Politics, faith and truth

Khairil Azhar

Once in a day, Umar bin Khattab, the second caliph after Prophet Muhammad in Islamic political history, received an issue that his governor in Egypt, Amr bin ‘Ash, had condemned a house of a Christian widow for a mosque. The woman with deep sadness painfully went to Madina to meet the caliph seeking for justice because she had heard he was a very just man.
The low profile and humble caliph accepted the woman warmly and coped with her problem as soon as possible. He immediately sent a courier to confirm the dispute to Amr bin ‘Ash and asked him to meet him. After getting all information confirmed, the wise caliph decided to put the woman under his guardianship and asked his Egypt governor to stop the building process of the mosque and return the woman’s property as before without any conditions plus all cost she had spent.
How sweet! And this was not the only true story exampled by the caliph. With his simplicity and humbleness the brave man actually has shown many best examples of how Moslems as a majority have to live side by side and take care of the others.
Unfortunately, this kind of story as well as a tradition has been long sidelined in the mosques and Islamic schools. Since my childhood, I have experienced that the religious sermons delivered by the preachers dealing with the being of the others mostly narrowed into the contrasting viewpoints and positions. And at the present time, with a better awareness of Islamic political practice, I see day to day most of the Moslems leaders fail to show themselves inheriting the positives taught by their early predecessors.
And that was why I had accepted the notion of inconvenience in the tone of Anand Krishna in his writing at the Jakarta Post, 18 May 2009 as well as the ire shown by tens of readers of the same paper. Being a minority or having a concern on the universal human rights sometimes naturally makes someone very sensitive and suffers sadness and sorrow.
But as it was presented by Nikolaus van Dam few weeks ago, we are with the sound mind obliged to try to differentiate between what is Islamic and what is not. Or in my words, to sieve any Islamic labeled issues in order to get the filled-out crops and put aside the hollow ones. Because we are nowadays actually shoppers who are browsing around in a free market of ideas. Why do not we purchase only something interesting and leave the rest? Are not the sellers going to change or better their products in case of failure to sell? And we have seen how some religious labeled political parties dying or fell off.
We also have seen that some accused and jailed corruptors represented clearly how religion labels or symbols for some have been only protective agents to authorize their own missions. And it is not extraordinary for sure because religions for many people have been commodities with lots of advantages. That is why, perhaps, in the al-Quran itself there is an expression, “…and their trade (of acts of hypocrisy) factually gave no advantages (beside the God and sound people) and they were not among who follow the guidance (2:16).
And let me tell another story. Purwacaraka, a Moslem and one of Indonesian leading musicians, was interviewed on a TV station someday in the fasting month. The unforgettable question and answer in my mind was about the supposed relationship between the seasonal piety shown by most Moslems in the fasting month with their moral and behavioral change both individually and socially. Were there the real effects of their sudden awareness of everything related to religious practices and services and looked so pious as well as copious?
The answer surprisingly was something unexpected. Purwacaraka calmly answered that there was no statistics for instance showed the corruption index was decreasing in the fasting month. Even the daily behaviors shown by some Moslems worsened. When the fasting-break time was approaching for example the traffic seemed to be crowded because some or most of the street users suddenly were in a hurry. The similar intolerable thing also happened at night and dawn. The loudspeakers in many places were unstoppable to be noisy.
So, how will we prove the quantified correlation between the form and quality of faith Pak Boediono as a vice president candidate has with his being able to run a good governance for instance? What is the proven guarantee that someone timely prays will act well? Do we have the statistics? If it is said in the al-Quran that prayer prevents someone from disgraceful deeds (29:45), does not it talk about how it should be instead of how it is in fact?
Discussing about this makes me then remember the late Mohammad Hatta, the founding father and former first vice president of Indonesia. It was well-known that he prayed timely and made the prayers as the media to establish his characters and attitude. On the other side he learned Marxism as well as capitalism; he had no resentment to anybody even though he experienced bad things befell onto him even by the people he had ever helped and supported; and he lived a simply life as he had to take a train to go teaching when his former compatriots in the independence fighting days at the same time enjoying luxuries burdened on to the people.
The most interesting fact related to the recent political fraud is that Mohammad Hatta lived side by side without showing any slight harm which would bear anxiety on the part of the others. His piety wonderfully exactly appeased the people surrounding him. Was not his loyal secretary a Christian? Was not Mohammad Hatta himself a good example of how a Moslem politician should do to guarantee true justice to the people?
On the other side, we actually have to realize that democracy itself has a potential weakness in itself: the possibility of majority tyranny. And it might be another cause why Anand Krishna and my other non-Moslem fellows have been frightened. Being a minority also may easily make someone confused and put him into unexpected troubling feeling. And it is an unfortunate for sure that I have not experienced this kind of situation yet.
But the thing I really convince in this case is that we can not clap with only a hand. We need both of them at the same time. The majority anyhow often become inattentive in the slippery areas and burden the others and so does with the minority actually. And we are obliged to remind each other wisely. It seems a cliché for a glance. But it is the only alternative. It is also unfortunate of course that this kind of consciousness more possessed by common people and academicians rather than the politicians.
To this point then I really wonder what the politicians actually seek in their lives? Do they, for example, look for something such happiness? Is the profession called “politician” just like any other jobs to ensure economic requirement of life? If yes, is it true that hypocrisy is common and logic for them? And it is fair then the politicians promising and campaigning better life for “wong cilik” (the disadvantaged) exactly at the same time enjoying all kinds of luxury. It is a naiveté therefore if I imagine a very luxurious car possessed by a politician actually can be bartered to build a school.
Or, if a politician talks about “taqwa”, an Islamic concept which mostly defined as carrying out all goodness obligated and stay away of all wrongdoings prohibited by God, is it really something knowledgeable for him or merely a lip service? Or, has not he become too proud and arbitrarily claimed himself as the owner of the truth and the others have not?
That was probably why Nietsche the philosopher once told us about the difference between the one who continuously seeks the truth and the one who stops and believe in whatever he has got. In Islam actually, the truth is the God himself, which is called “al-Haqq, the true truth. And a Moslem is on the way to reach it till his death and not to claim himself as the truth itself.
Well. I can see surely how the politicians smile broadly in front of the camera or on the stages when they are having political campaigns. But I still wonder whether they are happy and spreading happiness or they are looking for the truth. Because it is hard to understand how someone like Anand Krishna, a spiritualist, showed his inconvenience when he wrote about the recent moves or comments delivered by a politician? Have not the politicians obviously had caused many inconveniences rather then peace in accord with their oaths in the world? Do not they make the peaceful atmosphere become fraudulent so far? Could not they have just a slice of empathy?

The writer graduated from Syari’a Faculty of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah in 1999 majoring Islamic schools of thought. He is currently a teacher at Lazuardi Global Islamic School – Cinere. He can be reached at besoreal@gmail.com.