http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/02/28/can-ulema-council-respond-real-issues.html
Can the Ulema Council respond to the real issues? Al Makin , BOCHUM | Sun, 02/28/2010 3:09 PM | Opinion In the last few weeks, the attention of Indonesians has been drawn to the development of law enforcement in the country. They all wonder whether the recent turmoil will become a watershed in the history of law enforcement in the reform period, or whether all of these burning issues will turn to mere sour news. In terms of the latter, the people could be fed up with the unending mess, which the media would easily forget. On the other hand, rather than responding to the current debacle, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) created controversy in its own world. A Hollywood film, 2012, which features an imaginative doomsday, seems to bother this council. The East Java MUI called on the umma (the Muslim community) not to watch this movie, which, according to their fatwa (edict), contradicts Islamic theology, according to which the knowledge of the doomsday belongs only to God. Ulil Abshar Abdalla, an activist from the Islamic Liberal Network (JIL) who plans to run for Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) chairman next year, argued the film had nothing to do with the prediction of the end of the day (kiamat), but that it portrayed a catastrophe that could befall this world. He believed the movie should be interpreted as a warning that our life on this earth is not always safe. In the same tone, Ulil's colleague, Luthfi Syaukanie, also wondered why the MUI viewed the movie from a theological perspective. In fact, looking at its recent track record, the MUI has often pronounced "unnecessary" edicts. Several ulemas in East Java declared Facebook as haram. Why is driving a car not pro-hibited? You can hit people with a car - so can you rob a bank with a car! Thus the MUI has overlooked the issues - corruption and law enforcement - that concern the Indonesian umma. This contradicts the MUI's own vision and mission, which states the formation of the council was for the sake of the "nation and religion". This nation is now faced with uncertain law enforcement and corruption. The umma would have thanked the MUI if the council issued an edict that cursed corruption, which is part of thievery and robbery, whose prohibition can be found in many religious texts. It would be great to hear the MUI's explanation for the practices of corruption in all levels of Indonesian bureaucracy. However, the MUI's response to the true issues is usually late. This council finally denounced violence in the name of Islam, after all umma were disgusted by the atrocities committed by radicals. The MUI in South Kalimantan, however, deserves credit for proposing to ban the noisy calls for prayers and excessive Koranic recitals by using loudspeakers for the sake of religious tolerance. Indeed, the excessive loudspeakers have bothered non-Muslims and Muslims alike. The central and other provincial MUIs should follow this step if they are still committed to guarding this nation and umma. Now is up to the MUI's board, whether they want to guard this nation or to live in their own world and pursue their own agenda. Corruption and law enforcement in Indonesian society are serious matters and need serious treatment and commitment. The ulema council cannot pretend not to see this, instead of warning of the dangers of Hollywood movies or the use of the Facebook. Otherwise, the umma is mature enough, and do not need any guidance from the clumsy council, which does not stand on their side any longer. The writer is a lecturer at Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University, Yogyakarta
