Indonesia: Why Salafism and Terrorism Mostly Don't Mix
Southeast Asia/Brussels |
13 Sep 2004
Last week's deadly bombing in Jakarta has once again focused attention on terrorist movements in Indonesia, but it is essential not to paint all puritanical forms of Islam in the region with the same brush.
Indonesia Backgrounder: Why Salafism and Terrorism Mostly Don't Mix,* the latest report from the International Crisis Group, examines the form of Islam known as salafism and explains why the movement is not the security threat that it is sometimes portrayed to be. This report, the first comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon in Indonesia, concludes that most Indonesian salafis find organisations like Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), the group responsible for the Bali bombings of October 2002 and almost certainly the 9 September 2004 bombing, anathema.
"Salafis may come across to outsiders as intolerant and reactionary, but for the most part, they have a very different interpretation of jihad than the kind of people who join JI, and JI appears to have had little success recruiting from salafi schools", says Sidney Jones, ICG's South East Asia Project Director.
Some involved in terrorism in Indonesia, such as Aly Gufron alias Mukhlas, a Bali bomber, claim to be salafis, but the radical fringe that Mukhlas represents (sometimes called "salafi jihadis") is not representative of the movement more broadly.
Salafism is so inwardly focused on faith that salafis eschew political and organisational allegiances that might divide the Muslim community and divert attention from study of religion. They reject oath-taking to a leader, which is central to the organisational structure of groups like JI, and they regard as heretical any attempt to overthrow a Muslim government, regardless of how oppressive. Salafism grew rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s, in part because of Saudi assistance, but post 9/11 cutbacks in aid have probably curbed its growth. Even at its height, it was a minority movement within Indonesian Islam, although one with many historical precedents.
"In some ways, the purist salafis are a more potent barrier against jihadis like JI than the pluralist Muslims who often become the recipients of Western donor aid", says Jones. "The kind of young men attracted to JI are far more likely to listen to the preaching of a salafi graduate of the University of Medina than to a cosmopolitan intellectual with a degree from an American, Australian, or British university. If the jihadis believe that making bombs serves the interest of Islam, strict salafis whose commitment to the purity of religion is beyond question may have more success in convincing them, using the same texts they recite, that their interpretation is wrong."