© Ed Wray/Getty ImagesA Banser instructor announces an afternoon schedule during a rigorous three day induction course for Nahdatul Ulama, Indonesia's largest Muslim organization, on July 23, 2017 in Kebumen, Indonesia.
Indonesia, the world's biggest Muslim-majority country, has a constitution that recognizes other major religions, and practices a syncretic form of Islam that draws on not just the faith's tenets but local spiritual and cultural traditions. As a result, the nation has long been a voice of, and for, moderation in the Islamic world.
Yet Indonesia is not without its
radical elements. Though most are on the fringe, they can add up to a significant number given Indonesia's 260-million population. In the early 2000s, the country was
terrorized by
Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a homegrown extremist organization allied with al-Qaeda. JI's deadliest attack was the
2002 Bali bombing that killed 202 people. While JI has been neutralized, ISIS has claimed responsibility for recent, smaller terrorist incidents in the country and has
inspired some Indonesians to fight in Syria - Indonesians who could pose a threat when they return home. The country has also seen the rise of hate groups that preach intolerance and violence against local religious and ethnic minorities, which include Shia and Ahmadiya Muslims.
Among Indonesia's most influential Islamic leaders is Yahya Cholil Staquf, 51,advocates a modern, moderate Islam. He is general secretary of the Nahdlatul Ulama, which, with about 50 million members, is the country's biggest Muslim organization. Yahya. This interview, notable for Yahya's candor, was
first published on Aug. 19 in German in
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Here are excerpts translated from the original Bahasa Indonesia into English.
Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view?Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.
Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They've appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to "Islamophobia." Or do people want to accuse
me - an Islamic scholar - of being an Islamophobe too?
What basic assumptions within traditional Islam are problematic?The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, the relationship of Muslims with the state, and Muslims' relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they live ...
Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.Perhaps there were reasons for this during the Middle Ages, when the tenets of Islamic orthodoxy were established, but in today's world such a doctrine is unreasonable. To the extent that Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies of the 21st century.
A Western politician would likely be accused of racism for saying what you just said.I'm not saying that Islam is the
only factor causing Muslim minorities in the West to lead a segregated existence, often isolated from society as a whole. There may be other factors on the part of the host nations, such as racism, which exists everywhere in the world. But traditional Islam - which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims - is an important factor.
And Muslims and the state?Within the Islamic tradition, the state is a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims under the rule of one man who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world.
So the call by radicals to establish a caliphate, including by ISIS, is not un-Islamic?No, it is not. [ISIS's] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence ... Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as
shariah.
This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.
How can that be accomplished?Generations ago, we achieved a de facto consensus in Indonesia that Islamic teachings must be contextualized to reflect the ever-changing circumstances of time and place. The majority of Indonesian Muslims were - and I think still are - of the opinion that the various assumptions embedded within Islamic tradition must be viewed within the historical, political and social context of their emergence in the Middle Ages [in the Middle East] and not as absolute injunctions that must dictate Muslims' behavior in the present ... Which ideological opinions are "correct" is not determined solely by reflection and debate. These are struggles [about who and what is recognized as religiously authoritative]. Political elites in Indonesia routinely employ Islam as a weapon to achieve their worldly objectives.
Is it so elsewhere too?Too many Muslims view civilization, and the peaceful co-existence of people of different faiths, as something they must combat. Many Europeans can sense this attitude among Muslims.
There's a growing dissatisfaction in the West with respect to Muslim minorities, a growing fear of Islam. In this sense, some Western friends of mine are "Islamophobic." They're afraid of Islam. To be honest, I understand their fear ... The West cannot force Muslims to adopt a moderate interpretation of Islam. But Western politicians should stop telling us that fundamentalism and violence have nothing to do with traditional Islam. That is simply wrong.
They don't want to foster division in their societies between Muslims and non-Muslims, nor contribute to intolerance against Muslims.
I share this desire - that's a primary reason I'm speaking so frankly. But the approach you describe won't work.
If you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a problem, you can't begin to solve it. One must identify the problem and explicitly state who and what are responsible for it.Who and what are responsible?Over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spent massively to promote their ultra-conservative version of Islam worldwide. After allowing this to go unchallenged for so many decades, the West must finally exert decisive pressure upon the Saudis to cease this behavior ... I admire Western, especially European, politicians. Their thoughts are so wonderfully humanitarian. But we live in a time when you have to think and act realistically.
The last time I was in Brussels I witnessed some Arab, perhaps North African, youth insult and harass a group of policemen. My Belgian friends remarked that such behavior has become an almost everyday occurrence in their country. Why do you allow such behavior? What kind if impression does that make? Europe, and Germany in particular, are accepting massive numbers of refugees. Don't misunderstand me: of course you cannot close your eyes to those in need. But the fact remains that you're taking in millions of refugees about whom you know virtually nothing, except that they come from extremely problematic regions of the world.
I would guess that you and I agree that there is a far right wing in Western societies that would reject even a moderate, contextualized Islam.And there's an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as
de factoproof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.
And how can one say to Muslims that their religion is not good while at the same time giving support to extremists in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria? Afghanistan was a Democratic state when the US decided to strengthen extremists. Syria and Iraq were secular states when the West decided to attack and strengthen extremism. Muslims would easily go ahead, if not the former and the current colonizers and their really bad interference.
I agree that religion is adapted to a certain age when it has come and in the new age it has to be changed. But, in last part of this comment, I will put some of sentences regarding radical Islam there was some warning and some not so radical things. There are many Islamic instructions that give space to those who want a non-radical way. It will also be clear from the citations why the West likes radical Islam.
The West has invested enormous efforts to strengthen extremism. One of the reasons is Britain's difficulty in the war against the Ottoman Empire. Britain assists the Saudi monarchy, which introduces Salafism. Salafism has enabled wars Muslims against Muslims, as Salafis proclaims other Muslims as non-Muslims, and thus as their targets. So the Salafis helped Britain to subdue the Middle East. Today, the West continues to cooperate with Saudi Arabia and the Salafis in the war against Libya and Syria. It should not be forgotten that most victims of extremism are Muslims.
Noam Chomsky: "Like Britain before it, the US has tended to support radical Islam and to oppose secular nationalism, which both imperial states have regarded as more threatening to their goals of domination and control. When secular options are crushed, religious extremism often fills the vacuum. Furthermore, the primary US ally over the years, Saudi Arabia, is the most radical Islamist state in the world and also a missionary state, which uses its vast oil resources to promulgate its extremist Wahabi/Salafi doctrines by establishing schools, mosques, and in other ways, and has also been the primary source for the funding of radical Islamist groups, along with Gulf Emirates - all US allies.It's worth noting that religious fanaticism is spreading in the West as well, as democracy erodes." [Link]
On being asked, "about any regrets having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?"
Brzezinski replied - "What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" (Le Nouvel Observateur, 1998) [Link]
Zbigniew Brzezinski has admitted, “You know, we started helping the rebels, whatever they are, and they’re certainly not fighting for democracy, given their sponsorship, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as far back as early spring of last year, 2012, without saying it publicly.” [Link]
Hillary Clinton: "Let's remember here. The people we are fighting today, we funded twenty years ago and we did it because we were locked in trouble with Soviet Union they invaded Afghanistan and we didn't want to see them controlling central Asia and we went to work. It was president Regan in partnership with congress led by democrat’s who said you know what? Loving! Pretty good idea! Lets deal with the ISI in the Pakistani military lets go recruit Mujahidin, that’s great, lets get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places importing their WAHABI brand of Islam so that we can go to beat the Soviet Union and guess what? They retreated, they lost billion of dollars and it led to the collapse Soviet Union." [Link]
“ISIL is currently the top dog with the most money in the jihadi universe. Siding with them would seem like a rational choice, at least temporarily,” said Bilal Saab, a senior fellow for Middle East Security at the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security. [Link]
“The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime’s superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.” – Ed Husain, Council on Foreign Relations
[Link] [Link]
Thomas L. Friedman: "Trump should want to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But in Syria? Not for free, not now. In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad’s, Iran’s, Hezbollah’s and Russia’s headache — the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan." [Link]
"The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not its destruction. ... Allowing bad guys to kill bad guys sounds very cynical, but it is useful and even moral to do so if it keeps the bad guys busy and less able to harm the good guys. ... Moreover, instability and crises sometimes contain portents of positive change. ... The American administration does not appear capable of recognizing the fact that IS can be a useful tool in undermining Tehran’s ambitious plan for domination of the Middle East."
Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies
[Link]
2007, Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh: "To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."
[Link]
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu: "paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces" [Link]
Wesley Clark: "ISIS got started through funding from our friends and allies, because as people will tell you in the region, if you want somebody who will fight to the death against Hezbollah, you don't put out a recruiting poster and say sign up for us. We will make a better world.
You go after these zealots and you go after these religious fundamentalists. That's who fights Hezbollah. "
[Link]
“In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic State. They don’t have the capabilities that Iran has,” Ya’alon told a conference held by the Institute of National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.
[Link]
The former head of Israel's intelligence agency Mossad defends the country's treatment of al-Nusra Front fighters on the Syrian border. [Link]
"On most occasions, firing comes from regions under the control of the regime. But once the firing came from ISIS positions - and it immediately apologized." Former Defense Minister of Israel Moshe "Bogie" Ya'alon [Link]