Walau aurat sudah tertutup jilbab, polisi shariah di Aceh tetap saja mempermasalahkan celana jeans yang ketat. Mirip kejadian di Iran saat razia jilbab.
The Jakarta Post, 01 December 2007 My daughers are reluctantt to wear 'jilbab'. So what? Mohammad Yazid, Jakarta A teenage girl wearing a jilbab (head scarf) stared sharply at Banda Aceh's sharia enforcement officer Raja Dakdan, who was lecturing girls rounded-up for wearing "inappropriate" clothes in front of the city's Baiturrahman Grand Mosque. Some of them bent in shame and others, including one without jilbab, expressed their indifference to an angered Raja, who pointed at the youths and criticized their tight jeans and shirts. Although they wore scarves and covered their aurat or certain body parts, they were still considered in breach of Qanun (bylaw) No. 11/2002 on Muslim women's dress code, and as reported in the front page photo of The Jakarta Post, Nov. 16, the girls could be caned. What happened if my children were among them? That was the first reaction as I scrutinized the picture, because my two daughters do not wear head scarves. Second, can the measures taken to enforce the bylaw give a better understanding of Islam and nurture legal obedience among youths? Muslims are told to teach their children how to obey rules originating in the Koran and Hadith (Prophet Muhammad's sayings and traditions) and to obey the government. On the other hand, Islam also greatly emphasizes the need to avoid coercion in the application of religious obligations. In principle, everything should be based on sincerity. And this has to do with and education to maintain equilibrium in the relationship between God and man so the varying quality levels from one individual to another is understandable. But in practice, even the two points have sparked divergent views among Muslims, let alone the different jilbab criteria for aurat cloaking, which are considerably affected by general knowledge and culture. Therefore, when my daughters asked me if it was true women without scarves would be sent to hell as they were taught in school, I could not give a definite answer. I only explained if religious standards merely concerned heaven and hell, all Muslims in Indonesia would probably be hell-dwellers in view of the widespread violation of laws today. And with the various do's and do nots in Koran and Hadith, it is impossible for Muslims to apply them all. Besides, believers should not adopt the attitude of traders, who only calculate profit and loss or rewards and sins. This comprehension will end up using force and experiencing fear, which is very exhausting and may increase discord. Wearing a jilbab or not should never be seen as an absolute ticket to heaven or hell. Likewise, it is very unfair to blame those without a jilbab or a aurat concealing their clothes for causing all sexual harassment of women. Indonesians, as moderate Muslims, are culturally different from Saudi Arabia and it should already be understood they have their own jilbab criteria and interpretations. Looking back at history, one can notice that while in the past head scarves were only used by certain groups, today the jilbab has become a fashion. Consequently, many Muslims from the country's two major Islamic organizations, Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama, refuse to force their children to wear the head gear. The use of jilbab should thus be taken as an instruction of a personal nature and its application cannot be regulated by law. This is not so different from sholat (five daily prayers), fasting and haj pilgrimage, which belong to maghdoh religious duties (direct communication with God). In this way, I have never demanded my wife and children wear a jilbab. Conversely, I gave my full support when my wife decided one day to wear it and I respect my children who use the gear occasionally. The jilbab models used by the girls who were caught in Banda Aceh should therefore be respected in terms of their level of understanding, including those wearing no jilbab -- this matter involves the freedom of religious comprehension, which is not necessarily always the same. >From the perspective of religious teaching, it is an exaggeration to regard >those wearing tights shirts and jeans like males as violating sharia. Sholat >and fasting, far more important in their religious status, would even be very >hard to grasp if their performance were to be regulated by the government. Muslim women's breach of the dress code bylaw has been dominant since Islamic sharia was applied in Banda Aceh. As reported by the head of the Sharia and Family Welfare Office in Banda Aceh, M. Natsir Ilyasselama, during the period of January to September 2007, 982 such cases were listed, followed by 313 cases of khalwat (obscenity), 133 cases of Friday sholat non-performance and nine cases of maisir (alcoholism). With the application of Islamic bylaws now being increasingly inspired by magdhoh as well as ghoiru magdhoh duties (indirect communication with God), there is a fear the practice of religious duties to become closer to God, may just be degraded. The question is, when a bylaw orders the performance of a religious obligation, who does this duty serve to make oneself closer to? Islamic bylaws should not force themselves by means of Islamic symbols in order to create a religious impression. The law enforcement sought should continue to observe universal values and national legal standards. So, a revision of regional rules that obviously harm the image of Islam and cause disharmony in Indonesia's pluralist religious life needs to be considered. This is even more the case if in practice the rules open opportunity for certain groups to gain personal advantage. The writer is a member of The Jakarta Post's opinion desk. He can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] mediacare http://www.mediacare.biz [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
