Skip to main content

Extremists in Indonesia, "Christians" and "Muslims"

It's a "Java Malfunction"...but I'm not talking about the computer program that is constantly being used by thousands of websites that are trying to deliver their material in as organized and attractive a way as possible, and not even about coffee gone horrible. After watching this disturbing video on YouTube, I opened my eyes more to the supposedly troubled archipelago that we know as Indonesia, the most populous self-proclaimed Muslim nation. Apparently, from the surface, we see nothing but news of fanatics, bombings, murders, hurricanes... things that make your heart cringe or, in the case of the massacres that have been taking place over the past few decades, ache...

But what is plaguing Java and Indonesia in general? Is it religious conflict in the form of Muslim fanatics vs. Christian fanatics? Is it just a case of hate crimes between religious communities? Could it be ethnic strife? Could the corrupt Indonesian government have a hand in this? Or did it simply incite for such a thing to happen? Or did a colonial power (Netherlands) previously incited these divisions during its colonial reign? All I am aware of is that "Muslims" and "Christians", put so bluntly, are "killing each other". Are they? Or is it a case of extremism in both communities that is causing this strife?

Okay, let's slow down for a sec. I apparently asked more questions than I can answer. But the answer to all these questions is the same if we are to investigate this matter. As per the BBC profile on Indonesia,the country itself
has seen great turmoil in recent years, having faced the Asian financial crisis, the fall of President Suharto after 32 years in office, the first free elections since the 1960s, the loss of East Timor, independence demands from restive provinces, bloody ethnic and religious conflict and a devastating tsunami.
East Timor is a largely Christian island that continuously and fiercely demanded independence from the Indonesian archipelago. However, most of the recent violence has not been reported on East Timor, for it has achieved independence in 1999. We can thus cancel out the possibility of East Timor being involved in this mess.

The Indonesian government is known for its bad human rights record, and the government itself is secular. However, as indicative of this article, it seems that each province in Indonesia is independent and can choose its own laws. That leaves out the government... or does it? Well, not according to this article, but the Human Rights Watch 2002 report on violence in Sulawesi, Poso and Maluka (yes, I know this is an old story, but only recently have I found out about this) claims that the Indonesian military was unable to quell the violence between the Muslims and Christians in these areas. Of course, it's crazy to assume that an inefficient military alone is the cause of such violence.

In the same year, however, we had the 2002 Bali bombings, carried out by "Izlamofashist" terrorists of the Jemaah Islamiya, which indicates that they might have been active in the fights between Muslims and Christians. However, as per a poll conducted (I know polls tend to be faulty), the percentage of Muslims who are willing to conduct such attacks is small, and about the same as the proportions of Christians. Therefore, those who actually commit the attacks are most likely in smaller proportions. Therefore, the answer to the above question is "religious" extremism on the part of those who choose to be extreme.

The solution, as mentioned in the article containing the poll, would be to encourage pluralism and tolerance, and denounce and discourage extremist behavior. We haven't heard news of extremist violence in Indonesia ever since, so I guess the measures being taken against such extremism are working.

Salaam, from Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

On "Leviathan", by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (Part 1: On Man)

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan , or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil,  is a veritable juggernaut (pun intended) of a book. It is Hobbes' magnum opus, having been circulated widely by the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries at a time when England was plunged into civil war. Rather than rebel against the new political order (a war crime according to Hobbes which I will revisit later in this post), Hobbes' central thesis is to submit to the absolute authority of an established commonwealth (preferably, in Hobbes' point of view, a "Christian" one), which he compares to the overwhelming biblical sea monster, the Leviathan. Having just finished reading it, I would like to convey my thoughts on his central themes in as short a post as allowed by the breadth of the knowledge he passed on with this read. For this post, I will stick to part 1 (On Man), and deal with the subsequent parts of the book in later posts. Summary of P...