sesuai.
NII yang serang sana-sini tentu beda dengan kelompok yang mengebom di sana-sini. Penanganannya beda. Media yang dipakai untuk menderadikalisasi apa, lalu siapa saja aktor yang melakukan.
Kemenag, MUI, pemuka agama, UMKM, bank dan lainnya kalau bekerja maka harus dalam payung BNPT. Jangan di bawah polisi, karena kan tugas polisi itu untuk penegakan hukum, penindakan. Pencegahan memang polisi boleh saja bertindak, tapi jangan hanya polisi karena ini bukan tugas utama polisi. Lalu harus ada manajemen, kebijakan, dukungan dana dan indikator sukses yang jelas. Kalau ini dilakukan, saya kira akan lebih baik dari negara lainnya.
Deradikalisasi bisa saja salah?
Bisa saja deradikalisasi salah. Kalau salah, maka ini bisa picu radikalisme baru. Ini betul. Satu orang sudah ditangkap terkait kegiatan radikalisme, namun ternyata masih banyak yang radikal di luar sana. Ketika pemimpinnya ditangkap, ada yang lain yang jadi dendam, dan ini harus diluruskan dengan deradikalisasi.
Dendam ini ada yang jangka pendek dan jangka panjang. Misalnya saja, terpidana mati teroris seperti Imam Samudra dan Amrozi kan punya anak. Nah, ketika anak-anak ini besar jangan sampai menyimpan dendam karena ayahnya dibunuh. Karena itu, mereka harus didekati dan diberi pengertian bahwa ayahnya melakukan ijtihad yang kurang tepat. Nah adik-adik ini harus diurus negara. Lalu ibunya yang belum punya pekerjaan diberi pekerjaan, diberi masukan paham-paham moderat. Kalau ini tidak dilakukan maka bisa menumbuhkan benih radikalisme jangka pendek dan panjang.
Orang yang berpikiran radikal, seradikal apa pun, masih tetap berpeluang untuk diubah?
Sangat bisa. Pemikiran lahir dari argumen dan konteks tertentu. Semua pemikiran ideologis ada pemikiran dan sejarah. Mereka ini biasanya tidak sadar kalau konteks dan sejarah berbeda. Mereka sepertinya tidak memiliki peluang melihat pandangan yang lain. Tidak benar kalau orang yang berpikiran radikal tidak bisa berubah. Deradikalisasi ini bisa berujung baik, tapi kalau tidak dilakukan dengan baik bisa berujung tidak baik.
(vit/nrl)
Komentar
Posting Komentar