Gusdur around the world

A Crisis of Misunderstanding

gusdurworld — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:14:41 +0000

By Kyai Haji Abdurrahman Wahid

Washington, D.C (June 26, 2006) — The world today faces a ‘crisis of misunderstanding’ that threatens all of humanity, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. We cannot afford to continue “business as usual” in the face of the enormous threat posed by religious extremism, terror and the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons in some of the most volatile parts of the world.

Rather, we must set aside our international and partisan differences, and join in a global campaign to marginalize religious extremism and discredit the use of terror worldwide.

All too many Muslims fail to understand Islam, which teaches one to be kind and lenient towards others and to recognize their value systems, by adopting an attitude of tolerance that Islam itself mandates. The essence of Islam is encapsulated in the words of the Koran, “For you, your religion; for me, my religion.” That is the essence of tolerance.

Religious fanatics – either purposely, or out of ignorance – have tried to pervert Islam into a dogma of hatred, intolerance and bloodshed. They justify their brutality with slogans such as “Islam is the solution” or “Islam is above everything else.” They seek to intimidate and subdue all who reject their extremist views, regardless of nationality or religion. While a few may be quick to shed blood themselves, countless others sympathize with their violent actions, or join in the complicity of silence.

This crisis of misunderstanding-of Islam by Muslims themselves-is compounded by the failure of non-Muslims to understand Islam, which prevents them from accurately identifying and cooperating with the majority of well-intentioned Muslims to resist, isolate and discredit extremist ideology.

The crisis thus afflicts Muslims and non-Muslims alike, with tragic consequences. Failure to understand the true nature of Islam permits the continued radicalization of Muslims worldwide, while blinding the rest of humanity to a solution which hides in plain sight.

The most effective way to overcome Islamist extremism is to explain what Islam truly is – tolerant, pluralistic and profoundly concerned about the welfare of all humanity – to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Without that explanation, people will tend to accept the unrefuted extremist view – further radicalizing Muslims, and turning the rest of the world against Islam itself.

Accomplishing this “task of explanation” will require a sustained, global effort in every major field of life, including religion, education, popular culture, government and business. In particular, it will require the mobilization of Muslim leaders throughout the world to promote a pluralistic and tolerant understanding of Islam, at peace with itself and the modern world.

It is a well-known fact among Muslim religious leaders that the majority of Islamist radicals have little or no theological background or training. Their stock in trade is not profound theological reasoning, but rather, a crude and simplistic interpretation of religion, backed by intimidation and violence.

In effect, Islamic fundamentalism is a reaction to the process of globalization, and the perceived threat this poses to the continuation of Islamic belief and traditions.

Attempts to secularize or Westernize the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims will not solve this ideological conflict. In many ways, such attempts merely play into the hands of fundamentalists, who are skilled at cloaking their political agenda in the mantle of religious authenticity and Arab prestige.

To succeed in discrediting religious extremism and terror within the Muslim world, it is thus insufficient to focus merely on strengthening civil society or democracy, while ignoring Islam, as is evident from the triumph of Hamas in recent Palestinian elections, or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Rather, it is necessary to promote a spiritual regeneration within Islam itself, as alien as this may sound to those with Western or secular sensibilities.

Contrary to the radicals’ dogmatic assertions, Islam does indeed possess a venerable tradition of justice and spirituality that is consistent with current Western ideals of human rights and religious freedom. In the words of the Qur’an: “Let there be no compulsion in religion,” (2:256). That, too, is the essence of tolerance, and the essence of Islam itself.

I encourage Muslim leaders throughout the world to reclaim authentic Islam from those who seek to transform it into an instrument of repressive political ideology, and who manipulate its teachings to promote religious extremism and violence.

I also call upon my fellow Muslim leaders to reject and condemn the ideology of hatred, and to provide our followers with a profound and thorough understanding of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance.

Our ultimate goal must be not only to stem the tide of Islamist extremism, but to break its back and destroy the ideology’s viability and appeal in the Muslim world. Accomplishment of this task does not require military force, but rather, the assembly of a global coalition of Muslim opinion-leaders who can marginalize and ultimately discredit the ideology of hatred that underlies and animates terrorism. For in this global conflict, the decisive “battlefield” lies not on some remote desert plateau, but rather on the emotional, intellectual and spiritual planes that constitute Muslims’ view of their own religion.

Our goal must be to illuminate the hearts and minds of humanity, and share a compelling, alternate vision of Islam as a religion of divine love and tolerance, that banishes the fanatical ideology of hatred to the darkness from which it emerged.

Source : http://www.muslimsspeakout.org/events/eventID.16/detail.asp

The Obstacles to Israeli-Palestinian Peace

gusdurworld — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:50:38 +0000

By Abdurrahman WAHID and Abdul A’LA

The prolonged Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a far-reaching impact not only upon the lives of those who dwell in the Holy Land, but upon virtually every nation and community on earth. On a daily basis, self-interested parties are callously manipulating the most basic values of humanity and religion in order to advance their personal or political interests. Sectarianism, violence, arrogance and deception are constantly subverting the fundamental values of life, and turning religious principles upon their heads.

This horrific process demands that every moral human being, religious community and nation throughout the world contemplate this tragedy and offer assistance, however small, to help resolve the profound human crisis in the Holy Land. Peace is both a process and a goal that the world can neither morally nor practically afford to push off into the future yet again.

We must develop and implement concrete strategies to resolve the conflict, while inspiring hope that peace can actually be achieved. The problem is that the various obstacles to peace seem nearly impossible to eliminate. These obstacles are rendered even more severe by the fact that both major parties in the conflict harbor groups absolutely convinced of the correctness of their mutually exclusive views and agendas. Such groups reject not only the rights, but the very existence, of the other side.

The corrosive effect of this phenomenon is the evocation and rationalization of the use of violence, either through terrorism or militarism. Prejudiced views on both sides, not only by those directly engaged in the conflict, but by their allies as well, further stoke the flames of hatred and violence.

These prejudices contaminate public discourse throughout the world, and are constantly exploited by Middle Eastern regimes that fuel anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic emotions for political purposes, while displaying little or no actual concern for the well-being of the Palestinians themselves.

Under such conditions, it is nearly impossible for sincere dialogue even to occur, much less to develop or flourish. Instead, the cycle of violence breeds a hardening of mutual hatred.

The Palestinian side routinely condemns its enemy as a colonial power whose entire population is demonized as “imperialists,” while the Israeli side brands its political opponents as terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers.

For six decades, the peace process has been conducted primarily by self-interested political players who cannot penetrate to the heart of the underlying problems, much less resolve them. This gives rise to deeply cynical views on the part of certain groups on both sides, who view the peace process as absurd, its goals unobtainable, and continued violence better than compromise.

Yet the difficulties that have swamped every Israeli-Palestinian peace process to date do not mean that achieving peace is impossible. Rather, they point to the need for a new and more holistic path to peace in the Middle East. This path would mobilize the populations of Israel and Palestine toward this goal, with the active encouragement and support of the rest of the world.

The December 2007 visit to Israel and Palestine by a group of Indonesian ulama from the world’s two largest Muslim organizations – LibForAll Foundation and the Indonesian Peace Delegation – represents one such effort, and the first step in a larger, systematic process. Conducted under the joint aegis of LibForAll Foundation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, members of the group consistently observed that the silent majorities on both sides of the conflict sincerely desire an end to the cycle of violence, and peace for themselves and their children. This is remarkable, given the decades of incitement to hatred and violence in Palestinian mosques, schools and mass media, and a political culture that eschews compromise.

It is tragic that the voice of the people – full of an honest and sincere longing for peace – should be drowned out by violence and the narrow interests of politicians and extremists on both sides. We have a responsibility to amplify the voices of the innocent who pay with their blood and sorrow the price of others’ ambitions and hatred.

We must also strengthen and facilitate the people’s efforts to pressure their political elites – in a manner that is focused, intense and vocal, yet simultaneously civilized – to create a just and lasting peace.

Palestinians and Israelis need the world’s support to create a new reality, in which the highest values of religion and humanity are restored to their proper dignity. We must also help Muslim populations – not only in Palestine, but throughout the Arab world – to rise to embrace a profoundly spiritual and tolerant understanding of Islam, and a humanistic attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that acknowledges the legacy of suffering on all sides. Such an attitude is a necessary precondition for recognizing Israel’s unique history and right to exist, while truly advancing the interests of Palestinians as well.

Last year’s LibForAll/Indonesian Peace mission to Israel and Palestine was designed to initiate such a process. After the religious leaders who participated returned to Indonesia, they faced intense condemnation from Muslim extremists, who accused them of having betrayed their Palestinian brethren and embarrassed Indonesia’s Muslim community. Yet there is nothing shameful about working to realize the highest values of religion – which God intended to serve as a blessing, and not a curse, to all of humanity.

Although the obstacles to peace in the Holy Land may appear insurmountable, it is the responsibility of religious leaders on all sides to attempt the impossible, and to accept whatever threats, slander and stigma may follow.

published by : Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2008; Page A11

_________

Mr. Wahid is the former president of Indonesia and co-founder of LibForAll Foundation. Mr. A’la is an associate dean of graduate studies at Sunan Ampel Islamic State University in Surabaya, Indonesia.

Leaders of 5 faiths decry violence in name of religion

gusdurworld — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:44:33 +0000

Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Jews meet in Indonesia, where they urge others around the world to practice tolerance.

By K. Connie Kang, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 30, 2007

In a historic action, top leaders of five great religions met this month in Indonesia — home to 200 million Muslims — to condemn violence inflicted in the name of religion.

The leaders representing Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish and Muslim traditions came from five countries and included former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid and Los Angeles Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

The group said in a joint communique that the world’s spiritual leaders have a “special obligation” to denounce “horrific acts” committed in the name of religion. The Los Angeles-based Wiesenthal Center was a co-sponsor of the event.

“If we are honest with ourselves, we have not been up to the challenge,” Cooper said in an interview last week after his return from Indonesia. “Part of it is that we have to get by the [politically correct] and just deal honestly.”

The interfaith meeting was an important step toward that goal, participants said.

In the communique, the religious leaders said: “A blessing to all creation, religion is a constant reminder to humanity of the divine spark in every person. Yet, today the world shudders as horrific acts are justified in the name of religion. All too often, hatred and violence replace peace as religion is manipulated for political purposes.”

They also urged that their counterparts around the world follow their example and commit to mobilizing their communities to “not only respect, but also defend, the rights of others to live and worship differently.”

Political scientist Fred Balitzer, special ambassador to Brunei in the Reagan administration and an attendee at the meeting, called it an “extraordinary achievement.”

“It’s not exactly a Martin Luther King’s letter from Birmingham jail, but it’s kind of like that,” said Balitzer, who for 35 years taught political science at Claremont McKenna College. He referred to the passionate letter in which King called on the nation’s clergy to live out their Christian faith by fighting injustice, “not sit on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities.”

Balitzer said the conference also made other important points: Major Muslim and Jewish leaders met in a Muslim nation to discuss the Holocaust and affirm that it happened. The meeting also showed, he said, that there are “moderate Muslims in the world.”

Meeting organizers said the event was partly aimed at countering a conference backed by the Iranian government last December that questioned the Holocaust. The organizers chose Bali — the scene of nightclub bombings in 2002 that killed more than 200 people — for its symbolism.

Called “Tolerance Between Religions: A Blessing for All Creation,” the event was also sponsored by the LibForAll Foundation, a U.S.-based group that opposes Muslim extremism, and the Wahid Institute, which advocates peaceful Islam. The institute was founded by Indonesia’s Wahid, who led the world’s largest Muslim nation from 1999 to 2001.

Wahid set the tone when he said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was “falsifying history” by claiming that the Holocaust did not happen.

“Although I am a good friend of Ahmadinejad … I have to say that he is wrong,” he said. “I visited the Auschwitz’s Museum of Holocaust and I saw many shoes of the dead people in Auschwitz. Because of this, I believe Holocaust happened.”

Wahid is thought to be the first major Muslim figure to publicly rebuke Ahmadinejad, who has called the Holocaust a myth.

In addition to his presentation, Wahid also co-wrote with Israel Lau, the former chief rabbi of Israel, a Wall Street Journal column in which they denounced the Iranian president and the December conference.

“By denying the events of the past, the deniers are paving the way toward the crimes of the future,” said the piece, which was read in its entirety at the conference. “Last year, Muslims from Nigeria to Lebanon to Pakistan rioted against what they saw as the demonizing of their prophet by Danish cartoonists. In a better world, those same Muslims would be the first to recognize how insulting it is to Jews to have the apocalypse that befell their fathers’ generation belittled and denied.”

Cooper, who moderated the plenary session, praised Wahid for “having the guts” to say what needed to be said.

An interfaith conference may not be news in L.A., he said, but convening one with top leaders in Indonesia and taking on “the most important questions of the day — namely to have religious leaders say that terrorism is a sin” — were significant, he said.

Security was tight, and not everybody who had been invited to participate in the all-day event at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel went.

Lau wanted to attend, but the Indonesian government wouldn’t let him because, as Israel’s former chief rabbi, he carries a diplomatic passport. Indonesia does not recognize Israel.

But Rabbi Daniel Landes of Jerusalem’s Pardes Institute was allowed. He began his presentation with a quote from Psalm 34 in Hebrew:

Which man desires life,

who loves days of seeing good? Guard your tongue from evil

and your lips from speaking deceit.

Presenters also included Hindu leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of India; Buddhist scholar Yoichi Kawada of Japan; Trahjadi Nugroho, president of the Indonesia Pastors’ Assn.; and Father Franz Magnis-Suseno, a Catholic leader in Indonesia.

Also speaking at the meeting were survivors of the Holocaust and terrorist attacks who choked up as they described their suffering to the predominantly Muslim audience.

Sol Teichman, 79, a Holocaust survivor from Los Angeles, tearfully recalled his family’s deportation to the Auschwitz death camp in Poland and their demise in its gas chambers.

But Teichman, who said he was “blessed” with a family of his own after the war, urged survivors of terrorism to “never, never give up hope.”

He was deeply touched when, after his talk, Muslim students asked if they could take a photograph with him, he said in an interview. “Here I am, a Jew. Here is the Muslim,” he said.

For 90% of the people in the room, this was their first encounter with a Jew, let alone a rabbi from Israel, Cooper said. He underscored the importance of having religious leaders gather for such a conference.

“The truth is that we’re in this mess primarily because of religious leaders, and we’re only going to get out of it if we find religious leaders who will have the guts to change this. That’s the bottom line,” Cooper said.

Where do they go from here?

They need to replicate the Bali summit elsewhere, participants said.

“If we wait for governments to do these things, we may be waiting for a very long time,” Balitzer said.

posted by: polkadot and moonbeam on http://tribes.tribe.net/actingonisraelpalestinedivide/thread/d4bb8694-46f2-4c86-b7eb-659b80f36fa5#200d935b-38a3-458f-9d2d-105431cbba58

Islam vs West fake clash, says Wahid

gusdurworld — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:31:51 +0000

By Louise Williams

April 13 2002

Western fears that the world is facing a perilous “clash of civilisations” between Islam and the West are greatly exaggerated, but moderate Muslim leaders must stand up to militants advocating violence in the name of Islam, says the former Indonesian president and Muslim scholar, Abdurrahman Wahid.

In Sydney on a speaking tour, Mr Wahid said the relationship between most of the world’s
1.1 billion Muslims and the West was not one of enmity and violence, despite the war on Islamic terrorism and escalating bloodshed in the Middle East.

A misunderstanding of the teachings of Islam was causing the rise of Islamic militancy.

Mr Wahid, a modern Muslim scholar, argued that the world’s Muslim communities were facing a serious challenge in applying the seventh- and eighth-century teachings of the Koran to the modern world.

The militant Muslims’ literal interpretation of those teachings had led to religious misunderstanding, including the so-called “jihad”, or holy war, movement against the West.

“Islamic militantism is caused by a misunderstanding of religion and a kind of inferiority complex towards Western civilisation,” Mr Wahid said.

He said the weakness of leaders such as the Palestinian President, Yasser Arafat, in facing up to Islamic extremism had exacerbated the conflict in the Middle East. Mr Arafat had allowed “the fanatics to do their own thing”.

He said the government of Indonesia, where the vast majority of the 170 million Muslims were moderates, should also show greater courage in arresting extremists.

Foreign funding for Islamic extremists in Indonesia had been cut off, which could lead, in the short term, to “desperation” and an increase in violence. However, in the long term, their influence would wane.

Mr Wahid said the “clash of civilisations” that many Western commentators saw as the most serious global security threat of the 21st century was a “fake” theory, based on double standards. Any Muslim violence, even stone throwing, was interpreted as a “clash” with the West, while other violence within Western societies was ignored.

“The fact is that hundreds of thousands of Muslims study in Western [educational] institutions – they take from the West, and the West takes from us. To see the relationship as a confrontation between the two [cultures] is a mistake.

“Of course, we do have differences, but differences do not mean enmity and clashes,” he said.

The former Indonesian president’s comments are extremely controversial in the environment of rising Muslim anger against the Israeli assault on the Palestinian territories, as well as the United States-led war inside Afghanistan.

Mr Wahid, however, argued Muslim communities themselves must face up to the threat of terrorism, and break the link between violence and the defence of Islam.

Source : http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/12/1018333423485.html

My Islam, Your Islam, Our Islam, Their Islam

gusdurworld — Fri, 23 May 2008 06:21:20 +0000

By : Abdurrahman Wahid

As may be obvious to readers of this forum, a wide variety of opinions exists as to the nature and teachings of Islam, even among those widely regarded as experts. Rather than view Islam and its teachings as a single monolithic entity, it is more accurate to recognize and acknowledge the de facto plurality of opinions that have always existed as to what Islam is, and what it “compels” you, me or us to do.

The personal experiences of any one human being can never be exactly identical with those of anyone else. These experiences invariably color the understanding and perceptions of those who have them, within the context of their respective religious traditions. I myself have undergone a continual process of transformation regarding my personal understanding of Islam from the time of earliest childhood until today. From this I conclude that the Islam which I conceive and experience is unique to me, and may rightly be termed, “My Islam.” The character of My Islam is the outgrowth of my cumulative personal experience, which it may be appropriate to share, but never to force upon others. Should I try to force my personal understanding of Islam and its teachings upon others, the result will inevitably be a serious “dislocation” for those so affected, annihilating the perceived beauty and joy of their own respective opinions.

A vast diversity of opinions about Islam are held by my fellow Muslims, which they are free, in turn, to share with me. I may or may not agree with them, but the result of such interaction invariably becomes another element of my own personal understanding and experience, and of theirs. For example, those wishing to “purify” Islam from so-called bid’a, or innovation, may reject the use of a drum to issue the call to prayer, reverence of saints, or even the use of a rosary while reciting the names of God. Thus we may refer to others’ personal experience and understanding of Islam as “Your Islam,” and go through life adopting or politely refusing to adopt any given element thereof.

Muslims refer to this process of mutual visitation, sharing and growth by its Arabic term, silaturrahim, which means “to relate in an attitude of mutual affection.” Such sharing of views may or may not produce what we might call “Our Islam,” dependent on the respective understanding and experiences of those involved, but at least it fosters mutual respect and tolerance of differences.

Unfortunately, the Muslim world today is afflicted by a crisis in which the tradition of silaturrahim is being replaced by attempts to force one’s own views of Islam onto others. For me personally, “Their Islam” is a fair term to describe the views of those who would annihilate the great beauty and diversity of traditional Islam in the name of an artificial and enforced conformity to their own rigid opinions. For such people, Our Islam is a misnomer, for in fact they seek to enforce – through intimidation and violence – a colorless, monolithic uniformity that does not and has never existed in the long history of Islam.

The desire for Our Islam appears to be inherent in the nature of most Muslims. Yet the only realistic way to establish such a phenomenon is for My Islam and Your Islam to peacefully coexist in mutual respect and toleration, without trying to annihilate our differences. Rather than seek to repress or destroy the nearly infinite, beautiful variety of God’s creation, we would be better advised to pursue al-jihad al-akbar and annihilate our own egos, so that we may unite in a common spiritual apprehension of the One – which gives rise to inner peace and a joyful tolerance of differences here on earth.

However, those who care about the future of Our Islam on this earthly plane would be well advised to unite in rejecting the use of Islam as an ideology, or a weapon to violate the sanctity of Your Islam and mine.

Source : Muslims Speak Out, newsweek Washington Post

Gus Dur against fundamentalist threat in Indonesia

gusdurworld — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:57:46 +0000

» 08/02/2005 13:02
by Mathias Hariyadi

Former Indonesian President opposes the extremism of the Indonesian Ulemas Council, condemning the persecution of the Ahmadi Muslims. Christians demand respect for religious pluralism, one of the nation’s “cultural assets”.

Jakarta (AsiaNews) Former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid, better known as Gus Dur, has come once again to the defence of inter-faith harmony in Indonesia in opposition to the dangerous threat posed by the gradual Islamisation of the most populous Muslim country in the world.

Mr Wahid, who is also a former chairman of the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU)one of the largest Muslim organisation in the countryurged his fellow Indonesians to disregard the fatwas (religious edicts) issued last week by the Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), or Indonesian Ulemas Council, that ban those interpretations of Islam that are based on “pluralism, liberalism and secularism”.

The former President is especially critical of the new and violent fatwathe first one dates back to 1980pronounced against Ahmadi Muslims who are considered heretical by Orthodox Muslims and who have recently been the victims of fundamentalist violence.

“I call on Indonesian society not to take seriously the MUI’s fatwas against the Ahmadis,” Mr Wahid said publicly. “Only the Supreme Court can decide whether their teachings are to be considered heretical or not”. Ahmadis consider themselves Muslim, but do not view Muhammad as the last of the prophets.

For this reason, Mr Wahid wrote to the chairman of the Supreme Court asking him to convene a special session to discuss the issue.

“The purpose of this is to make the public understand that Indonesia is a secular state, not an Islamic state,” he said.

“Every edict must be based on the national interest and on universal moral principles, not on Islamic dogmas,” he explained.

Many MUI members are known for the extremist views and for using the Council for personal interests.

Mr Wahid, who is one of the country’s most influential activists and public figures, has strongly condemned the attack against the Ahmadi community in Bogor, West Java. Here, about 10,000 members from the extremist group Indonesian Muslim Solidarity stormed an Ahmadi community centre on July 15. Local authorities forced its members to vacate the premises where they used to meet.

Despite their small number200,000 Ahmadis out of a population of 241 million, members of the Ahmadi community are concerned about the new fatwa that calls on the government to outlaw the community and dismantle its institutions. But they are powerless.

“I can’t say anything at the moment; all I can do is keep my mouth shut,” an Ahmadi activist lamented.

In order to tackle this hot issue, former President Wahid has set up the Civil Society Association. It includes leaders with moderate and liberal views from different religious groups.

Not only has the Association asked the MUI to withdraw its fatwa, but one of its members, a young intellectual by the name of Ulil Abshar Abdalla, stated that “banning the activities of the Ahmadis is a violation of human rights. It is clear that MUI has misused Islam in order to ban religious beliefs in the name of religion”.

“The Civil Society Association” calls on the government to act against those extremistsincluding the MUI and its members”who, although they do not use physical force, try to do away with different ideas and thoughts within Islam,” Mr Abdalla said.

The Department of Religious Affairs has also been contacted in order that it may meet the country’s various Muslim and human rights organisations to discuss the issue.

Indonesian Christian communities have not been indifferent to the plight of the Ahmadi community. Father Edi, a Catholic priest, has urged religious leaders to act correctly to “preserve religious pluralism as a cultural asset” in Indonesian society.

But the wider picture is getting more dangerous now that the MUI’s deputy chief, Dien Samsuddin, has become the chairman of Muhammadiyah, the country’s largest Muslim organisation. Mr Samsuddin is well known for his extremist views.

Source : asia news

ABC Interview with Abdurrahman Wahid

gusdurworld — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:44:43 +0000

Broadcast: 17/04/2002

Reporter: Jennifer Byrne

Abdurrahman Wahid, the former Indonesian president may have stepped down, but he still wields immense influence as a religious scholar – a leader of some 40 million Indonesian muslims. He spoke to Jennifer Byrne during a visit to Sydney where he was guest of honour at Foreign Correspondent’s 10th anniversary celebrations.

Transcript

Byrne: I’d like to talk first, not about politics but about religion – specifically about Islam, which you’ve described as a religion of peace. How then do you see what’s happening in the Middle East, and in many Arabic countries where Islam is effectively being used as a banner for fundamentalism… for suicide attacks, for war?

Wahid: Well, the most important thing about Islam is that we have to differentiate between two kinds of Islam. The first one is the institution of Islam… second, the culture of Islam. If we cling to the institution of Islam, then we tend to defend it against whatever we see as a danger to it, so because of this we see now that many people are defending states, defending territories, defending everything institutional in the belief that they defend Islam. Well, in fact Islam lives… and lived through the centuries by projecting a certain culture.

Byrne: Does it worry you that for many non Muslims in the world, what they see in the Middle East… the fundamentals in that ceasefire…..

Wahid: I’m not worried. I ask their understanding that in Islam as well as in other religions there are fanatics always. See, the fact that those Muslims… fundamentalist Muslims, or extremist Muslims or whatever, you see, take arms and use violence that is against Islamic teachings.

Byrne: But you’re an Islamic teacher yourself… you can say that. Even President Mahatir of Malaysia got up and said that… suicide attacks are wrong… any killing of an innocent civilian is wrong. Why cannot it be said in some form that the Middle Eastern Islamic countries would accept that?

Wahid: Because as I said before, they think that defending Islamic… so-called Islamic institutions is important. Well, in my opinion defending Islamic culture is more important.

Byrne: You believe the culture is strong, but the institutions have been what?… perverted?

Wahid: Yeah. Precisely that. The problem now is that they equalise even Palestine and Islam – which is very wrong, because Palestine is Palestine… and you know, Islam is Islam… so you cannot say that if something happens to the state of Palestine that won’t happen to Islam.

Byrne: Just a specific question on the Middle East – do you believe that both Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat should go?

Wahid: Yes. They should be replaced… by people showing leadership… leadership and courage… moral courage, too, you know – to respect each other. This is what I see… that between the two of them there is no trust.

Byrne: Are they in fact cowardly men, you’re saying, because of their lack of respect…?

Wahid: Oh no, no, no. Mr. Sharon’s a very brave man. Otherwise he wouldn’t be a general. But the problem now is that he cannot just peddle that kind of courage without understanding… without showing respect… to Arafat.

Byrne: And what is your opinion of Arafat?

Wahid: Arafat is a weakling. He’s very weak. He cannot control the fundamentalists.

Byrne: And as someone who has been… during your time as president you have tried to forge links with Israel, and taken some political pain for that – what do you think will be the outcome?

Wahid: Israel believes in God. While we have a diplomatic relationship and recognising diplomatically China and Russia, which are atheist states, then it’s strange that we don’t acknowledge Israel. This is the thing that we have to correct within Islam.

Byrne: What… you believe that the Islamic world as a whole should start recognising and acknowledging Israel’s right to exist and prosper?

Wahid: Oh yes… yes.

Byrne: But will it happen, sir… will it happen?

Wahid: (laughs) I don’t know…. anyway… because you know, however slow, I think Muslims are rational and rationality dictates that. We recognise Israel diplomatically.

Byrne: You became the first democratically elected president of Indonesia. When you look now at the political situation in Indonesia, do you wish you could return, or are you well out of it?

Wahid: Well, first I have to say that …. there is no wish to return because for the first time, I didn’t want to become a president. I was drafted…. by the Muslim’s collars … by the political system… because you know that to avoid a bloodbath, I had to do that.
I was aware totally that I cannot not see… Where in the world can an unseeing man run the government?

Byrne: Was it your sight…. was that really the reason why you didn’t want to become president…. because you couldn’t see? Was that the only reason?

Wahid: Yeah… and beside that I’m not a politician, you know. I… actually I abhor politics… so it’s better to let the politicians run the country, not … not like myself.

Byrne: Mr. Wahid, you were a politician…. you were the president of Indonesia.

Wahid: I was a forced politician, yes, but not a true politician….. in the sense that I never cared about public opinion, for example… No politician will do that. (laughs)

Byrne: What was your best day? What was the day when you said ‘I am glad I am a politician today’?

Wahid: The best day was the day when I left the palace. That was the best day.
On the day I left the palace, and I went to Merdeka Square and hundreds of thousands of people came there, just to pay respect…. and for me, that’s more important than anything else. You don’t realise that losing the presidency for me is nothing…. I regret more the fact that I lost 27 recordings of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, which I collected for more than twenty years. It’s more ( ? ) for me than the presidency.

Byrne: That last image that I remember really clearly of you standing on the step of the presidential palace – which I thought was a sad moment – you’re saying that was a great moment for you.

Wahid: Oh, yes…. yes. And many people believe that since I wore short pants, that it was a sign of flood…. (laughs)

Byrne: Of what?

Wahid: Flood. (laughs)

Byrne: Well you escaped the palace, and welcome to Australia. Thank you very much.

Wahid: Thank you very much.

Source : www.abc.net.au

Extremism Isn’t Islamic Law

gusdurworld — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:29:50 +0000

By Kyai Haji Abdurrahman Wahid

Tuesday, May 23, 2006; Page A17For a few days this year the world’s media focused an intense spotlight on the drama of a modern-day inquisition. Abdul Rahman, a Muslim convert to Christianity, narrowly escaped the death penalty for apostasy when the Afghan government — acting under enormous international pressure — sidestepped the issue by ruling that he was insane and unfit to stand trial. This unsatisfactory ruling left unanswered a question of enormous significance: Does Islam truly require the death penalty for apostasy, and, if not, why is there so little freedom of religion in the so-called Muslim world?

The Koran and the sayings of the prophet Muhammad do not definitively address this issue. In fact, during the early history of Islam, the Agreement of Hudaibiyah between Muhammad and his rivals stipulated that any Muslim who converted out of Islam would be allowed to depart freely to join the non-Muslim community. Nevertheless, throughout much of Islamic history, Muslim governments have embraced an interpretation of Islamic law that imposes the death penalty for apostasy.

It is vital that we differentiate between the Koran, from which much of the raw material for producing Islamic law is derived, and the law itself. While its revelatory inspiration is divine, Islamic law is man-made and thus subject to human interpretation and revision. For example, in the course of Islamic history, non-Muslims have been allowed to enter Mecca and Medina. Since the time of the caliphs, however, Islamic law has been interpreted to forbid non-Muslims from entering these holy cities. The prohibition against non-Muslims entering Mecca and Medina is thus politically motivated and has no basis in the Koran or Islamic law.

In the case of Rahman, two key principles of Islamic jurisprudence come into play. First, al-umuru bi maqashidiha (“Every problem [should be addressed] in accordance with its purpose”). If a legal ordinance truly protects citizens, then it is valid and may become law. From this perspective, Rahman did not violate any law, Islamic or otherwise. Indeed, he should be protected under Islamic law, rather than threatened with death or imprisonment. The second key principle is al-hukm-u yadullu ma’a illatihi wujudan wa adaman (“The law is formulated in accordance with circumstances”). Not only can Islamic law be changed — it must be changed due to the ever-shifting circumstances of human life. Rather than take at face value assertions by extremists that their interpretation of Islamic law is eternal and unchanging, Muslims and Westerners must reject these false claims and join in the struggle to support a pluralistic and tolerant understanding of Islam.

All of humanity, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, is threatened by the forces of Islamist extremism. It is these extremists, masquerading as traditional Muslims, who angrily call for the death of Abdul Rahman or the beheading of Danish cartoonists. Their objective is raw political power and the eventual radicalization of all 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide. Western involvement in this “struggle for the soul of Islam” is a matter of self-preservation for the West and is critical given the violent tactics and strength of radical elements in Muslim societies worldwide.

Muslim theologians must revise their understanding of Islamic law, and recognize that punishment for apostasy is merely the legacy of historical circumstances and political calculations stretching back to the early days of Islam. Such punishments run counter to the clear Koranic injunction “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256).

People of goodwill of every faith and nation must unite to ensure the triumph of religious freedom and of the “right” understanding of Islam, to avert global catastrophe and spare millions of others the fate of Sudan’s great religious and political leader, Mahmoud Muhammad Taha, who was executed on a false charge of apostasy. The millions of victims of “jihadist” violence in Sudan — whose numbers continue to rise every day — would have been spared if Taha’s vision of Islam had triumphed instead of that of the extremists.

The greatest challenge facing the contemporary Muslim world is to bring our limited, human understanding of Islamic law into harmony with its divine spirit — in order to reflect God’s mercy and compassion, and to bring the blessings of peace, justice and tolerance to a suffering world.

The writer is a former president of Indonesia. From 1984 to 1999 he directed the Nadhlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim organization. He serves as senior adviser and board member to LibForAll Foundation, an Indonesian- and U.S.-based nonprofit that works to reduce religious extremism and terrorism.

Source : washingtonpost.com

The Evils of Holocaust Denial

gusdurworld — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:20:33 +0000

By ABDURRAHMAN WAHID and ISRAEL LALU

June 12, 2007

BALI, Indonesia — Today, religious leaders from many faiths and nations will gather here for a landmark conference in a unique place — an island of tolerance, not terrorism. In a world in which religion is manipulated to justify the most horrific acts, it is our moral obligation not only to refute the claims of terrorists and their ideological enablers but also to defend the rights of others to worship differently: in freedom, security and dignity.

While there are many things that can be said and done to advance this cause, one issue in particular stands out as something we religious leaders must unite in denouncing: Holocaust denial. This denial is not a new phenomenon. Yet it is becoming an increasingly pervasive one. Long a hobbyhorse of the neo-Nazis and other figures from the fringe, it is gaining currency among millions of people who are either ignorant of history or are being misled by their media, their governments or — sad to say — their own religious authorities.

A scene from the liberation of Auschwitz.

In recent years, we have seen that notorious 19th century Russian forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” being widely disseminated in bookshops from London to Cairo. We have seen Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” become a bestseller in Turkey. We have seen schools in Britain stop teaching the Holocaust for fear of offending their students. We have seen notorious academic frauds invited by the president of Iran to raise “questions” about the Holocaust — as if this is just another controversy in which all opinions are equally valid. We have seen the Holocaust deniers use the fashions of moral relativism and historical revisionism to deny not just truth but fact, all the while casting themselves as martyrs against censorship.

Worst of all, we have seen Holocaust denial being turned to an insidious political purpose: By lying about the events of the past, the deniers are paving the way toward the crimes of the future. They are rendering that well-worn yet necessary phrase “Never Again” meaningless by seeking to erase from the pages of history the very event that all people of good faith seek never to repeat.

Let us be clear: The real purpose of Holocaust denial is to degrade and dehumanize the Jewish people. By denying or trivializing the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis and their allies, the deniers are seeking to advance their notion that the victims of the 20th century’s greatest crime are, in fact, that century’s greatest victimizers. By denying or trivializing the Holocaust, the deniers are seeking to rob Jews of their history and their memory — and what is a people without history and memory?

Indeed, by denying or trivializing the Holocaust, the deniers are perpetrating what is, in effect, a second genocide. Extinguished as they were from the ranks of the living, Hitler’s Jewish victims are now, in effect, to be extinguished from the ranks of the dead. That is the essence of Holocaust denial.

Yet even as we recognize the threat that Holocaust denial poses to Jews everywhere, we must also be cognizant of the peril it represents to people of all faith traditions. Nations or governments that historically have given free rein to Jew-hatred — whether in Medieval Europe or Inquisition-era Spain or 1930s Germany — have invariably done lasting damage to themselves as well.

Today, the countries in which Holocaust denial is most rampant also tend to be the ones that are most economically backward and politically repressive. This should not be surprising: Dishonest when it comes to the truth of the past, these countries are hardly in a position to reckon honestly with the problems of the present. Yes, the short-term purposes of unscrupulous rulers can always be served by whipping up mass hysteria and duping their people with lurid conspiracy theories. In the long term, however, truth is the essential ingredient in all competent policy making. Those who tell big lies about the Holocaust are bound to tell smaller lies about nearly everything else.

Holocaust denial is thus the most visible symptom of an underlying disease — partly political, partly psychological, but mainly spiritual — which is the inability (or unwillingness) to recognize the humanity of others. In fighting this disease, religious leaders have an essential role to play. Armed with the knowledge that God created religion to serve as rahmatan lil ‘alamin, or a blessing for all creation, we must guard against efforts to demonize or belittle followers of other faiths.

Last year, Muslims from Nigeria to Lebanon to Pakistan rioted against what they saw as the demonizing of their prophet by Danish cartoonists. In a better world, those same Muslims would be the first to recognize how insulting it is to Jews to have the apocalypse that befell their fathers’ generation belittled and denied.

Sadly, we do not live in such a world. Yet if radical clerics can move their assemblies to hatred and violence — as was the case during the Danish cartoons episode — then surely moderate and peace-loving clerics can also move theirs to rise above their prejudices and facilitate good relations between peoples of different faiths. In the words of the Holy Quran, which echo the story of creation from the book of Genesis: “Oh mankind! We created you from a single pair, male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another, and not to despise each other.”

Today in Bali, we look forward to hearing different ideas from diverse voices on how to advance this divine goal. Facing up frankly to the evil of Holocaust denial will be evidence that the conferees are “living in truth” and determined to act against hatred.

Mr. Wahid is the former president of Indonesia and co-founder of the LibForAll Foundation. Mr. Lau, a survivor of the Buchenwald concentration camp, is the former Chief Rabbi of Israel. Today’s conference in Bali, “Tolerance Between Religions: A Blessing for All Creation,” is cosponsored by LibForAll Foundation, the Wahid Institute and the Museum of Tolerance.

Source : The Wall Street Journal Online

Gus Dur Puas Lawatannya ke AS Capai Tujuan

gusdurworld — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:56:16 +0000

Jakarta (ANTARA News) – Mantan Presiden Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) mengaku puas karena dapat meyakinkan para pengambil kebijakan negara Amerika Serikat untuk tidak berpangku tangan terkait pertentangan antara kelompok fundamentalis dengan kelompok yang menginginkan adanya dialog antarkeyakinan.

“Alhamdulillah mereka mau untuk bersama-sama mendorong adanya dialog antarkeyakinan. Ini penting karena mereka sebelumnya memilih bersikap netral,” kata Gus Dur yang juga ketua umum dewan syura Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (PKB) di Jakarta, Rabu.

Gus Dur yang berangkat ke AS pada 4 Mei lalu dan baru tiba di tanah air hari Rabu ini. Selama di AS dia antara lain bertemu dengan Wakil Presiden Dick Chiney, senator Robert Wexler dan Ketua Kaukus Antiterorisme di Kongres Sue Myrick, dan dua senator yang sangat berpengaruh menentukan kebijakan luar negeri AS yakni Joe Rockefeller dan Christopher Bond.

Menurut Gus Dur, dalam memperjuangkan kebenaran dan mewujudkan perdamaian yang melibatkan dua pilihan, maka netral bukan posisi yang tepat. Sebagai negara besar, AS juga harus punya sikap tegas, mendukung dialog atau sebaliknya mendukung kalangan fundamentalis.

“Saya katakan AS harus jelas sikapnya, mau ikut yang mana. Apakah mendukung kalangan fundamentalis yang ingin menghadapkan satu agama dengan agama lain atau mendukung dialog antaragama. Ternyata mereka setuju dialog,” katanya.

Pada kesempatan bertemu para tokoh tersebut, kata Gus Dur, ia juga mengkritik sikap AS yang menerapkan standar ganda dalam melihat persoalan konflik Palestina-Israel.

“Saya bilang sikap AS mendua. Di satu sisi mengakui negara Israel, di sisi yang lain tak pernah adil terhadap Palestina,” katanya.

Selama lawatan ke AS, Gus Dur juga melakukan serangkaian pertemuan dengan kalangan kampus, antara lain dengan Temple University yang mengabadikan nama Gus Dur menjadi pusat studi dialog antaragama.

Gus Dur juga berdialog dengan mahasiswa Islam Amerika di George Washington University yang tengah menggarap “Project Nur”, yakni proyek pengembangan gagasan Islam yang toleran dan pluralistik.

Gus Dur juga menerima penghargaan “Medal of Valor” dari Yayasan Simon Weisenthal karena dianggap berjasa memperjuangkan pesan perdamaian dan toleransi di dunia.

Sumber : Antara 14/05/08 20:15