ID :
42845
Tue, 01/27/2009 - 23:13
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://oananews.org//node/42845
The shortlink copeid
News Focus: MUI`s EDICT FORBIDDING MUSLIMS TO BE NON VOTERS DRAWS CONTROVERSY
By Eliswan Azly
Jakarta, Jan 27 (ANTARA) - A new edict issued by the Indonesian Council of Ulemas (MUI) forbidding Muslims to abstain from casting their votes during the next general election has drawn a controversy in the country.
More radical in the edict (fatwa), muslims who are reluctant to cast their votes during the upcoming legislative or presidential elections are categorized as an act with 'haram' (forbidden) status.
The status of haram for smoking recently issued by MUI is quite understandable, as smoking is not good for health. But if the edict on Haram is linked to the reluctance of Muslims to cast their votes in the election, it will cause pros and cons as the edict is seen as containing political motives.
MUI should see the edict in a broader sense before issuing it, Dr Sofyan Siregar, a muslim intellectual and lucturer at the Islamic University of Europe in Rotterdam, Netherlands, said in an emailled message, on Tuesday.
An edict should take into account the situation and the condition of the law prevailing in a country.
Indonesia is a predominantly muslim country which does not use Islamic law (Syariah) in its constitution. In fact, Europeans often see Indonesia as a secular state with a majority muslim population.
According to him, if Indonesia was implementing syariah (Islamic law), perhaps an edict forbidding their citizens to abstain in the election could be categorized as haram. Because muslims should have a commitment to uphold Islamic law, the source of which is taken from the holy Qur'an.
"The problem now is that if the Muslims in Indonesia are reluctant to cast their votes to support nationalist parties during the election, it can not be categorized as haram," Sofyan said.
"On the other hand, muslims should uphold Syariah (Islamic law) in life. If a muslim is reluctant to cast his/her vote for a certain party who does not uphold Islamic law as the country's constitution, it is forbidden," he said.
"I think MUI should take this condition into consideration. If not, the edict on non voters will be ridiculed in the sense that MUI has no the authority to do it," he said.
Why did MUI not issue an edict that Muslims giving their votes to nationalist parties was 'haram'. "I think if MUI issues such an edict, I really appreciate it as an agency in favour of the muslim community in general and not only political parties," he said.
In fact, MUI had no courage to do it and only issued an edict about the status of haram for being non voters, he said.
However, Sofyan saw MUI's edict on the status of haram for non voters should be reviewed, as the situation and condition of the law prevailing in a country should be taken into account.
In the meantime, a legal observer in Jambi, Shomad SH said on Tuesday MUI's edict on haram for non voters during the election was out of religious domain.
Prior to issuing the ruling (fatwa), the real condition of the problem should be seen from its domain. "We don't have to mix the domain of religion and that of politics."
"Non voters are in political domain, not the religious one. It's not the religious domain especially the MUI to decide on 'halal' (allowed) or 'haram' (forbidden).
Non voters (Golput), according to him, in a real meaning was the right of each citizen to vote. If they did not want to use their rights on their own wish to support a certain party, it was not against the law.
Non voters were not the only instrument to measure the success in the implementation of a general election in a region and the state. In fact the United State known as the most democratic country in the world, the level of non voters reached 30 percent and 40 percent in Japan.
In Indonesia, based on experience regarding the regional head's or presidential election, it turned out that the level of citizens reluctant to use their rights (non voters) was very small.
Many of them were only contrained by technical problems like mistakes made in giving votes, the location of polling stations far from their work places and others.
The government in implementing the general election has the obligation to prepare facilities and infrastructure, to educate their citizens in using their voting rights.
"Under the law, citizens have voting rights that should be respected. But it is not an obligation that should be implemented. Therefore, non voters should also be respected," he said.
In response to MUI's ruling on the status of haram of non voters, Miftahul Ulum, an executive of the National Awakening Party for Jember chapter on Tuesday said that using the right to vote or not was the right of each citizen and no need to put it into a fatwa (en edict).
"Giving her/his votes or not is the right of each citizen to do in the general elections this year," he said.
Accordinig to him, MUI's edict (fatwa) on non voters would not be heeded by the community, as it was seen as having forced the freedom of voters and ran counter to the principles of democracy.
"Fatwa will not affect the number of non voters in some regions," he said.
However Ulum agreed if MUI suggested the community not to become non voters in this year's general elections, but it should not be done through the issuance of a fatwa.
He also questioned the reason used by MUI in issuing a fatwa in the runup to this year's general elections.
Practically political parties would ask for the reason behind MUI's fatwa in the runup to legislative and presidential elections," he said.
Agus Hadi Santoso, a treasurer of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) for Jember chapter admitted that he disagreed with MUI's involvement in political issues, especially e issuing a ruling on non voters.
In a democratic country like Indonesia, it was not a problem for citizens to be non voters, he said.
According to him, being non voters is a choice of the community, as they are fed up with political promises, so that it's not necessary to issue a haram edict on non voters.
Jakarta, Jan 27 (ANTARA) - A new edict issued by the Indonesian Council of Ulemas (MUI) forbidding Muslims to abstain from casting their votes during the next general election has drawn a controversy in the country.
More radical in the edict (fatwa), muslims who are reluctant to cast their votes during the upcoming legislative or presidential elections are categorized as an act with 'haram' (forbidden) status.
The status of haram for smoking recently issued by MUI is quite understandable, as smoking is not good for health. But if the edict on Haram is linked to the reluctance of Muslims to cast their votes in the election, it will cause pros and cons as the edict is seen as containing political motives.
MUI should see the edict in a broader sense before issuing it, Dr Sofyan Siregar, a muslim intellectual and lucturer at the Islamic University of Europe in Rotterdam, Netherlands, said in an emailled message, on Tuesday.
An edict should take into account the situation and the condition of the law prevailing in a country.
Indonesia is a predominantly muslim country which does not use Islamic law (Syariah) in its constitution. In fact, Europeans often see Indonesia as a secular state with a majority muslim population.
According to him, if Indonesia was implementing syariah (Islamic law), perhaps an edict forbidding their citizens to abstain in the election could be categorized as haram. Because muslims should have a commitment to uphold Islamic law, the source of which is taken from the holy Qur'an.
"The problem now is that if the Muslims in Indonesia are reluctant to cast their votes to support nationalist parties during the election, it can not be categorized as haram," Sofyan said.
"On the other hand, muslims should uphold Syariah (Islamic law) in life. If a muslim is reluctant to cast his/her vote for a certain party who does not uphold Islamic law as the country's constitution, it is forbidden," he said.
"I think MUI should take this condition into consideration. If not, the edict on non voters will be ridiculed in the sense that MUI has no the authority to do it," he said.
Why did MUI not issue an edict that Muslims giving their votes to nationalist parties was 'haram'. "I think if MUI issues such an edict, I really appreciate it as an agency in favour of the muslim community in general and not only political parties," he said.
In fact, MUI had no courage to do it and only issued an edict about the status of haram for being non voters, he said.
However, Sofyan saw MUI's edict on the status of haram for non voters should be reviewed, as the situation and condition of the law prevailing in a country should be taken into account.
In the meantime, a legal observer in Jambi, Shomad SH said on Tuesday MUI's edict on haram for non voters during the election was out of religious domain.
Prior to issuing the ruling (fatwa), the real condition of the problem should be seen from its domain. "We don't have to mix the domain of religion and that of politics."
"Non voters are in political domain, not the religious one. It's not the religious domain especially the MUI to decide on 'halal' (allowed) or 'haram' (forbidden).
Non voters (Golput), according to him, in a real meaning was the right of each citizen to vote. If they did not want to use their rights on their own wish to support a certain party, it was not against the law.
Non voters were not the only instrument to measure the success in the implementation of a general election in a region and the state. In fact the United State known as the most democratic country in the world, the level of non voters reached 30 percent and 40 percent in Japan.
In Indonesia, based on experience regarding the regional head's or presidential election, it turned out that the level of citizens reluctant to use their rights (non voters) was very small.
Many of them were only contrained by technical problems like mistakes made in giving votes, the location of polling stations far from their work places and others.
The government in implementing the general election has the obligation to prepare facilities and infrastructure, to educate their citizens in using their voting rights.
"Under the law, citizens have voting rights that should be respected. But it is not an obligation that should be implemented. Therefore, non voters should also be respected," he said.
In response to MUI's ruling on the status of haram of non voters, Miftahul Ulum, an executive of the National Awakening Party for Jember chapter on Tuesday said that using the right to vote or not was the right of each citizen and no need to put it into a fatwa (en edict).
"Giving her/his votes or not is the right of each citizen to do in the general elections this year," he said.
Accordinig to him, MUI's edict (fatwa) on non voters would not be heeded by the community, as it was seen as having forced the freedom of voters and ran counter to the principles of democracy.
"Fatwa will not affect the number of non voters in some regions," he said.
However Ulum agreed if MUI suggested the community not to become non voters in this year's general elections, but it should not be done through the issuance of a fatwa.
He also questioned the reason used by MUI in issuing a fatwa in the runup to this year's general elections.
Practically political parties would ask for the reason behind MUI's fatwa in the runup to legislative and presidential elections," he said.
Agus Hadi Santoso, a treasurer of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) for Jember chapter admitted that he disagreed with MUI's involvement in political issues, especially e issuing a ruling on non voters.
In a democratic country like Indonesia, it was not a problem for citizens to be non voters, he said.
According to him, being non voters is a choice of the community, as they are fed up with political promises, so that it's not necessary to issue a haram edict on non voters.
