Tom Pepinsky

Category: Indonesia

  • Personal Defenses

    James remarked during our nightly political argument that I have a very fundamental tendency to tread very carefully around the issue of Islam and terrorism.  This raises a couple interesting questions, as I do indeed tend to jump to the defense of Islam as a religion when I hear criticisms that it causes terrorism, that it breeds hatred, that Muslims have certain characteristics that make them more likely to do certain things, or whatever.  Why do I do this?  Is it, as some might argue, a form of radical political correctness or moral relativism?

    I’d argue not.  The reason why I find myself urging caution with statements about Islam and violence–or Islam and whatever–is that Islam happens to be the topic of conversation these days.  If, for instance, we were talking about Kurdish terrorism in the 1990s, I’d be defending the majority of Kurds.  If we were talking about Tamil terrorism in Tamil Nadu, I’d be defending the majority of Tamils/Hindus.

    The problem that I see lies in moving from self-evidently true statements to more nuanced statements with implications for politics.  It is self-evidently true that Muslims are the ones committing suicide attacks in Israel…no Palestinian Christians are participating in this.  Similarly, the people who launched the terrorist attacks in the United States, Britain, Spain, and Bali are Muslims.  This is important information.  But then you need to think further.  How much does knowing that these individuals follow Islam tell you?  Surprisingly not much.  A very tiny minority of Muslims commit terrorist acts.  So Muslim is not a sufficient condition for terrorism.  Most suicide bombings are actually committed by non-Muslims (mostly Tamils, actually), and most terrorism in general comes at the hands of non-Muslims.  So Muslims is not a necessary condition for terrorism.  And notice: these are not just a couple exceptions, but huge evidence to the contrary regarding any simple relationship between Islam and terrorism and/or violence.

    My point in terms of drawing conclusions is not that we should ignore the fact that suicide bombers in Iraq and Israel follow Islam.  This is important information, and it is clear that Islamic millennialism has an influence of the actions of these individuals.  The point is that the sort of precise statements that the right-wing commentariat make are simply wrong.  Not because I don’t want them to be true, but because they are actually incorrect statements.  Another point regards prejudice, as I also believe that many Americans are suspicious of Muslims and claims of Muslim peace.  I cannot accept any suspicion of Muslims greater than any other religious group.  If the actions of the few are to represent the views of the masses, then that must apply towards Christianity, Judaism, Republicans, Democrats, vegans, football players, trench coat mafiosi, and every other group that contains bad apples among its membership.

  • Papuan Election, Pornography

    The elections in the provinces of Papua and Irjabar seem to have gone well, with no allegations of corruption or money politics making it to the news sources that I read.  Of course, some folks are still upset that the government decided to create the new province at all, and reject any elections as illegitimate, but they seem not to have a very strong voice.

    One thing that’s been in the news these days–and which has a direct impact on Papua–is the Indonesian government’s proposed anti-pornography bill.  The rather strong Islamic opposition party known as the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS, Partai Keadilan Sejahtera) is a big sponsor of this bill.  We should note that while PKS is an Islamic party, it is not an Islamist party–it has no plans to adopt sharia law or anything like that, it just counts on pious Muslims for its support.  Its biggest campaign promises are always to cut down on corruption and to emphasize morality in governance, similar to Hamas in Palestine but without the commitment to annihilate Israel.  Of course, many Christians in Indonesia fear that PKS would try to introduce sharia if it ever held the presidency and a majority in the legislature, but my own view is that is a losing proposition.

    The pornography bill, anyway, is supposed to regulate the spread of immorality in culture and the media.  It tries to define pornografi (pornographic images) and pornoaksi (pornographic actions) as two separate things that it will fight against.  The gist of the opposition is that most people are satisfied with existing anti-pornography regulations, and religious and cultural minorities feel that the bill may infringe on traditional cultures.  For example, will Balinese people still be allowed to bathe in rivers?  Will Papuans be allowed to wear their traditional dress (link not safe for work)?  Will traditional religious ceremonies with sexual undertones be outlawed?  Many protestors point out that the proposed bill makes no provisions to protect these minorities.  Another group of protestors believe that the anti-pornography and pornoaksi bill will repress women’s rights–one Catholic Indonesian friend referred to it as the "Arabization of Indonesia."  The proposed bill, in its first draft, made it a crime punishable by fines for Indonesian women to wear clothes that reveal legs, midriffs, and shoulders.  It’s not clear what the new version of the bill includes.

    Here’s a quote from Din Syamsuddin, a proponent of the bill: "We are concerned by the moral
    liberalization that will lead the nation to the brink of collapse,
    unless it is stopped as soon as possible."      Seems a bit of a stretch to consider that Indonesia could fall apart because of nudity in the arts and bare midriffs.  Watch this space for updates as negotiations about the bill continue.