Millennial Generation and Radical Groups
In the current political year, the millennial generation accounts for about 50 percent of all citizens with the right to vote. They are the “battlefield" of the 2019 general election because the millennial generation is deemed the swing vote toward victory.
.
In the current political year, the millennial generation accounts for about 50 percent of all citizens with the right to vote (Kompas, 14/9/2018).
They are the “battlefield" of the 2019 general election because the millennial generation is deemed the swing vote toward victory. Aside from politicians, businesspeople of all industry backgrounds are also targeting them. Technology products and their various derivatives seem to be dedicated to their passions.
One thing that might have been overlooked is that religious groups are also zooming in on the millennial generation. This is evident in the da\'wah (preaching) model that has been packaged and adapted to their tastes, both in the mass media and on social media. Of course, this attention on the millennial generation should be encouraged and appreciated if it comes from moderate religious leaders. However, if radical groups are targeting them, it is only natural to be alert, because the seeds of their influential grip have begun to germinate.
The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) surveyed in August 2017 the aspirations of the millennial generation with regard to leadership and tolerance across 34 provinces in Indonesia. As much as 90.5 percent of the millennial generation disagreed with replacing Pancasila with another ideology, while the remaining 9.5 percent agreed with replacing Pancasila.
The results of this survey were encouraging, because very few agreed with replacing the Pancasila state ideology. Even so, caution is necessary because it also targeted the political system, or more specifically, replacing the Republic of Indonesia.
This need for prudence was confirmed through the Maarif Institute’s 2016 study, which showed that more than half of public high school students in West Java supported the establishment of a caliphate state (Alexander R Arifianto, Banning the Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, 2017). Similarly, the Wahid Foundation (2016) survey on radicalism among Islamic activists (rohis) showed that 78 percent supported the idea of establishing a caliphate.
These results are certainly worrisome. The millennial generation’s political orientation could change: they could opt for abstention or become anti-Pancasila and opposed to the Republic of Indonesia. Likewise, the millennial generation could waver and become uprooted from their moderate religious traditions. Their tendency to put negative labels on fellow Muslims, never mind those of different faiths, is one such indication.
The stigma of “infidel” to mean “mortal enemy" could come from the mouth of an elementary-level child. A few years ago, a colleague in Surabaya was surprised when his son came home from school and spoke the word “infidel” in a furious tone. This was certainly a scary occurrence.
Another story was came from a friend who had stopped by my house after returning from distributing earthquake relief aid in West Nusa Tenggara (NTB). He said that a volunteer visited the refugee camp near Mount Rinjani to try and keep the children entertained. The volunteer introduced the importance of tolerance by asking the children to name the religions in Indonesia. The children answered correctly. But what happened when they were asked whether people were allowed to be hostile towards those of other faiths? The children\'s answer was very surprising. They answered in unison that this was allowed. Of course, this is a single case and does not represent the tolerance of all NTB people.
Trap of radical arguments
This kind of narrow and hateful mindset will spread quickly, thanks to internet connectivity. As explained in Millennial Nusantara by Hasanuddin Ali and Uuk Purwandi, the primary characteristic of the millennial generation is their connectivity through online communication. Radicals can quickly incite conflict through the internet.
Then, what are the usual arguments that radical groups use to influence the millennial mindset? It must be acknowledged that the way to indoctrinate millennials is not through force, but by appealing to their rationale. Again, the millennial generation characteristically does not like to be indoctrinated. They prefer two-way communications like discussions and dialogue, as Hasanuddin Ali was quoted by nu.online.
An 2016 article titled “Millennials: Burden, blessing, or both?" by Joanna Barsh, Lauren Brown and Kayvan Kian, reinforces the above statement. Although this particular article focuses on millennial-oriented businesses, it contains a relevant statement: that a leader must be willing to approach and listen to the millennial generation by encouraging intergenerational two-way dialogue.
Radical groups are well aware of this in designing their recruitment strategies. They invite dialogue when approaching the millennial generation. They ask questions that urge rational arguments and emotions in front of discussion participants. One such example is: "You claim to be a devout person, so is it the scriptures or the Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution that hold the greatest importance in your life?"
When I was asked to testify as an expert witness in a court hearing, a group of lawyers who wanted to establish a caliphate also asked me about the hierarchy of the sources from which Islamic law derived. When I mentioned the Quran, hadith, ijmak and qiyas – in that order – as the sources of Islamic law, the lawyers then asked about the relevance of Pancasila, which was not among the sources of Islamic law. Their intention was to trap me so that I could not rebut their argument.
Of course, questions like these that are designed to entrap will disrupt the rational thinking of millennials that are only a little familiar with the religious teachings of various schools and thoughts. If the sources of religious law are answered differently from the sources of state law, the radical groups are armed with other weapons that resort to secular, liberal and inconsistent labels. Therefore, Islamic texts, Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution must be incorporated in the curriculum to provide understanding on how these relate to each other.
Radical groups have prepared another trap for promoting the concept of a caliphate: They explore the discourse of ulema that support the idea of a caliphate, and then conclude loudly that the caliphate is an inseparable part of Islamic teachings. Furthermore, they will have a logically constructed argument that opposing the caliphate was the same as opposing Islam. A person who supported the caliphate passively, and not through active efforts to uphold it, meant that they had committed the greatest sin or immoral act. It is easy to imagine that someone who does not agree to and opposes a caliphate would mean that their “sin” would surely double.
Radical groups will guide the millennial generation toward believing that the caliphate is the Islamic political system and that the primary source of Islamic law is the Qur\'an through conflicting logic – not through logic that flows and is complementary, which is the very basis of rational argument.
In Fiqh Tata Negara (understanding state administration), KH Afifuddin Muhajir explains how Western law could be accepted in a discourse on fiqh, as long as it did not contradict Islam, not to mention when using the maqashid approach under sharia.
However, radical groups prefer religious tenets that offer narrow and complicated means of understanding to create a positive impression. Kiai Husein Muhammad once explained the existence of rules exist such as al-ashl fi al-mu\'amalat al-ibahah (permissibility of social relationships and transactions) and al-ashl bara-ah al-dzimmah (basically, human beings were free from the guilt/principle of presumed innocence).
These broad fiqh rules were often ignored in favor of their opposite, namely sadd al-dzari\'ah (closing opportunities to evil and danger), a legal approach intended to restrict and control. Using this perspective, the so-called fiqh experts then introduce laws that prohibit, limit and control human behavior, whether as individuals or as a society.
Radical groups corner the millennial generation through such narrow and prohibitive teachings. Instead, independent thinking must be cultivated among the millennial generation through moderate and tolerant religious teachings that liberate and enlighten.
Ainur Rofiq Al Amin, Postgraduate Lecturer, Sunan Ampel State Islamic University (UIN); Coach, Pagar Nusa Remaja (junior pencak silat team), Bahrul Ulum Islamic Boarding School, Jombang
