Keberlangsungan suatu Program Studi sangat tergantung pada kinerja para staf di dalamnya. CRCS UGM pada tahun 2015 telah menempuh usia 15 tahun. Suatu perjalanan panjang dalam menanggapi isu keragaman di Indonesia. Di tengah perjalanan itu, Program Studi ini ternyata telah mendapat pengakuan tertinggi dari BAN PT dengan akreditasi A. Tentunya, ini adalah sebuah pencapaian berkat usaha dan kerja keras staf pelopor Ilmu Agama di Indonesia ini.
Berikut ini, tim website CRCS sengaja melakukan wawancara dengan salah satu sosok  di balik pencapaian prodi ini, Linah Khairiyah Pary atau biasa dipanggil  Mbak Lina yang telah menjabat sebagai office manager CRCS sejak tahun 2009.  Perjalanan akademisnya cukup mengagumkan karena mampu lulus dari dua program master di dua universitas yang berbeda pada saat yang hampir bersamaan. Saat menempuh pendidikan S2 di CRCS, dia juga mengambil S2 jurusan manajemen pendidikan di Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. Seorang kolega di CRCS mengisahkan, “Mbak Lina bahkan harus jalan kaki dari UNY ke UGM lebih dari satu kali setiap hari”. Nampaknya, pengalaman inilah yang menjadikan dia mampu menata semua urusan administrasi dan akreditasi secara memuaskan.
Untuk lebih jauh mengetahui bagaimana pengalaman Mbak Lina di CRCS, simak wawancara Subandri Simbolon berikut ini:
Berkaitan dengan proses akreditasi CRCS, bagaimana suka-duka yang dihadapi Mbak Lina?  Apa saja yang dilakukan baik secara personal maupun team?
Akreditasi BAN PT merupakan proses sertifikasi 5 tahunan yang wajib dijalani  oleh institusi pendidikan di Indonesia. Karena ini merupakan proses 5 tahunan, tentu kendala yang dihadapi adalah menghadirkan kembali dokumen-dokumen akademik, penelitian, kerjasama, pengabdian masyarakat dll. yang telah dilakukan CRCS selama 5 tahun. Selama proses persiapan akreditasi, saya tidak merasakan kendala yang berarti karena tim akademik, keuangan dan administrasi sangat solid dalam membantu mengisi borang akreditasi BAN PT. Selain itu, CRCS memiliki lumayan banyak pengalaman dalam bidang audit. Perlu diketahui, selain audit Akreditasi oleh BAN PT yang berlangsung 5 tahun sekali, CRCS juga diaudit oleh KJM (Kantor Jaminan Mutu) UGM setiap tahun. Selain itu setiap semester, CRCS juga di audit oleh auditor internal ISO SPs UGM dan setiap 3 tahun juga diaudit oleh auditor eksternal SGS. Sejak tahun 2009, CRCS telah tersertifikasi ISO 9001:2008 oleh SGS. ISO 9001 sendiri merupakan standar international dalam bidang sistem manajemen mutu. Dengan telah tersertifikasi ISO 9001:2008, sangat wajar jika CRCS mendapat akreditasi A dengan skor 373 (dari skor maksimum 400).
Sangat mengesankan, berkat kerja keras Mbak Lina dan tim, CRCS akhirnya memperoleh Akreditasi dengan nilai A. Apa saja strategi yang Mbak Lina lakukan sehingga mampu memperoleh nilai itu?
Sekali lagi ini bukan kerja keras saya saja, proses persiapan akreditasi merupakan kerja tim. Dalam hal ini saya sangat mengapresiasi mas Catur Agus Suprono yang sangat sabar dan telaten menyediakan data-data yang saya butuhkan dalam mengisi dan mengolah borang. Selain itu, saya juga sangat mengapresiasi Mbak Nurlina Sari, staf keuangan CRCS yang sabar dan cekatan membantu mengisi borang terkait pembiayaan. Dukungan Koordinator Akademik dalam mereview kembali borang sangat penting untuk memperbaiki kualitas borang. Selain itu, bantuan teknis dari mas Bibit Suyadi semakin mensolidkan kinerja kami dalam mempersiapkan proses reakreditasi CRCS.
Terkait dengan strategi untuk memperoleh nilai A (sangat baik), ada beberapa hal yang kami lakukan: 1). Membentuk tim dan membuat job deskrispi yang jelas untuk masing-masing staf  dalam membantu mengisi borang akreditasi dan menyiapkan dokumen-dokumen pendukung. 2). Membuat deadline dan mentaati deadline terkait tahapan waktu  pengisian borang, review borang, penyerahan borang ke KJM UGM dan pengiriman borang ke BAN PT. 3). Mentaati ketentuan KJM UGM untuk menyerahkan borang akreditasi ke KJM UGM untuk direview oleh auditor internal UGM. Proses ini sangat penting, karena auditor internal UGM merupakan auditor BAN PT juga. Auditor internal UGM bertugas menilai borang tersebut serta memberikan masukan-masukan perbaikan. Saya merasa fasilitas yang ditawarkan KJM ini sangat “wah” dan sangat berharga. Fasilitas ini kami manfaatkan dengan baik.
Apa yang Mbak Lina Rasakan selama proses dan setelah mendapat hasil?
Selama proses persiapan akreditasi, saya berusaha untuk fokus dan teliti dalam mengisi borang dan mempersiapkan dokumen-dokumen pendukung. Selama beberapa bulan berhadapan dengan borang tentu timbul rasa bosan dan bete.  nah… untuk mengatasi rasa bosan, biasanya sambil mengisi borang saya pasang headset dan  mendengarkan berbagai macam musik, mulai dari Adele, John legand, Sam Smith, Kitaro, hingga Jhoni Iskandar dan Rhoma Irama (variasi musik lumayan membantu mood saya dalam mengolah borang:). Bagi saya, akreditasi merupakan sesuatu yang sangat prestisius, CRCS juga merupakan lembaga pendidikan yang prestisius, sebagai staf, saya merasa wajib untuk memberikan kinerja terbaik saya agar CRCS mendapatkan akreditasi A. Dan alhamdulillah, atas kerja keras semua staf, CRCS berhasil memperoleh nilai A.
Kesan dan pesan apa yang ingin Mbak Lina sampaikan kepada seluruh Civitas Akademika CRCS?
Pesan saya untuk teman-teman staf, semoga kita selalu solid, guyup, dan hangat dalam bekerja. Saya merasa beruntung, bekerja di CRCS dan mendapat teman-teman kerja yang saling mendukung. Pesan saya untuk mahasiswa CRCS, fokus dalam studi, jalin persahabatan dengan teman-teman dan cepatlah lulus. CRCS hanyalah salah satu batu loncatan dalam mengeksplor dunia. Makanya… cepatlah lulus.
 

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

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.