Islamic State, Sharia Law and Democracy; Potato and Kentang

Whenever the phrase "Sharia Law" is touched upon on a discussion, images such as un-human punishments, no freedom and oppression of minority come into being. The mere literal descriptions of hand chopping, death stoning and whippings sentences are sufficient to create fears ending the discussion straight away. Say goodbye to those fancy television programs, fashion and gossip magazines and free opinion newspapers for Sharia Law forbids all thereof. And last but not the least, no recognition of basic rights for non-Muslims as it is pretty obvious to assume that such basic rights can only be given to Muslims; to put it bluntly is to say that if you are not Muslims then you have no basic rights under Sharia Law.

By far those Muslim clerics with beards and long robes who advocate the implementation of Sharia Law need some mental treatments just to make sure they are sane enough to acknowledge the chilling images above, never mind those individuals who support the idea of Islamic State or Islamic Khilafah in the first place. Islam is just another religion and Sharia Law is only a set of personal obligations that enforcing it in public sphere would only create atrocities beyond perception of any reasonable person. Enough is enough, everything that deals with Islam is poisonous and destructive and therefore the idea of Sharia Law or Islamic State should be banned at all cost. Islam is a bad thing, period; end of discussion.

The list of the above extreme stereotypes could go on forever, but in all fairness that is not the case, is it? History has revealed many times on how dangerous a situation can be when stereotypes become the basis of not only perception but action as well: certainly not in the mind of Huntington when he wrote the Clash of Civilization for that matter. And furthermore, why the debate always has to be "either with us or against us"? Why not trying to really look just a little bit deeper into the issue and reserve from making conflict potential suggestions?

The fact that the majority of Indonesian people is Muslim certainly would underline the significance of Islam in Indonesia and if they wish Sharia Law to be implemented or Islamic State to be formed, to deny otherwise would contradict the very character of democracy, would it? The same thing also goes if the majority, albeit Muslim, decides not to choose Sharia Law to be enforced or Islamic State to be formed in Indonesia or even if the majority opts the middle way between the two systems.

The founding fathers of Indonesia when they designed Pancasila as the state ideology were not of without careful consideration. They were fully aware of Indonesia unique condition as a state. The First Sila clearly reflects such uniqueness in the spirit of the state to believe in one supreme God, let alone the controversy of deleting the phrases of Sharia implementation for Muslims in the same sentence. If the founding fathers of Indonesia were of without vision, they could have just let the Sharia to be implemented in the first place. But the fact of the matter is that they are not.

This shows without doubt that the issue here is far more profound than just the banter of symbols between democracy and Islam. The issue here has been and always will be on whether the people have adequate access to their basic rights, e.g. education, employment, health and so forth. The government as the sole representative of Indonesia, irrespective of its format, has the obligation to its citizens to ensure that their basic rights and needs are well taken care of. Is not it that the very fundamental rationale why we decided to found Indonesia as an institution that will not only protect but also serve its citizens’ rights and needs in the first place? This was crystal clear in the great minds of Indonesia’s founding fathers.

Indonesia is not the United States of America as Indonesia is not the Saudi Arabia or even Turkey for that matter; Indonesia is Indonesia with its unique and diverse features reflected in its state ideology and constitution. What is the point of democracy if its citizens cannot have adequate access to their basic rights and needs? Being an Islamic State with Sharia Law will also be pointless if it cannot ensure the good application of basic rights and needs thereof. Hence, Islamic State with Sharia Law and Democracy are potato and kentang whilst what Indonesian people really need is chips.

RI plays key role in hostage release

Abdul Khalik, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Indonesia played a key role in mediating a successful negotiation between the Taliban and South Korea, leading to the release of 12 Korean hostages on Wednesday, the country's foreign ministry has said.

Foreign Ministry secretary general Imron Cotan said that upon receiving a request from the Taliban on Monday, Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda, who is now in Latin America for an official visit, ordered the Indonesian ambassador in Kabul to verify the request, and contacted the Afghanistan and South Korean governments to make it clear that all parties accepted Indonesia's role.

"We made it clear also that our role would be that of a mediator during the negotiation and a witness -- as the Taliban wanted us to be -- of the release of the hostages.

"After the all-clear, our official, the Taliban and South Korean delegations, and with the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) as a facilitator, began talks Tuesday leading to the release of the hostages on Wednesday," he told The Jakarta Post on Thursday.

The Indonesian government sent Heru Wicaksono, an Indonesian diplomat in Kabul, to the negotiations in Ghazny, a province about 200 km south of Kabul.

"From what I saw and from what I heard in the talks, (money) was not an issue," Heru was quoted as saying by The Associated Press. He said that the Taliban were motivated by "humanitarian feelings" to free the captives.

The Taliban were expected to release the seven remaining South Korean hostages Thursday, bringing to an end a six-week drama that saw two captives executed by the kidnappers.

Imron said that Indonesian involvement in the successful negotiation would earn trust in Indonesia's role in the Middle East.

Indonesia has been involved in several successful mediating roles, including helping end the Cambodian conflict in the 1980s, facilitating the reunion of Charles Robert Jenkins, an American who defected to North Korea, and his family in Jakarta in 2004, and the release of kidnapped journalists in Iraq in 2005.

Foreign Ministry director for South Asian affairs Asruchin said that Indonesia had the Taliban's trust because beside being the world's biggest Muslim country, it had never broken relations with the Taliban.

In Bali, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono praised the successful role of Indonesian diplomats in the negotiation. He said Indonesia's involvement began when he told the South Korean president of his readiness to help the problem when he visited the country last month before he offered a similar service to the Afghanistan ambassador here.

"We thank God that it was smooth and successful," he was quoted as saying by detikcom news portal.

The Taliban originally kidnapped 23 South Koreans as they traveled by bus from Kabul to the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar on July 19. In late July, the militants killed two male hostages, and released two women earlier this month as a gesture of goodwill.