Rejecting IS Combatants

Lively debate about repatriating Islamic State (IS) group combatants in Iraq and Syria has drained our energy.

KOMPAS/NINA SUSILO

President Joko Widodo (center right) speaks to reporters on Wednesday (12/2/2020) at the State Palace in Jakarta, stating the Indonesian government’s policy stance that it does not repatriate cross-border terrorists.

The basic question is, what is the main consideration in addressing this discourse? The answer is indeed not simple but with clear and argumentative thinking, I think this problem can be seen clearly. If we reflect on history, attacks carried out by IS have led to the deaths of thousands of people. Since its establishment, IS has terrorized no less than 33 countries, carried out more than 228 attacks and killed at least 3,000 people. This data can be used as a strong argument that in reality, the seeds of radicalism can be planted anywhere, from the most fascist country to countries that uphold democratic values.

In the latter countries, it is interesting to note the findings of Jack Snyder (1999), professor at Columbia University (New York). In his book titled From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict, he writes that the history of democracy is the stretch of the history of conflict, violence and radicalism. The wars that were the peak of violence in the world, such as the Napoleonic war (1803-1815), the war of Emperor Wilhem (1914-1918), and also the war of Adolf Hitler (1939-1945), were largely caused by efforts to democratize itself.

Snyder\'s thesis can be used as a strong foundation that such violence can actually grow anywhere, including in a democratic country. Further, Karen Armstrong (2007) in The Battle for God, said radicalism existed in almost all religions. In every belief, whatever form it takes, especially religion, it is almost certain that there are one or two movements that are more fundamentalist in nature and whose movements are expressed in violent ways (radicalism).

Also read : Omnibus Passengers

KOMPAS/RADITYA HELABUMI

An activist holds a poster that reads, “We support Jokowi, reject ISIS”, during a demonstration on Monday (10/2/2020) at Pandang Istana Park, on the northwest corner of Medan Merdeka in Central Jakarta. The event objected to the planned repatriation of almost 700 Indonesians who had joined the militia of Islamic State (IS), and called on the government to take the best policy to protect its citizens at home, saying that radicalism had no place in the country.

The danger of terrorist radicalism

At this degree I want to provide a demarcation line between fundamentalism and radicalism, which in religious language is often termed Syiddah Al-Tanattu. In my opinion, fundamentalism is an abstraction of understanding whose domain is in the mind. Meanwhile, radicalism is a derivative action born from the fundamentalist mindset. It means that fundamentalism is a matter of thought, while radicalism is a matter of action.

Furthermore about radicalism, Said Aqil Siroj (2014) once put forward an interesting analysis. He argues that in fact radicalism in recent time has been fragmented into at least three forms and variants. First, puritan radicals. Such radicals focus more on their activities in order to purify Islamic teachings from local traditions. Second, secular radicals. These radicals concentrate their movements to Islamize all secular systems, such as democracy, political system, and also the form of the state. Finally, terrorist radicals embody all concepts and thoughts and views by force that are wrapped in violence.

Also read : Writing Indonesia in 2045

Indeed, if we further examine the first two forms of the fragmentation of radicalism, we will find that the movement of radicalism is limited to the concept and the mindset of its followers. It is also possible that the two forms are manifested in the form of a movement, but not to use violence as a means to move it. In both forms, the level and grade of the danger of radicalism are not as great as those on the radicalism in the third form, namely terrorist radicalism, which is always making terror and violence a manifestation of the movement and a way to translate its ideas. In this third form, IS manifests its movement.

What is even more miserable is in the terrorism understanding, if we observe it carefully, they can develop very quickly precisely by making use of the fertile land, which is called freedom known in the democratic system. Freedom of argument and freedom of expression, which become one of the main features of democracy, are used as a runway and the reason for the emergence of radicalism in the form of terrorism in democratic ideology countries.

Kompas/Wawan H Prabowo

Nahdatul Ulama executive board (PBNU) chairman Said Aqiel Siradj (center left, foreground) walks alongside Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi (right) during her visit to the PBNU Jakarta headquarters on Tuesday (11/2/2020). During the visit, Retno asked the PBNU for its input on Indonesia’s foreign policy stance to support Palestinian independence and on repatriating former Islamic State (IS) combatants from Syria.

Radical movements like anything and in any form are never justified by religion. Therefore, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) has become the vanguard who rejects radical Islamic ideas, such as the IS, to grow in Indonesia. Moreover, from the very beginning we have gotten to know that the hubbul wathon minal iman dictum, the love for the country is part of a form of faith, so that obviously we love Indonesia more than Iraq and Syria.

Two approaches

Furthermore, in the context of the IS combatant repatriation discourse, there are at least two approaches that can be used in looking at this issue. First, a formal legal approach with tools of the laws. In the context of the discourse of returning the IS combatants, when referring to Law No. 12 of 2006 on Citizenship, Article 23 explicitly states that "Indonesian citizens lose their citizenship if they enter foreign service without prior permission from the President".

The context of Article 23 of Law No. 12 of 2006 in my opinion is in harmony with what we are facing together today. It is clear that the combatants\' citizenship status has been void since they pledged to allegiance to the IS.

Besides that, the second approach, in my opinion, we can use what is called a pesantren-style thinking methodology framework. This approach consists of a series and arrangement of arguments that can be used as a rationale and a basis for taking the best decision.

One, in the Qur\'an Surah Al-Ahzab Verse 60 Allah says, "If the hypocrites, and those with sickness in their hearts, and rumor-mongers in Medina do not desist, We will certainly incite you to take against them, and then they will not be your neighbors there any longer.” The emphasis of this verse is on the understanding and order to Prophet Muhammad to expel those who are making slanders, commotion, and also including terror from the city of Medina. In Islam, through this verse, we can say that there is no place for those who commit terror and disturb the order of life.

Two, we know the rules of dar’ul mafsid muqaddamun al jalbil mashlih which mean: rejecting damage is given priority than bringing benefit. Preventive and cautious stance is the key to action. Therefore, in the context of this IS combatant repatriation discourse, what we are prioritizing is to prevent the coming of damage or harm in the form of threats and potential terror rather than bringing benefit to humanitarian considerations. With a clear frame of mind and also a comprehensive approach, I think we will be able to more clearly see the problem. Clarity to see the problem will be an important capital to be the foundation for policy making. Wallahu a’lam bi showab.

A Helmy Faishal Zaini, Secretary-General of the Central Executive Board of Nahdlatul Ulama