Two of the most challenging questions faced by those promoting freedom of speech is to what extent speech is free and whether there are kinds of speech which should be restricted. Very often this brings about a dilemma, since restriction can be seen as the opposite of freedom. This is partly because there are people who can utilize the freedom of speech to spread hatred or incite harm to other people or to the well-being of society in general. The question: Is there room for hate speech within free speech? How should hate speech be defined? On February 15, 2016, CRCS student Azis Anwar Fachrudin interviewed Mark Woodward on the question of religious hate speech. Woodward is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Arizona State University (ASU) and is also affiliated with the Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict there. He was a Visiting Professor, teaching at the Center for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies (CRCS), Gadjah Mada University, for several years. He has written books related to Islam in Java and Indonesian Islam in general, as well as more than fifty scholarly journal articles, including “Hate Speech and the Indonesian Islamic Defenders Front” co-authored with several others including CRCS alumnus Ali Amin and ICRS alumna Inayah Rohmaniyah and published by the ASU Center for Strategic Communication in 2012. On February 17, 2016, he presented in the CRCS/ICRS Wednesday Forum, on the subject of “Hate Speech and Sectarianism.”
***
Hate speech is quite complex to define, but if someone asks you about it, how would you first define and explain it?
There is no any academic or political consensus on what is and what is not hate speech. It varies considerably from one country to the next when we’re thinking about it in political or legal ways. I think though that we can say that hate speech does two things. It treats or defines people as being less human and in higher level involves demonization. And that’s sometimes quite literal. One of the reasons why I use FPI [Islamic Defenders Front; in Indonesian, Front Pembela Islam, abbreviated as FPI] as an example is that it is so clear when they say, for example, Azyumardi is iblis [the devil]…
Or Ahok is kafir [an infidel] … this counts as hate speech?
Yes, calling people iblis is one level up. At its highest level, hate speech is defining people as archetype of evil. Once you define people in these ways, then you’re just defied, at least in your mind, in calling for the organization to be outlawed. Sometimes, [you’re called] to kill them. We’ve seen that.
So, there are scales of hate speech…
Ya, scales. Lower level of hate speech would be simply saying that a group or an individual is sesat or deviant, and it moves up from there… at the highest level it calls “kill them!” Literally calling for violence. In almost any level it can be used to justify violence; it can be used for purposes of political mobilization. That’s particularly powerful when it’s used by either large NGOs or by governments.
Your paper is opened by a quite provocative statement. It says, “FPI is a domestic Indonesian terrorist organization.” How can you say that it’s terrorist?
It is a terrorist organization; it deliberately seeks to terrorize people. Terror is a state of mind; it is a psychological and sociological term. It is spreading extreme fear in people. This is what FPI does…
But they would certainly reject to be called terrorist…
Most certainly they reject it, so does Jamaah Islamiyah; they would respond that they weren’t terrorist; they were mujahidin. No one, or very few people, will say “I am a terrorist.” But look at what they do, though. They threaten people; they terrify, beat and sometimes kill them. I have no problem calling them terrorist at all.
So you’re prepared to take the risk of saying that.
I’m perfectly prepared to call them terrorists. This is an academic judgment. I know that there are people who for political reason would restrict the use of terrorism, to think like suicide bombing. But that’s a political judgment, not an academic judgment.
To support your thesis, you’re collecting data from what FPI has done to particularly Ahmadis and those who are considered to be deviant…
Anyone they consider to be deviant… and people who don’t fast during Ramadan, or gay and lesbian people, and increasingly Shia…
But I think there’s one thing quite important from [FPI founder] Habib Rizieq as he was once giving a sermon, I watched it on Youtube, in which he’s making three categories of Shiites (Ghulat, Rafidah, Mu’tadilah). Have you made a note about this?
I have not seen that. I very much like to. Habib Rizieq has been somewhat more reluctant to be critical of Shia than he has of Ahmadiyah and liberals. Most of the examples that we use in that paper are about liberals. It has been successful to the extent that people are now very reluctant to call themselves liberals. If you’re calling yourself a liberal, you’re putting yourself at risk.
Actually the attackers of Shiites in Sampang were not FPI, right? And this is particularly because FPI has a view on Shia that is different from theirs.
There are a lot of different organizations that are behind anti-Shia, as well as anti-Ahmadiyah. One of the alarming features of this is that hatred toward Shia has brought people who normally would not be on the same side. Very good example of that is, if you look at Forum Umat Islam and their publication called Suara Islam, then you look at the editorial board… you have Habib Rizieq, and you have [Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid’s leader] Abu Bakar Baasyir. And Baasyir is Salafi-Wahabi.
Salafi-Wahabi?
It’s clear from what he has written; it’s clear from the people he denounces. He speaks frequently and forcefully about concepts like bid’ah, khurafat, syirik, denouncing ziarah kubur, and things like that. And Habib Rizieq is… habib… (who likes to gather people to do) salawat…
Closer to NU in terms of rituals…
Closer to NU, and to other habibs [a title typically referring to Prophet Muhammad’s descendants]. I’ve been to events at the masjid and bazaar near FPI and you have salawat, you have maulid, all the things… If you went to see Habib Luthfi, you would see the same sort of ritual. So this is a new development in political Islam in Indonesia. You would find those groups on the same side; it is really only hatred of someone else that brings them together.
A common enemy creates a new alliance…
That’s right. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
One of your main theses in that paper is that the government cannot stop FPI violence because it fears appearing non-Islamic. Does that imply that what FPI has done is actually in accordance with the common will of the people they’re trying or pretending to defend?
That’s a very difficult question. It does seem to be clear that at least at the beginning—maybe no longer true—FPI was linked to elements within the police and military. I don’t think that the majority of Indonesians support the sweepings. We haven’t seen these recently as much as we had; they were for a while. But there are many people who are afraid to oppose them publicly because there are threats.
Because of threats or because what FPI is doing is Islamic?
Well, there are people who would agree with what they say, but not agree with their methods. There are people who would be very strong political opponent of Shia and Ahmadiyah on religious ground, but they would not consider violence to be justified. We need to be very clear on those differences. The issue is not whether or not you agree with someone’s religion. I may not agree with Salafi-Wahabi teachings, but I’m not going to go and say that they should be killed. It’s criminality, not theology. It’s actions that are important… or inciting violence. That’s very complicated and you’ll question. There is a paradox, between controlling hate speech and defending free speech. This is a paradox that has no clear resolution; no easy answer.
I think one of the political strategies to minimize or to stop FPI violence is to cut the ties between FPI and the police.
Well, that’s definitely one thing that needs to be done. I don’t even know whether this still operates. Certainly the police are not willing to clamp down on them very hard. There are some people who think that if they did, it would only get worse. There are other people who think they don’t have the power to do that. But I don’t believe that. Because the Indonesian security forces have proven themselves to be extremely effective in cracking down groups like Jamaah Islamiyah. If they wanted… if they decided to shutdown FPI, they could. I don’t have any doubt about that. FPI does have a much broader basis of support than Jemaah Islamiyah. Because they are not talking about things like establishing a caliphate…
They are talking more about amar ma’ruf nahy munkar [Quranic injunction to “enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong”]…
Yeah, and they are talking about aliran sesat [heretical movements].
And basically it doesn’t have a problem with Pancasila, right?
No, it doesn’t have a problem with Pancasila. Honestly, groups like FPI and partly MMI are more difficult to deal with than Jamaah Islamiyah…
Because they can operate within the government…
Because they can operate within the government… and they can operate basically within the framework of things that are considered to be religiously acceptable. Being habib has a great deal of prestige.
Rizieq’s “habib-ness” makes a great deal…
His habib-ness is part of what gives him religious authority for many people. This is certainly true of many of his followers…. preman [gangsters], and some mantan preman.
Coming back to the topic of hate speech. Do you think Indonesia should have a law banning hate speech, such as calling others as kafir or…?
There are some regulations that were issued by the national police; no one pays any attention to them. But I think this is a political choice that only the people of Indonesia can make. No matter what choice they make, there will be people who will be critical. And again, if you look at this in a world wide way, in functioning democracies, you’ll find, for example, in the United States you can say the most terrible thing you want. But in Germany, if you say anything good about Nazis or if you display Nazi symbols, you get arrested. There is a wide range of strategies.
Yeah, limits on free speech create new dilemmas…
Right, that’s absolutely right. A strong government would not tolerate hate speech. On the other hand, maybe there are other people who would say this is a price we have to pay for democracy. This is where the paradox comes. Democracy is always messy and noisy.
Would you prefer to say that, for example, [rising FPI leader] Sobri Lubis who was saying that it is lawful to shed the blood of Ahmadis should not be punished?
He probably crosses the line, because he very clearly says kill the people and directly incites a crime. I don’t think it causes problem with free speech to prosecute people who encourage others to kill people. This is probably the line. Actively encouraging violence is probably the line.
So, one line that, I think, can be agreed on by all people is inciting physical violence, right?
I think so. I think you could have a broad consensus of opinion that says that this (encouraging violence) is too much.
One last question. Since you’re mostly dealing with FPI, would you further your research to reach other cases such as, the most recent, Gafatar in Kalimantan Barat and Ahmadiyah in Bangka? They are not done by FPI, but people around them.
Yes. An important question here is, what are the social processes at work? In the last ten years, there has been a climate that promotes or indirectly promotes this kind of thing; that it becomes socially acceptable in ways that it probably would not have been before. Ahmadis have been in Indonesia peacefully for more than a hundred years. Both Muhammadiyah and NU have issued fatwa that said this is sesat. Nobody did encourage any kind of violence. Shia? No one cared at all, because the Shia didn’t bother any body. All these have been an invented crisis in the last ten years. Who is kambing hitam here? Belum jelas.
Do you think that it has something to do with, like some would say, Wahhabism?
Well, partly. It’s definitely a global phenomenon. The paper that we’re talking about is part of a global research project. And we have seen the same thing in Nigeria, which is a country where there are no Ahmadis and Shia. People there are going around, talking about the danger of the Shia… even though there are no Shias! It is in one way a global phenomenon.
Ok, Pak Mark. That’s all. Thank you so much.
Azis Anwar Fachrudin | CRCS | Interviews
News
Ali Jafar | CRCS | Wednesday Forum Report
The first CRCS/ICRS Wednesday Forum of 2016 welcomed Risnawati Utami, an activist for the human rights of persons with disabilities who recently played an important role in resolving a case concerning the rights of persons with disabilities in Bali to participate in their religion. . Together with her organization named OHANA (Organisasi Harapan Nusantara), she advocates for the human rights of persons with disabilities for shifting understanding about disabilities to ensure that persons with disabilities are treated as full and equal members of Indonesian society.
In her presentations, Risnawati said that “persons with disabilities constitute about 15% of the world’s population, meaning they are the largest minority in the world and mostly in the developing countries. Why persons with special needs required attention, it is because they are still discriminated against.” In religious model, Utami gave an example about persons with disabilities in Bali. Culturally in Bali, disabilities are understood as resulting from karma or actions done by the parents in their life or as punishment from bad behavior they did. When they have a disabled child, they will put their child in a different place, not in the main house. This happens not only in Bali, but also in many places.
Furthermore, Utami said that in Indonesia generally, the government looks on the person with disabilities as the object of charity, as a person who needs help and as object of development, it is kind of charity model happened. She told about disabled organizations which get a lot of rehabilitation programs, economic assistance, money, etc. ‘Can we see normality with disabilities?” said she. In medical model, Utami explained that she got polio when she was four, which has made her unable to walk. Her parents tried to make her normal. She completely disagrees with this model. It sees disability as not normal.
The term of disable is itself a problem. Utami explained that in Indonesia it is still common to use “penyandang cacat” which refers to a person with “special needs.” Meaning, we are still labelizing them. In the concept of humanity, we should not define people as “disabled,” but as “persons” because we are using concept of humanity in advocacy. According to the Convention on the Rights of Person with Disabilities, which Indonesia and most other countries have ratified, all people with disabilities can enjoy all the same human rights as everybody else, including religious freedom.
The third article of CRPD calls for the recognition of human rights and human diversity. Indonesia has not fulfilled this point, as can be seen from how LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender) Indonesians cannot be religious leaders. A man who is gay and has a ‘disability’ , for example, cannot be a leader for other men in praying. He can be the leader only for woman.. Another related example is that according to marriage law in Indonesia, a man can be divorced or marry a second wife is his wife becomes disabled. Utami argued that this is discrimination against persons with disabilities.
Utami told a her story about when she was young. Her caretaker carried her to Mushola, and all the people there were asking why she was being carried. In Indonesia, public buildings are not designed to adequately accommodate persons with disabilities. In contrast, Risnawati told another story about a Muslim friend in England who is blind and can go everywhere with his seeing-eye dog, including the mosque. This situation would not be possible in Indonesia. Utami said that this is homework for Islamic leaders: can they learn to allow a blind Muslim into the mosque with a dog in order to pray?. Utami also told about her experience in America when a pastor invited her to go to his church, which was in a building is accessible for wheelchairs. She felt she could fully participate in life in America.
Utami continued that there is a custum, when a disable enters the temple and they fall down, the temple should be purified. It is quite debatable with religious organization in Bali. What Utami and her organization have done is creating mediation. In Indonesia generally, there are many deaf organizations in helping Muslim with disabilities. When they could not hear Khutbah (Jum’at prayer), they provide sign language for Muslim with disabilities. Utami mentioned UIN Yogyakarta’s mosque as an example about friendly institution over the person with disabilities. There is sign language during khutbah and the building was designed for disable also. Utami told how the building should be designed universally, it will reduce physical barrier over person with disabilities. Regarding to the freedom of religion, Utami said that it is about attitude and perspective, and how to eliminate ignorance and prejudice. It is also about how people like her can also have access to themosque.
In Discussion session, Samsul Ma’arif asked about the relation between religious freedom and universal design for persons with disabilities. It is because the way he understood religious freedom is about how we are not necessary to have similar though in religion. Utami responded the question saying that universal design is to accommodate people to come to that building. For Utami, the building is part of socialization, how people can get access to the accessible worship place like masques or church. Religious freedom is not about only about the same rights, but also about equal access.
Following Ma’arif, Mark Woodward asked about the most reason they rely on international organizations and Utami answered the Indonesian government responds to international pressure more than to lobbying from its own citizens. Thus the CRPD is an important tool for social change in Indonesia. Meta, a CRCS student, also asked about Utami’s opinion that religion also makes them as charity object? Utami answered that she has a quite liberal perspective, and sometimes still accepts the charity concept or uses several model on the time. “I advocated for persons with disabilities so they will not be underestimated.”
Editor: Greg Vanderbilt
Azis Anwar Fachrudin | CRCS | Book Review
How has Tarot, which was originally foreign to Indonesians, been practiced by Javanese people? Has there been any kind of adaptation of the practice to embrace Javanese local culture? Using etnography as a research method, the book by Achmad Fawaid entitled Ethnography of Tarot: Politics of Localizing Occultism in Java provides historical accounts and analitical study of the localization of the practice in Java.
The main question addressed by the book, originating from Fawaid’s master’s thesis at CRCS, UGM, is how Javanese belief system has made influences on Tarot and its Javanese practitioners. Many of the book’s data are based on interviews with Javanese Tarot practitioners themselves, examined by using the lenses of the theories developed on etnographic studies or anthropology. The book then argues that Javanese Tarot practitioners have “localized” the global “occult” practice and that this localization could be understood in terms of “adaptation”, “acculturation”, indigenization”, or “hybridization”—each of these concepts are elaborated in the book.
The book suggests that in the process of localization the Western Tarot practice has been intertwined with Javanese esoteric occultism. The kebatinan ideas, quite popular among Javanese people, such as tapa, samadi, mutih, wayang performance, and Javenese traditional healing, have been absorbed and carried out in the process of localization—this is the fact that some Javanese Muslims later accuse the practice to be deviant constituting a form of shirk, klenik, perdukunan or a kind of shamanism.
The research findings the book poses is that (1) Javanese Tarot practitioners have negotiated themselves in the cultic milieu they are living in by “localizing their alias, communities, Tarot reading strategies, Tarot decks, and their personal preference to gather in candi”; and that (2) Tarot practice in Java has closely been connected to some Javanese belief systems, such as rasa and kahanan, and this makes the practitioners practice Javanism, either consciously or unconsciouly, while playing Tarot. Because of these two, Fawaid argues, the localization of Tarot in Java has lead to a “cultural ambivalence” as an implication that the practitioners cannot be free from it as they are practicing global occult practice while maintaining Javanese cultural identity.
In the end, as stated in the epilogue of the book, Fawaid argues that this process of localization as a way of examinig Tarot practices should be a contribution to “occult discourse”. He critizes the common assumption that Tarot reading is strictly divided into three characteristics: psychology, intuition, and spirituality. Fawaid poses one element missing, that is, localization in the forms of abovementioned concepts which should be added in the discourse and which shows a hybridity within Tarot practices between local beliefs and global practices.
Overall, the book lays a foundation for further research on the case; the etnographic accounts of Javanese Tarot have been quite deeply examined in the book. If there is one question to stimulate further research, it can be a more philosophical discussion, that is, why Tarot is considered an occult practice. The book elaborates anthropological concepts (acculturation, indigenization, hybridity, etc.) but for the most part, it seems, it takes the concept of occultism for granted. Occultism, like the concept of religion, which may contain a modern construction of meaning, should be more philosophically discussed and critically examined in the first place. In fact, this has become within the heart of the problem when Javanese Tarot practitioners try to negotiate their identity with religious milieu of Javanese people.
Ethnography of Tarot: Politics of Localizing Occultism in Java | Author: Achmad Fawaid | Publisher: Ganding Pustaka, Yogyakarta | Year Publishing: November 2015 | Pages: 208 pages
Wednesday Forum is a weekly discussion on religion-related ideas and practices organized by both the Center for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies (CRCS), Graduate School of Universitas Gadjah Mada and Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies (ICRS), Yogyakarta. This forum is an academic space open for public, encouraged especially for our graduate students, faculties, professors, researches, Indonesian and overseas scholars. It is aimed for scholars to share their research on the field related to religion. Therefore, we invite those who have research, papers, ongoing papers, or short documentary film on the field to do presentation in the forum.
Themes
The themes discussed are including, but not limited to, interfaith dialogue; conflict resolution and peace building; religious education; art and spirituality or mysticism; religion and pop culture; religious violence and radicalism; indigenous religions; religion and ecology; religion and politics; and philosophical ideas on religion, etc.
Attendees
The forum is attended by CRCS and ICRS graduate students and faculty members, lecturers, visiting professors, activists, and students from other universities. Basically the forum is open for public.
Date and Venue
The forum is held every Wednesday, from 1 to 2.30 pm, in the Room 406 of the Graduate School Building, Sekolah Pascasarjana Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Teknika Utara, Pogung, Yogyakarta. For the coming semester, the forum will start from 10th February to 11th May 2016 and from September to December 2016.
Application
Application to be a presenter can be made by sending an email to the organizer: najiyah.martiam@ugm.ac.id. Send the abstact of your research and your brief CV, primarily your study background, activities, and research. The Wedforum committees will evaluate the applications and choose the presenters.
Ali Jafar | CRCS | Wednesday Forum Report
In the beginning of her presentation, she drew a picture portraying goddesses of Nusantara (Indonesia Archipelago) on white board and told about narrative and myth over the mothers. She said that in humility paradigm of ecofeminism, all trees, animals, land and water have its own systems of thinking and communicating. How the stone whispers, why the water is raging, and how the land thinks. There is equality between human being and other non-human being. It was Dr. Phil. Dewi Candra Ningrum, the editor- in chief of Jurnal Perempuan (JP- Indonesian Feminist Journal) presenting in the CRCS’ Wednesday Forum on November 25th 2015.
A.S. Sudjatna | CRCS | News
“Boleh mengambil apa pun dari alam, asal sesuai haknya. Jangan berlebih. Ada hak Allah yang harus dipenuhi di sana, yakni keseimbangan. Namun jika berlebih, maka namanya mencuri, menzalimi hak Allah, mengambil lebih dari haknya.”
Itulah sekelumit nasihat dari Iskandar Waworuntu terhadap para mahasiswa CRCS yang mengadakan kunjungan ke Bumi-Langit, Kamis 17 November 2015. Menempati tanah seluas kurang lebih tiga hektar di wilayah Imogiri, Yogyakarta, Bumi-Langit merupakan tempat tinggal keluarga Iskandar Woworuntu yang sekaligus difungsikan sebagai contoh implementasi dari permaculture. Lokasi ini terletak tak jauh dari Pemakaman Imogiri, tempat dimakamkannya raja-raja Kesultanan Mataram. Bahkan, dari pendopo warung Bumi-Langit, pengunjung dapat melihat secara jelas kompleks pemakaman raja-raja tersebut.
Permaculture sendiri merupakan istilah dari gabungan dua kata, yakni permanent dan agriculture yang kemudian mengalami pergeseran menjadi permanent culture. Permaculture sebagai sebuah sistem yang teratur dan dapat dipelajari serta dipraktikkan mulai dikenalkan oleh Bill Mollison dan David Holmgren pada tahun 1978. Dalam hal ini, Mollison mendefinisikan permaculture sebagai sebuah filosofi tentang kerjasama dengan alam, bukan menaklukannya; tentang pengamatan dan penelusuran dan bukan pemikiran penggarap; tentang memperhatikan terhadap semua fungsi tanaman serta binatang dan bukan pendekatan yang menjadikan sebuah area sebagai sistem produksi tunggal. Artinya, permaculture merupakan sebuah sistem yang didesain sedemikian rupa sehingga dapat memaksimalkan fungsi alam untuk keberlangsungan kehidupan tanpa harus merusak atau menyalahi kodrat alam itu sendiri. Iskandar menyebutkan bahwa permaculture adalah sebuah ilmu untuk mendesain hidup manusia sesuai dengan tugasnya sebagai khalifah—penatalayan atau steward dalam istilah Kristen—di muka bumi, di mana manusia dapat memiliki kemampuan untuk mewujudkan kehidupan sesuai dengan yang dikehendaki oleh Tuhan.
Dalam kunjungan kuliah lapangan ini, rombongan mahasiswa CRCS diajak berkeliling melihat pertanian, peternakan, dan hunian keluarga Iskandar dalam kompleks Bumi-Langit yang terintegrasi dalam sebuah sistem terpadu, di mana seluruh bagian yang ada di Bumi-Langit—semisal peternakan sapi, ayam, dan kelinci, serta ladang dan hunian tempat tinggal manusia—memiliki keterkaitan hubungan yang saling menguntungkan. Sistem pembuangan kotoran manusia dan hewan, misalnya, ditampung di dalam sebuah tempat khusus untuk kemudian diolah menjadi biogas yang digunakan untuk memasak dan keperluan lainnya. Begitu pula, sisa jerami pakan sapi digunakan sebagai pupuk kompos dan lahan pembiakan cacing, di mana cacing-cacing ini dapat digunakan sebagai pakan ternak lainnya serta alat penggembur tanah. Sistem permaculture yang diterapkan di Bumi-Langit memang sangat menekankan akan ketiadaan unsur limbah berlebih yang disebut sebagai fasad oleh Iskandar. Fasad berarti suatu kerusakan yang diakibatkan oleh ulah buruk atau kezaliman manusia, dan salah satu bentuknya adalah limbah.
Menurut Iskandar, limbah dalam kadar kewajarannya bukanlah masalah atau sebuah fasad. Sebab, secara alamiah limbah itu akan terurai dalam waktu yang cukup singkat. Namun, jika limbah itu berada di luar kewajaran akibat adanya campur tangan tindakan buruk manusia—misalnya tindakan eksesif saat menggunakan suatu benda atau sumber daya alam, sehingga limbah yang dihasilkan tidak dapat diurai secara alami atau membutuhkan waktu yang sangat panjang—maka itulah fasad yang harus dihindari. Menurut Iskandar, bumi tempat tinggal manusia, alam dan segala makhluk yang ada ini diciptakan oleh Tuhan dengan ukuran atau kadarnya masing-masing. Ukuran-ukuran itulah yang membuat alam ini berada dalam kondisi yang stabil dan harmoni. Namun, jika ukuran ini diganggu atau diambil tanpa perhitungan yang jelas, kestabilan ini akan terusik dan dapat memicu kerugian yang signifikan bagi kehidupan di bumi ini. Contoh nyata dalam hal ini misalnya bencana longsor atau banjir yang diakibatkan adanya penebangan hutan secara liar dan massif. Secara alami, alam memang memiliki kemampuan untuk menyeimbangkan kembali ukuran-ukuraan yang telah diambil tersebut, namun eksploitasi dan cara-cara eksesif yang dilakukan manusia kerap membuat alam membutuhkan waktu yang lebih lama dalam proses penyeimbangan tersebut, atau bahkan membuat alam sama sekali tidak dapat memperbaikinya sebab kerusakan yang ditimbulkan bersifat permanen.
Menurut Iskandar, hal pertama yang harus dipelajari dan senantiasa dijadikan landasan dalam segala bentuk praktik permaculture adalah etika. Di dalam Islam, etika ini dikenal dengan istilah adab. Di dalam penerapan permaculture ini, Iskandar memang lebih banyak dipengaruhi oleh ajaran Islam yang dianutnya. Menurut iskandar, adab adalah titik awal untuk melakukan apa pun di dunia ini. Tanpa adab, seseorang akan selalu mendapat masalah saat melakukan apa pun. Adab permaculture, menurut Iskandar, ada tiga. Pertama, care for the Earth; kedua, care for humanity; dan ketiga, fair share, baik terhadap manusia maupun ciptaan Tuhan yang lainnya. Bumi berada di urutan pertama sebab ia mewakili alam secara keseluruhan. Dalam hal ini, Iskandar menjelaskan bahwa seseorang tidak akan mungkin memiliki hubungan kemanusiaan yang baik atau sanggup membangun peradaban manusia yang baik jika tidak memiliki etika yang baik terhadap alam. Bahkan, menurutnya, manusia sendiri adalah bagian tak terpisahkan dari alam ini. Manusia yang terdiri dari sistem pencernaan, saraf, napas, atau darah—termasuk pula sistem transenden yang belum dipahami manusia—adalah sebuah internal ekosistem. Sedangkan bumi dan seluruh makhluk lainnya adalah eksternal ekosistem. “Jadi, jika kita tidak memiliki hubungan yang baik dengan internal maupun eksternal ekosistem, tidak mungkin kita memiliki hubungan baik dengan manusia apalagi membangun peradaban,” ucap Iskandar saat ditanya mengapa manusia tidak berada dalam urutan pertama. Hal ini tentu sangat bertolak belakang dengan pemahaman umum yang cenderung bersifat antroposentrisme, di mana manusia menjadi pusat bagi kehidupan di dunia ini.
Iskandar menjelaskan bahwa yang dilakukan oleh permaculture adalah sebuah pendekatan holistik bagi keberlangsungan kehidupan bumi dan peradaban manusia. Dengan adanya pendekatan holistik ini, maka manusia tidak keluar dari kodratnya sebagai khalifah di muka bumi, yakni pihak yang bertanggung jawab untuk mengatur, mengurus dan menjamin keberlangsungan kehidupan di dunia ini dengan harmoni, bukan mengeksploitasi semua kekayaan alam demi kepuasan pribadinya. Karenanya, menurut Iskandar, maksud dari holistik di sini dapat bermakna menyeluruh maupun suci atau agung. Artinya, sistem yang digunakan mestinya tidak keluar dari garis-garis ketentuan Tuhan dan senantiasa bertujuan demi menjalankan perintah-Nya. Dengan begitu, segala perilaku manusia yang hadir di bawah kontrol sistem tersebut dapat dimaknai sebagai bentuk ibadah yang memiliki kontinuitas, sebab nilai-nilai kebaikan yang dibangunnya tidak terhenti pada satu generasi semata. Di dalam bahasa Islam, menurut Iskandar, hal ini disebut dengan amal jariyah, yakni amal perbuatan yang pahalanya senantiasa mengalir terus walau pelaku perbuatan tersebut telah tiada.
Permaculture dengan segala prinsip, metode, dan praksisnya terbukti dapat menjamin keberlangsungan nilai-nilai kebaikan itu. Keterjaminan kontinuitas nilai-nilai kebaikan inilah yang dibutuhkan bagi hadirnya kontinuitas kehidupan atau peradaban di muka bumi. Oleh sebab itu permaculture ini, di dalam pandangan Iskandar, amatlah penting untuk dipelajari dan implemetasikan di dalam kehidupan manusia. “Karena,” ucap lelaki blasteran Indonesia-Inggris ini, “saat kebaikan itu terputus, terancamlah peradaban tersebut. Dan ini sesuatu yang bukan hanya menjadi keterancaman dunia, bahkan menjadi keterancaman akhirat. Sebab sebetulnya garis amal jariyah, garis amal kebaikan, diturunkan dari satu generasi ke generasi lain sebagai bagian dari keberkahan manusia. Pada saat terjadi gangguan-gangguan terhadap keberkahan tersebut, kita jadi kehilangan doa dari masa lalu.”
Permaculture selalu meniru prinsip alam di dalam cara kerjanya. Hal ini dilakukan untuk menghindari efek negatif yang kemungkinan akan ditimbulkan dan dapat merusak ekosistem. Hal tersebut dapat dilihat di dalam dua belas prinsip desain permaculture, yaitu mengamati dan berinteraksi, menangkap dan menyimpan energi, mendapatkan hasil, menerapkan didiplin atas kebijakan yang diberlakukan namun mampu pula menerima masukan, menggunakan sumber daya terbarukan dan anugerah dari alam, tanpa menghasilkan limbah, desain dari pola hingga detail garapan, lebih mengintegrasikan daripada memisahkan, gunakan solusi kecil dan lambat, menggunakan dan menghargai keanekaragaman, gunakan tepi dan menghargai marginal, serta menggunakan secara kreatif dan merespon perubahan. Dengan menggunakan prinsip-prinsip tersebut, manusia dapat memenuhi kebutuhan pokoknya untuk hidup dan berkembang tanpa harus merusak alam dan masa depan kehidupan bumi.
Kunjungan siang itu ditutup dengan acara makan siang dan diskusi ringan di pendopo yang difungsikan sebagai warung Bumi-Langit. Pada kesempatan itu, Iskandar banyak memberikan “sentilan” terhadap pola hidup manusia modern di perkotaan yang menurutnya telah jauh menyimpang dari kodrat manusia sebagai khalifah di muka Bumi. Ia menyebutkan bahwa pada masa poskolonialisme, negara-negara jajahan—termasuk Indonesia—memang telah diberi kebebasan dan memiliki pemerintahannya sendiri, tetapi kebebasan mereka harus mengacu kepada hukum-hukum Barat, sistem Barat; sistem kesehatan Barat, sistem pendidikan Barat dan sebagainya. Sehingga, kian hari kian miriplah masyarakat yang dulu terjajah itu dengan orang Barat. Hal inilah yang kemudian menyebabkan mereka semakin terkungkung di dalam kehidupan ini, terutama secara spiritual. Imbasnya, masyarakat dunia ini semakin jauh dari fungsi utamanya, yakni sebagai pemakmur atau pengelola bumi—khalifah. Alih-alih jadi pemakmur, justru kebanyakan masyarakat saat ini berubah menjadi perusak bumi dan kehidupannya. Di akhir obrolan, Iskandar mengungkapkan harapannya. Ia ingin menjadikan Bumi-Langit dengan permaculture-nya yang telah ia rintis sejak 2006 itu sebagai tempat lahirnya para khalifah itu. Karenanya, ia juga mendirikan yayasan Bumi-Langit Institute yang menaungi segala bentuk kegiatan pembelajaran dan sarana berbagi ilmu mengenai permaculture. Dengan begitu, ia berharap anak-anak desa akan mendapatkan kepercayaan diri dan meyakini bahwa ada kemuliaan di desa, sehingga mereka tidak terpukau dan pergi ke kota. Selain itu, ia juga ingin menunjukkan bahwa ada banyak nilai kearifan di alam kepada anak-anak kota. Melalui Bumi-langit Institute ini, Iskandar telah menunjukkan bahwa agama dengan segala doktrinnya tidaklah terpisahkan dari kehidupan dunia ini. Bahkan, agama dapat menjadi salah satu solusi bagi permasalahan ekologis dan keterjaminan keberlangsungan kehidupan di Bumi ini.
(Editor: Azis A. Fachrudin)