ABSTRACT
Hate speech is one of the factors contributing to sectarian and ethnic conflict.  It typically includes social/psychological processes of dehumanization and demonization that define others as less than human and archetypes of evil. Often others are described as existential threats to the very existence of the speaker’s community. It is used to incite or justify violence, sometimes rising to the level of genocide. It is nearly often entirely inaccurate.
Hate speech is an under theorized mode of contentious discourse. It is easy to recognize and difficult to define precisely. In this paper I located hate speech within a four-point typology of contentious discourse: 1. Dialog concerning religious differences; 2. Unilateral condemnation of the beliefs and practices others; 3. Dehumanization and demonization of others and implicit justification of violence; 4. Explicit provocation of violence.  For examples I rely primarily on the violent rhetoric of the Indonesian Islamic Defenders Front.
Dehumanization and demonization are the psychological processes that distinguish between civil discourse and hate speech. Levels 1 and 2 are critiques located within the limits of civil discourse because they do not implicitly or explicitly threaten others. Levels 3 and 4 are hate speech. They make symbolic associations that are inherently threatening.
Some forms of hate speech are universal or nearly so. Among these are the description of others as animals, evil, heretics and/or of engaging in “inappropriate” sexual conduct. Others are culturally or religiously specific. More research is required to understand the semantics of hate speech and how it transcends religious and ethnic boundaries.
There is an inevitable contradiction between defending freedom of speech, as guaranteed by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,and protecting people, usually minorities, from the psychological harm hate speech causes and the risk of physical violence it exposes them to.Legal restrictions do not eliminate hate speech; they only drive in from the public sphere. Most laws restricting hate speech were drafted long before the Internet and social media existed. Now, they are largely ineffective. Countering hate speech requires concerted effort by religious and political leaders and netizens across a range of media, including those used most frequently, including social media, by extremists who promote it. In this presentation I rely on examples from Front Pembela Islam (Islamic Defenders Front/FPI).
SPEAKER
Mark Woodward  is Associate Professor of Religious Studies and is also affiliated with the Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict at Arizona State University. His research focuses on religion-state-society relations and religion and conflict in Southeast Asia. He is author of Islam in Java. Normative Piety and Mysticism in the Sultanate of Yogyakarta, Defenders of Reason in Islam (1989)and Java, Indonesia and Islam (2010) .He has published more than fifty scholarly articles in the US, Europe, Indonesia and Singapore, many co-authored with Southeast Asian scholars. He his currently directing a trans-disciplinary, multi-country project on counter-radical Muslim discourse.

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.

Ali Jafar | CRCS | Wednesday Forum Report
Maurisa, a CRCS alumna from the batch of 2011, presented her award-winning paper in Wednesday forum of CRCS-ICRS in 11^th November 2015. Her paper entitled “The Rupture of Brotherhood, Understanding JI-Affiliated Group Over ISIS”, was awarded as best paper in IACIS (International Conference on Islamic Studies) in Manado, September. Maurisa was glad to share her paper with her younger batch. To all the audiences, Maurisa told that winning as best paper was not her high expectation, and it makes her proud.
The presentation began with Maurisa’s statement that the issue of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) are quite to understand in relation to modern terrorism, because we always misread them and sometime we cannot differentiate between ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Maurisa continues her explanation that there are many groups in Iraq and Syria struggling for their power, terrorism is not single but many. ISIS also has supporters in Indonesia such as Jemaah Islamiyyah (JI-Islamic Group) which is considered as a big terrorist organization in Southeast Asia. This group (JI) has disappears from public consciousness, but actually its members have been spreading out. The most fascinating thing that she found is that JI in Indonesia. JI was separated into two, Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI) and Jama’ah Anshar at-Tauhid (JAT), and surprisingly JAT itself has internal conflict and divided into two; JAT and JAS (Jama’ah Anshar as Syari’ah).
Maurisa’s paper focused on questions about how does the conflict in Syria resonates with Jihadists in Indonesia, and how does political struggle within MMI show belief in a master narrative. Maurisa used Juergensmeyer’s perspective about cosmic war and the logic of religious violence. In the Juergensmeyer perspective, an ordinary conflict could become religious conflict when it is raised into cosmic level. One of the ways is demonization or Satan-ization of the enemy. In the context of Syria, the demon is Shia group which is blamed for chaotic situation within Sunni community. The master narrative was also about the same language. It is about sadness, it is about the sad feeling of being discriminated and persecuted by Shia.
According to Maurisa, not all jihadist groups support ISIS, indeed MMI was supporting Jabhat an-Nusra. The rupture of this affiliation was based on their differences in the perspective of takfirism (Apostasy). JAT and MMI have different perspectives in defining  what Takfir Am (general apostasy) and takfir Muayyan (specific apostasy) is.
In seeing terrorist movements, although Maurisa saw that Jihad-ism is not monolithic, she revelas that there are five elements which are related each other. There are ideological resonance, strategic calculus, terrorist patron, escalation of conflict and the last is charismatic leadership. Terrorists also use social media, such as Facebook, Youtube and so on, to promote their propaganda, and as soft approach to other Muslims. Based on Maurisa’s research there are 50000 social media accounts to spread ISIS propaganda, but only 2000 are used to spread out propaganda. The most popular social media is Twitter, because a message can be retwited..
In the discussion session, Nida, a CRCS student asked about the current issues in which governments have banning Shi’a celebration in Indonesia, and whether there is any relation with ISIS, and how an Indonesian can be involved in the terrorism. Maurisa answered the question by explaining that Indonesia is about to change. It can be seen in Islamization created room for Islam in the public sphere. Indonesia is vulnerable since Wahabis and Iran have their political goals here and both want to establish their domination to spread out their agenda. Cases in Sampang, Madura, Pakistan and so on cannot be separated from international case. There are long story for transformation of Saudi and Iran. Our country is like something too.  In talking about the entrance gate, Turkey is good entrance from Indonesia to go to Syria. If we see Turkey’s position is also questionable. They deny Isis, but they also support Isis.
Subandri also asked about the ways we interpret jihad are accessible. Therefore there are many interpretations of Jihad. That is what looks like for young Muslim now. Along with Subandri, Ruby also asked about the genealogy of Indonesian Jihadist movement. Like the connection between Indonesia and middle east that coming and potential realignment and the effect of JAT over ISIS.
In seeing connection and global phenomena, a relation between Islam and Middle East, Maurisa explained that in the United State for instance, there is relation if you wear jilbab, you are Muslim, and when you are Muslim, you are ISIS.  “Here we can see the idea about securitization is like Islamophobia”, said Maurisa with showing slide about relation between Indonesia and Middle East. As she explained again “If we look at voice of Islam, we can see that there are solidarities for Syria. It is reported that medical mission in Indonesia, they have collected 1.6 million. For Syria suggesting support for the movement of mujahidin”. Maurisa also explained that globalization is the most responsible for this case. For example many Indonesia Muslims have easy access to Saudi, Iranian, Jihadist web, because of technology and so on. Young Indonesian have a lot of curiosity and they don’t ask to other.
In responding the interpretation of jihad, Maurisa gives a feedback, how do we interpret this? What makes cosmic war happen? And how to deal with them?. Maurisa began her explanation that in Islam, although there are many verses for killing, but it not necessary to do in violence. We have many steps in interpretation. There are many reasons for what make Muhammad approve of killing and in what context he did so. There are many possibilities to interpret jihad and there are many verses of good thing about Jihad. In talking about cosmic war, she said that “as long as we consider our enemy as Satan, or evil, meaning it is cosmic war”. At the end of discussion session, Maurisa concluded that the factor of jihad is not monolithic; there are many factors, even in ISIS and Al-Qaeda have different perspectives about jihad.
(Editor: Gregory Vanderbilt)

Ali Jafar | CRCS | Wednesday Forum Report
The discourse about “religion” “and” “science” has been long contested among scholars. Since the nineteenth century, religion and science have often been understood as in conflict with each other, science is human method for understanding nature using reason and religion relies on divine revelation. From different starting point, both religion and science have difficulties in finding common ground. But, starting from Ian Barbour, in the 1950s, a new discourse about the contemporary field of religion and science has proposed that integration is possible. Starting from this question at the Wednesday forum of CRCS/ICRS on 9th September 2015 , Zainal Abidin Bagir called for both side to re thinking the relation between science and religion.
Bagir described the Barbourian discourse as sympathetic to religion, accepting of the basic theories and findings of modern science, and looking at scientists’ theories and theological beliefs to understand the relationship and its impact of the former on the latter. Barbour proposed a typology: conflict, independence, dialog- integration. In the conflict relation, we have to choose one. In the independent relation religion and science belong to separate world without contact. While in the dialog, we have to find similarities of them. The last is integration meaning that religion validate science each other.
Bagir explained that the territory struggle between religion and science outside the West is not about the content itself, but it is as part of resistance to colonialism. Among this contestation, bagir told about Islamic modernist movements. In Indian subcontinent there is Sayyed Ahmed Khan who integrated religious belief with modern science. Other example include Muhammad Abduh from Egypt, Muhammad Iqbal from Pakistan, and Hossein Nasr from Iran and so on, who were communicating religious belief with scientific ideas.
Indeed, Bagir argued that discussion of the discourse on the relation between religion and science should involve historical awareness. Moreover, it should not be just discussion of the content of the two fields but rather and examination of instrumental and social ethics, as well as epistemological and metaphysical view points. Bagir also noted that there are differences in the discourse between cultures and religious tradition. One example is that evolution is not a topic of debate in the Islamic world as in the United States.
Bagir discussed several instances of the “religion and science” discourse in Indonesia. For example, this question has arisen in relation to the educational models of Islamic Universities. When some of the IAINs (State Islamic Religious Institute) were transformed into UINs (State Islamic Universities), these new universities included faculties of natural and social science and medicine. Each university took its own approach to the question, but all tried to integrate the spirit of religion and the spirit of science.
Bagir also explained that the relation between religion and science at times of disaster can be one of competing authorities. He took an example from  Merapi volcano eruption in 2010, when there was debate between scientific explanation and defiance by Mbah Maridjan, the traditional spiritual guidance of the volcano, though Bagir argued that the central was issue trust, not science versus superstition. Anticipating next week’s presentation by Samsul Maarif on the forestry practice of the indigenous people of Sulawesi, Bagir argued that the “religion” part of “religion and science” must be radically questioned and opened up to include indigenous religion which are often the same as indigenous ways of knowing nature, i.e. indigenous science. Moreover we must ask what this discourse is for: it is to dominate the other or it is for the well-being of all, including non-human communities.
Responding a question about scriptural authority in relation to scientific knowledge, Bagir answered both are known through interpretation. Another question is from Fahrur, a CRCS student, who asked about Bagir opinion on the integration of religious studies and science and other field of study, including English, at UIN Yogyakarta. Bagir described the integration is still among debate. If the purpose of integration is to create Islamic identity, what makes a field of study become Islamic? He took examples from UIN Jakarta and UIN Malang. At UIN Jakarta, there is no integrated study. Science and Islamic studies each follow its own logic and methods. While in UIN Malang, student in all field are prepared for their studies by learning about Islam for one year in a boarding school that is part of the university. Still, the science learned in university is not integrated with religious science.
Concluding the discussion, Bagir explained that the discourse of religion and science is still debatable among scholar. There are many discourses and opinions of integration of religious and science. Thus, he insisted Dr. Samsul Maarif to be speaker in the next Wednesday Forum to explain indigenous science and religion. Dr Samsul Maarif has taken his research in Amatoan in which the indigenous sciences of Amaatoan about forest conservation are coherent with their religious belief. (Editor: Greg Vanderbilt)

Abstract
American Jews have long been prominently involved in the American media and film industries, so much so that some commentators have even said they are ‘the backbone of film production in America’. This position has indeed given opportunities for Jewish Americans in the industry to play a prominent role in shaping the business including issues of how Jews and Judaism are represented in film and other media. However, depictions of Jews and Judaism in American movies have changed according to political and cultural conditions. After World War II, a new formula emerged on the silver screen. The reframing of American religious identity as “Judeo-Christian” encouraged directors and producers who were Jewish to promote the concept of America as a Judeo-Christian nation as a response to ongoing anti-Semitism in America. Examining Biblically-themed movies such as The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur-A Tale of the Christ, this presentation intends to explore the connection between the idea of a “Judeo-Christian” tradition and the acceptance of Jewish Americans and recent immigrants by American society. The portrayal of Jews in these movies is interesting to discuss here, not only because Jews and Christians are depicted in the same framework of the Hollywood movie, but also because of the underlying politics of representations.