This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
“Menikahi Agama” (Interfaith Marriage, Indonesian Style) is a short documentary film on two couples of married who struggle for legalizing their interfaith-marriage. The story sequences took in both Solo (Heny-Budi) and Yogya (Maria-Iwan) demonstrate interfaith marriage which continuously take place in varied areas of Indonesia. Since the marriage Bill and several religious decrees banned the practice, interfaith marriage remains as a legal vacuum. The paper completed with film resume and a series of the national marriage Bill description which succeeded to control over religious affiliation of the actor. Along with this condition violence against women exacerbates in their status before the law, has addressed the existence of patriarchal-based society who ensued to put women as a secondary position within marriage institution. The film is an advocacy against the complexity of dualism legalization-system in Indonesia that affects not only marriage legislation but also women position before the law. Keywords: interfaith marriage, marriage Bill, dualism, state violence
A. Preface Uprising global phenomena has given advance people’s attachment to technology. Consequently, the definition of media and film has grown more than a limited term of journalism, which then includes people’s engagement on reporting the current testimony such as citizen journalism or amateur film maker. The so called media conscious world, which moves faster than the speed of light, advantages us foreknow the news quickly. As such the horrified Aceh’s tsunami disaster at December 2006 or the astonished September 11 incident has come up with ‘on the spot’ report that rejigged by an effective device of technology. This was also happened to the area of religious practices. Admittedly, it is difficult to come and conclude how religious life remains in this media-conscious world? Recently, the Islamic film in Indonesia is inimitably could not be separated from booming of Ayat-Ayat Cinta (Love Verses, 2007). Beside its successful story, the latest film calls the question of religion’s representation into being. Religion and its representation in terms of the moving image, as Hastrup commented on his writing “Anthropological Visions: Some Notes on Visual and Textual Authority”:
“The distance between reality and representation is almost entirely neutralized. The visual documentation has an immense power of seduction, which can hardly be discussed, perhaps because the distance between reality and representation has been negated” (Crawford and Turton, 1992: 13)
The debate along representation also becomes ‘coupling unit’ to the existence of bias in the film making. Again Hastrup convince us, “bias is not necessarily an evil. As such, bias…. is no more and no less than a subjective view”. (Ibid., 12) Another word, the near erasure of distance between reality and representation is a portrait of subjective ‘taste’ of film maker, it may indicates his/her involvement on the track of socially significant relationships, that are them self invisible. Bias can be attained and be drawn ahead by the awareness of film as result.
For both representation and bias, we begin our making film. From awareness; we experience the increasing polarization between religious view and behavior in relation to religious life in Indonesia. Such occurrence raises either in the type of relation between religion and state or polarization among religious groups (intra or extra groups). While the difference among variety of religious views happened obviously as the consequence of a democratic society, polarization base on religious orientation works on the other hand. The latter appears in more contra-productive condition since it spreads essentially in various spectrums and in some extent takes apart from society’s attempt to gain social cohesion. Such accidents; debates on pornography bill, application on Syari’ah bill, idea of pluralism and liberalism and its surrounded debates, play apart in placing the society into more dilemmatic condition; either fight in the name of religion or struggle for uniting diversity. (Film Booklet; 2-6) What lie behind this social fragmentation is an oversimplified groups onto dominant factions such as fundamentalist, liberalist, radicals, pluralist and so on. Unfortunately those ideologized terms, where media used to take a part in this role, work to incline pseudo-real of religious condition. In other word, the polarization is no more than simplified condition which does not merely depict more complex religious life and practice. (Mulkan, dkk. 2002: 248, 289) In order to follow from that consideration, the paper comes up with the explanation about the subject in this film, the performer of interfaith marriage who struggle for legalizing their marriage to find out an accommodative institution for that purpose. What follows, the review and commentary on law-barrier faced by majority of those performers entailed from dualism in registering the marriage. This paper enclosed with the impact of state violence via marriage Bill in Indonesia, where women undergo mostly. B. Menikahi Agama; The Process of Making Film is The Outcome Beside two side of fragmentation; state-religion and among religious groups, the actual practice of religious life sometimes regarded unremarkably. In fact there are lot of social groups’ relation where such wisdom laid within. This distinct wisdom (e.g. tolerance, adjustment, care, respect, etc) either based on religious view or religious-inspired tradition may become the source to live harmoniously. The social capital, which Johan Effendy used to name it as society’s moral and ethic, for some reason become the potency to break up religious problems. (Mulkan, dkk. 2002; 290) As an attempt of multiplying this ethical “therapy”, the film tries to follow the path of awareness raising through alternatives media also trough real life portrait and publication. In doing so, the film publicized small scope of religious life and practice, such individual case or social group which is not merely represent national condition. Meanwhile this more close-up case might be counted as part of other social sectors and its form. The attempt, thus, comes up effectively with some lessons even wisdom for other social condition. The process of making this film is valuable. It’s not just about documenting the wedding ceremony; moreover it portrayed the struggle of two couples to search for chance of legalizing the marriage. Since the marriage institution has in charge with private life, for us (the film maker) the main process is an attempt to negotiate with the very sensitive life of the bridegrooms. Their willingness and self openness in this documentary is a primary gate for us to go further. (Crawford and Turton, 1992: 11) Then, we begin with some steps of research; studying the issue, interviewing the experts, observing interfaith couples by following their effort to search for the possible institution and ended by keeping a record of their wedding ceremony. Apart from that internal difficulty, the issue on religious debate as well sociopolitical one faced by both performer and film maker, is no less important in this account. But, the utmost goal of this process is the ability to transfer the idea into visual language while at the same time we try to weaken the burden of film as media. The visual gain of
this film therefore the utmost outcome gained from our relationship with several interfaith couples. (ibid., 17) Given that plurality is not only a mere religious problem, interfaith marriage also inclines in political stake where state has significance role on it. Apart from personal portrait, Menikahi Agama in larger context objectifies to portray the practice of interfaith marriage which in fact might be a normal occurrence. Thus, the couples’ marriages become extraordinary because they were constrained by uncertainadministrative process. The Couples’ Effort on Legalizing Their Marriage Process Ria (26 years old) and Iwan (28 years old) are artist-couple who meet each other trough their deep engagement with artisan community in Yogyakarta. Ria is the youngest of three children in her religiously-plural family, who since the death of her mother and father decided to live in Yogya and maintains her children’s puppet-house. On the other hand, Iwan is the only son of his divorced parent, lives with his mother’s family in southern regency of Yogyakarta. Both of them were never declare their relationship, since they realized their different religious affiliation. Moreover the troubling fact of Indonesia marriage Bill which strictly banned interfaith marriage has made the condition goes in severe. Being realized by this difficulty, Iwan and Ria never tried to urge each other to marry. But time goes on faster, friendly relationship between Ria and Iwan grows in favorable turn. And since two years of their relationship they felt on lacked for marriage. Again, this was not easy. For Ria it could be less difficult, given that her older brother and some of her parent’s family are engaged in this kind of marriage. But she was not feeling in comfort to see her family’s style of marriage where one of the couple converted to other’s religion. If she’s get married, convinced her self, she will never convert her spouse into her religion as well she wouldn’t converts into her spouse’s religion. Happily, she was in one line with Iwan in this reason. Therefore, on second year of their relationship Ria and Iwan doubtlessly encourage them self to bring the relationship into marriage. Little by little, they tried to consult with several people who have knowledge on this matter. Beside his effort to find the ideal marriage, Iwan realized this was more difficult for him to inform to his loyal Moslem family. In fact, Iwan has to deal with his brother in-law who comes up with dispute and strictly disagrees with Iwan’s choice. Since his mother was out of country Iwan then tried to consult this matter into his uncles and aunts. It was an exhausted effort till he found that his most beloved aunt guarantees and blesses his decision. His effort moves beyond this point. Trough deep discussion between Iwan and Ria, also their eager desire to avoid forgery on legitimating marriage they decided to legalize the marriage trough Catholic Church. The later legitimating process has more trouble-free in regard to religious affiliation.1 And in line with this decision, Iwan gets out of Islamic marriage as he avoids the forced-conversion for Ria endured by Islamic system of marriage. In order to gain this troublesome attempt, Iwan has to ask letters of information from village’s government which may burdens his religious affiliation.2 On the other way, Ria has a great
Based on Canonic Law 1061 no. 1 and 2 also Canonic Law 1062, Catholic Church permits such interfaith marriage. There were two model of inter religious marriage approved by Church pastoral, first is ecumenical one (a marriage between two different church e.g. Protestant Church and Catholic Church) and the other is mixed marriage, marriage held by two different people with different religious affiliation. The last model requires a discrimination letter from pastoral. Both performer in this film, Heny-Budi and Ria-Iwan, used to perform such letter. (Piet Go O. Charm, 1987, Kawin Campur Beda Agama dan Beda Gereja: Tinjauan Historis Teologis, Pastoral, HUkum Gereja, dan Hukum Sipil, Malang: Penerbit Dioma)
Part of village’s letter of information consists of religious affiliation which determines the upper institution within marriage system of legalization. The letter for Moslem bridge or groom is specialized for Islamic
duty to find out a moderate church and pastor who are willing to bless their marriage. No more than a year this backbreaking effort fire up its light. Finally, June 23, 2008 Ria and Iwan declare their promise of marriage in a Catholic church where they free them self from religion’s forgery. Heny and Budi is another couple with different trouble of interfaith marriage in this film. Heny (35) is Moslem woman who has just moved from Jakarta to Solo a year before her re-meet with an ex-junior school classmate, Budi (36). It’s not really surprising that 2006’s school reunion -where Budi took in committee’s charge- unite them together. It was Heny’s forgetting memory about Budi which at last brought the gate for their relationship. And they need no more extended time to get closer and than decide their dream to build a lovely family together. But it was seem not easy since the first idea appears. Heny and Budi have different religious affiliation and gave them rough time to legalize their marriage. Even further, Heny have more severe burden before Canonic Bill since she was widower, a marital status which collide with canonical principle.3 Firstly, they tried to have help from Solo pastoral to deal with this problem but then pastoral definitely rejects their application. Yet Heny and Budi didn’t want to stop their effort. During six months of struggle Heny tried to have the letter of dispensation beside she has to convince her family’s objection. Among the spread of despair of this seemingly impossible marriage, Heny and Budi find a pastor who also involved in interfaith community and later become the mediator for all bless coming. Then, Heny’s application was approved by the pastoral at the time when Heny’s mother sincerely affirmed her permission. Over all, this marriage also successfully took place with the help of prominent interfaith group that concern on this issue. Differ from first couple who once legalized their marriage, Heny and Budi assured them self to perform both of religious blessing; Islamic and Catholic process. The certain legalization they got convinces their status before each religion. It’s valid according to both of religion, though they only got single state’s acknowledgement. Ria and Iwan’s wedding might be an ordinary marriage if they were convert into one religion even Heny and Budi’s struggle could be labeled as a weird by other people. Both of attempts were part of miserable-joy for interfaith couple in this country, who tried to be honest for their own self with no tiny infringe of state’s marriage system and Bill. Their sophisticated struggle in validating marriage process was just a dot among hundreds amount of Indonesian kind of ‘contravene’ interfaith marriage in Indonesia. C. National Marriage Bill no. 1/1974; a Dilemma for Interfaith Marriage Apart from two couples’ effort in legalizing their interfaith marriage there was longlasting history of debate on such matter. There were hundreds of individual cases which prolonged the debate between religion’s interests on the status of interfaith marriage on one part and state’s attention on its legislation at the other part. Both religion and state are at the same time failed to compromise each interest in general and accommodate the performer’s need in particular. (Musdah Mulia, 2007: 135) The attempt of Heny-Budi and Ria-Iwan to validate their love into legal marriage status, in fact, has to deal with sophisticated barrier of administration and bureaucracy. This conclusion was taken from such research which deals with performer of such marriage in Yogyakarta. As such, the preceded social research of this Film bore the evidence that there were several possibilities which shown the prevalence of
marriage system (Religious Office) and that of non-Moslem (Civil Registry Office). (Interview with the Head of Religious Office for Depok subdistrict, Mr. Syaifuddin Zuhri, M.Ag August, 23 2007 and the Head of Marriage and Divorce Division of Sleman Civil Registry Office, Mr. Sumardi, SH, March 28, 2007).
It is Mathius 18 verse 6, which considers marriage as a relation that could not be separated by human being. The verse points to the objection of Catholic Church to bless the marriage of a divorced man or woman.
interfaith marriage in both institution of Civil Registry Office (KCS, Kantor Catatan Sipil) and Religious Affairs Office (KUA, Kantor Urusan Agama).4 Sleman regency, for example, there were 948 marriages registered in its Civil Registry Office during 2005. Among those marriages, at least 6 cases were interfaith kind of marriage where 4 of them were enclosed with conversion letter. The other regency has raised its prevalence. Regency of Gunung Kidul, for instance, 32 cases of interfaith marriages was discovered among 268 registered marriages at 2005. Among those cases there were 11 couples who enclosed their prerequisite with conversion letter. Another words, there were (at least) 21 couples who failed to attached such letter. From this prevalence, classically, we can assume that though government has come up with those administrative requirements for legalizing interfaith marriage (by attaching the conversion letter as the evidence of subduing religion into partner’s religion) several performers failed to do so. Meanwhile, no less than previous case, the Office of Religious Affair (KUA) bore the more severe evidence. Sri Wiyanti, has done the same research in Wonosari sub-district of Gunung Kidul regency. From 2878 of KUA’s marriage data storage, there were 63 couples identified by interfaith marriage happened during 2000 up to 2003. Whilst 37 of those cases were among Moslem men and converted Moslem women, the other 26 cases were registered as marriage among converted Moslem men and Moslem women. Differ from previous subdistrict; KUA in Depok sub-district, Sleman regency has accumulated 17 possible cases of interfaith marriage. It’s based on the evidenced that there were 5 of those registered marriage enclosed with conversion letter while the rest are provided by different religious affiliation on their ID card. Our deep question spread among that evidence then, how those cases may be happened? How the governments handle interfaith marriage in Indonesia? Primarily, how the Bill speaks about this matter? The promulgation of National Marriage Bill no.1/1974 was a great achievement of state’s government at that time. The spirit of unification performed by this Bill has torn down such stratified citizenship done by colonial governmental system. But, the unification was not merely succeeded in regulating the plural-Indonesian condition. There was a long debates on the draft of this Bill prolonged from 1950s era up to 1970s. Historically, it invoked several factions in parliament house even wider among society. The first phase of historical debate dealt with dispute among Islamic political faction which hardly work on implementing seven words of Jakarta Charter on the one part and nationalist-secular who have a preference for breaking up between religion and state. The second phase of this debate had gone with two kinds of marriage bills, namely the Marriage Bill for Indonesian Muslims (RUU Pernikahan Umat Islam) and the Marriage Bill on basic principles of marriage applicable to all religious groups (RUU Pokok-pokok Perkawinan). The first were submitted in 1967 and followed by the later at 1968 respectively to the former People’s Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Gotong Royong/DPRGR).5 At the end of this question there were third
Both institutions are legal official government which deal with marriage registration. The further explanation of both officials takes place on the next chapter. The data collected by scrutinizing the prerequisite of legalizing marriage which is submitted by each performer in each office. Parts of those requirements are: birth document, ID card, family document card, village official statement from each spouse, etc. (See, Prasyarat Pengajuan Perkawinan, KCS Gunung Kidul, 2007) In order to find religious affiliation; we analyzed the consistency of religious affiliation of each document. Yet, we also tried to find the letter of conversion which may be written by performer. 5 Amongst the arguments objecting to the Bills was the lack of an alternative possibility for a ‘secular’ wedding, namely a wedding that would not be conducted according to a certain religious law. The Christians faction too objected to the Bills as they thought that the Bills were reflecting the ‘separation between citizens’ (pengkotakkotakan warganegara). The Christians favoured a more general Bill that would accord with their marriage rules and would lessen Islamic influence.
phase of debate where debate re-emerged at New Order Era a new Marriage Bill was proposed in 1973. The new bill contained secular precepts and was perceived by many Muslims as contradicting the shari`a. After moslem’s huge rallied and tough negotiation from TNI fraction with Islamic parties, government than validating the bill at 1974. (Mujiburrahman, 2006: 165-166, Feillard, 1999: 129) Thinking that Marriage Bill no. 1/1974 is the first marriage bill in Indonesia has misled our comprehensive knowledge. Earlier before National Marriage Bill was promulgated there were several laws regulate marriage mater; part of them was Islamic Bill – which was considered significantly as customary Bill by Bujgerlijk Weit (Colonial Marriage Bill). The bill was later on reformed and promulgated by Orde Lama as Bill no.22/1946 concerned on the matter of Marriage, Divorce, and Reconciliation for Moslem citizen in Jawa and Madura.6 The bill then became the primer source of the elaboration of Islamic Compilation Law (KHI, Kompilasi Hukum Islam)7 which was legalized trough Presidential Instruction at 1991. (Mujiburrahman, 2006: 159-160, Gavin Jones, 2006: 4) Moreover, among the less effective account of Marriage bill was debated articles on interfaith marriage.8 After this long lasting debate, the regulation on such marriage was understood as prohibited matter. At least, this conviction stood out in the part of interpretation of article 2 which explicitly said that the legal marriage according to this Bill is the marriage done by single religious validating process.9 If there would be two of religious affiliations, this kind of interpretation assures the principle of ‘casting down’ of one spouse into another’s religion. Consequently, there is no kind of mixed or interfaith kind of marriage in accordance to this kind of interpretation. (Aburrahman, 1986: 45) The first interpretation was in line with the view to read article 57. Though the term mixed marriage in the colonial era was assumed as marriage between different religious affiliation and groups, however Marriage Bill 1/1974 regards this term as the marriage between Indonesian citizen (WNI, Warga Negara Indonesia) and foreigner citizen (WNA, Warga Negara Asing).10 Followed by this consequence, Marriage Bill 1/1974 has kept silent with the fact of interfaith marriage, an issue which is regarded as legal vacuum. (Lukito, 2006: 3) Its obviously bear the evidence, that our problem on interfaith marriage was the distance between political reality and social reality. That interfaith marriage where our National Marriage Law stood voiceless actually remains practiced by our society. The condition goes even worse when we turn our eyes into the existence of dualism in legislating-governmental level. This concern can be explained in certain: first, given that
The Bill adopted the principle of law used by Religious Court (Priesterraden) of colonial era. Its existence effectively facilitated the primary rule for Moslem’s marriage which was hardly needed at that time. At the meantime, there was also a distinct rule for Christianity’s system of marriage, Huwelijks Ordonantie Chirsten Indonesiers (HOCI) which than completely removed by Citizenship Administration Bill no.23/2006.
KHI is abbreviated from Kompilasi Hukum Islam (Islamic Compilation Law) this compilation was not enacted by the legislature, rather implemented trough a Presidential Instruction.
Its significance of debate rose predominantly from colonial policy which separated Indonesian citizen for three stages; the foreigner European, China and Middle East group, and Indonesian native. The Mixture Bill of St. 1898-158 was promulgated in order to link among different class of citizenship including marriage among them. While the kind of marriage goes continuously its regulation was remained debatably. More see: Gavin Jones, 2006: 4
Articles 2 (1) states: “There is no marriage outside of the laws of the respective religion and beliefs”
Article 57 states: “What is meant as mixed marriage in this law is the marriage between two people complying in Indonesia with different law due to different citizenship and one of the parties is Indonesian citizen.”
Law no.22/1946 (jo 1954) bear out a distinct institution in regulating and governing Indonesian Moslem marriage, KUA become a single significance institution deal with this issue. Second, it was called Burgelijk Stand (BS) which was since Soekarno’s era went over into Civil Registry Office and takes its role in regulating non-religious (means; non-Islamic) legislation of marriage. Both institutions stand with different function and principle within governmental area. While the first relates tightly to Islamic marriage system of legislation, and part of Religious Ministry’s branch, accordingly, it holds on the principle of religious/Islamic legislation of marriage. The later institution, on the contrary, affiliates with no one of religions apart from Islam but holds on registrar principle for those non-Islam religions and its validating process.11 Essentially, KCS takes its service for ministry of domestic affairs. (Suparman, 1996: 40; Lukito, 2006: 5) Thus, the troublesome of unification in the context of National Marriage Bill has manifested its dualism in registering marriage in this country. A distinct rule for Moslem citizen from non-Moslem once brings barrier of a typical condition, for example those who affiliate not with major six approved religions in this country or even couples who have different religious affiliation. It can be inferred, simply, that marriage bill and its registrar institution had succeeded in preventing people from ‘secular’ marriage (a marriage which is hold by no means of Marriage Bill’s purpose that it’s from religious legalization) as warned by previous historical debates. But in other way, the segregation on registration of marriage failed to synchronize religious affiliation with political realm delightfully. In fact, people has to deal with both trouble of separated institution proceeded by religiously-political interest. Thus, there was no exclusion to see several religious forgeries within the heart of social practice as it was actually realized as latent effect of such policy. Phenomena of nominal conversion –seemingly- make sense for the performer also family in order to legitimatize their marriage’s status. (Musdah Mulia, 2007: 137) Lately, ICRP12 discovered several deviated practice of this dualism policy. Parallel to social research of this film, this organization mainly said that interfaith marriage is obvious fact happened in this country. During May-July 2005 observation there was several means used by 8 observed couples in dealing with their marriage validation. They were did such attempts:
1) On of couple made fake ID card, fabricate Islam in its religion’s affiliation. 2) Doing nominal conversion; a pretended conversion in order to gain the legislation process. 3) Committed on a limited conversion, one of the couple converts into other’s religion for certain times purposely. (http://www.icrp-online.org/wmview.php?ArtID=27. Accessed: June 24, 2007)
These were all the contradiction. By when National Marriage Law 1/1974 struggled to liberate Indonesian citizen from colonial group of classification, as a matter of fact it misled Indonesian people into another mode of classification based on religious affiliation. Hence our visual research bears the evidence that the complexity of latent result appears from this recent classification. The complicated process of legalization does not only go hard with such
During Sukarno’s era, KCS played a deep role for legalizing the marriage process. That’s why some elder generation of interfaith marriages found more trouble-free process on validating their marriage. The activity suddenly banned by the promulgation of Government Regulation no.9/1975 which regulated KCS’s principle role as administer and registrar of non-Moslem marriage.
Indonesia Conference of Religions and Peace, an interfaith organization bases its office in Jakarta and branch of WCRP in Indonesia. The organization seriously advocates such interfaith issues, avocation on freedom of religion and belief, and so forth. Part of its division engages in advocating interfaith marriage couples who struggle to legitimize their marriage. Heny-Budi one of two couples in this film was also advocated by this organization.
performers, but also in fact can be difficult for the related government’s official. The problem puts people on act of religiously pretense in regard to their marriage status. D. Dualism of Marriage Administrative Institution; Between State Ambivalence and Violence The last part of this paper designed to goes further from visual finding. A consideration on violence done by structural manner of state is the most important idea of this description. Violence that has been done by state trough its policy and play in conjunction with religious justification. Such model is obviously loaded in promulgation of Marriage Bill 1/1974, particularly in the sense of interfaith marriage which was left in voiceless. The segregation of Moslem and non-Moslem administrative process (KUA and KCS) also became complement evidence where state intentionally imposed its policy by controlling over the classification among religious group.13 In order to analyze one of prominent case happened to Andy Vony and her spouse in higher court (Mahkamah Agung, MA), Ratno Lukito clearly stated that:
“There seems to have a number of reasons behind the decision to resort to such legal circumvention. The most obvious one is inadequate legal response of the state to the reality of interfaith marriage – a frequent occurrence in Indonesian society. The situation is made worse by the fact that the administrative apparatus of marriage registration has been set up to segregate simply between Muslims nonMuslims. “ (Lukito, 2006: 6)
Practically, dualism on administrative practice presents oversimplified problem on the ignorance of Indonesian’s plural religions. In other word, by distinguishing Muslim and non Muslim administrative it means overlooking other religion’s groups such as Hindu, Buddha, local beliefs (Aliran Kepercayaan) which opens the space for their interfaith marriage. How such policy can be brought forth by state? Why the legal vacuum of interfaith marriage in Marriage Bill harshly influence for interfaith couples? To see the deep root of such violence I come firstly to the deep characteristic of modern state. As being modern institution, nation state as a kind of organized body regulates in settling condition and determining rigidly. Later on, it functions in more bureaucratic which may easily degrade its ideal norm into a mere technical and ritual matter. (Bikhu Parekh, 2008: 71, Musdah Mulia, 2007: 140) This condition was exactly done and consequently leaves the main problem unresolved. That is the problem of oversimplification in the realm of state code and the practice of religious administration. This kind of bureaucratic regulations then predisposes the practice of interfaith marriage as ‘under the table’ contract. Therefore, the prevalence of interfaith marriage and the identified violation were all such consequence of this state imposing norm toward society. A marriage between Muslim and non-Muslims has been eliminated into a bureaucratic possibility, such as both couples in the film, move far away from what religion ideally regard. In spite of natural characteristic of nation-state, the near erasure of religion and state closure can be identified from the beginning of Bill’s promulgation. As result, several religious views of marriage were made explicit therein. It does not mean that religion should be taken down from politic since this country is closely related to religious matter. Moreover, it should be a kind of a morning warns to see Jones and Heng Lee when they commented on closed relation between Islam (religion) and state regulation :
”States that declare themselves Islamic, or those with a strong Islamic faction, or even governments that have to engage with strong Islamist lobbies will need to
It has to be realized openly that this kind of classification by simply identifying religious affiliation which is mentioned in ID card.
rationalize their politics according to particular interpretations of the Islamic law. “ (Jones and Heng Lee, 2006: 7)
Jones alerts us about the fact of Indonesian’s marriage bill today. A rationalized interpretation of religion was clearly shown when the Bill states clearly that marriage is a religious-based legal process where state has involved solely in ensuring religious legitimacy. But, another view contradict the bill by saying that if religion tried to be the guardian of norm in state’s life it would only be possible for a humanistic and universalistic kind of rule. The Marriage Bill no.1/1974, then, has a duty of awareness from the latent consequence that is the second step of this idea. A step forward of this condition means a second warn for religion that it’s might be easily inclined to the realm of disintegrative aspect of religion. Again, Bikhu Parekh considers this superfluous aspect of contact between religion and state:
Although religion can make a valuable contribution to political life, it can also be a pernicious influence, (as liberal rightly highlight). Its often absolutist, selfrighteous, arrogant ….and can cause political havoc…. It often breeds intolerance of other religions as well as of internal dissent, and has a propensity towards violence. … (Bikhu Parekh, 2008: 72)
Seeing from both side of religion’s influence in state’s policy, Bikhu predicts on more severe regulation and condition will happen for religious practical life into two side of condition; internally side and externally. Its internally condition for interfaith marriage; because the interpretation of interfaith marriage remains debatably within religion’s sphere. The violence happened since religion adopted a single interpretation and apply for the national level of regulation, it could be approximately estimated that it discriminates against rest of views. Also the internal debate of religious matter remains extended toward other political realm. Yet, the other tendency of violence happens in external matter. The external part of policy deals with state’s warranty over all citizens and their right. Explicitly, it can be said that while its free for a religion to ban the practice of interfaith marriage for its own followers;
“It has no legal or moral right to use machinery of the state to impose a ban on others and that its attempt to do so violates the principle of the very constitutional democracy that gives it the freedom to propagate its views.” (Bikhu Parekh, 2008: 76).
So, it’s interfaith marriage condition in Indonesia where religion both internally and externally spoke in the name of ideology. How the idea of violence can illustrate this kind of condition? In this kind of framework G. Baile points out the condition where violence (in the structural manner) indicated by the existence of moral role monopoly. It’s the idea when violence comes into contact with religion as a sacred. (G. Baile, 1995: 27) The so called sacred violence is kind of control which has a justification source from religion and its history. The performer of such violence –where state and its policy take its role herewould easily consider the harsh as legal and valid action in the name of religion or its history. The main characteristic of this violence, first, the performer may have a complete authority to used ‘sacred’ name or that of reason in order to gain their nobility and right and finally dominate over others. The condition moves in second characteristic where the performer uses the name and the apparatus of state in order to operate its violence. In fact, the bureaucratic effort in regulating interfaith marriage operates within two model of source; First trough text and its supporting interpretation of the sacred which may produce and propagate its view unceasingly. State, in the case of interfaith marriage, may use religious ministry for example to support its idea on banning such marriage. Second, the
personification of text via traditional figures who take its model role for all citizens. In the meantime, those figures have great effort supporting elite’s policy. (Mulkhan, 2002: 105) E. Concluding Remark Since marriage deeply deals with private life, it’s noteworthy to take women’s position into our consideration. An intermingling condition between religion and state in sacred violence works severely for women’s stipulation. In this case, gender unequal condition of Indonesian women moves and spreads trough three aspects of legal sphere, those are content of law, culture of law and yet its structure. (Musdah Mulia, 2007: 136) The examination of mixed marriage regulation in colonial era (Stb. 1989-158), take an instance, bore the evidence that state’s policy has controlled its power toward women’s status before law, where women status are adapted and adjusted from their husband’s status. At this condition, women even have no chance to consider their own status before law. The Islamic Compilation of Law (KHI) also moves in same line for this king of logic. Three parts of articles which refer to interfaith prohibition consider women as an object of law. This kind of view then affects the history of advocating interfaith marriage which moves on the same rail in dealing with women’s issue. It’s a prominent historical event at 1986 has brought us an evidence. It was started by Jakarta Civil Registry Office ability to accommodate and legalize interfaith marriage at that time when such protest particularly from Council of Ulama (MUI) and Religious Ministry risen up. Both of latest institutions declared their objection on KCS’s practice and regarded it as breaking over the principle of Marriage Bill 1/1974 and Presidential Instruction 1983 on Civil Registry’s Role on Administrative Matter. The debate was ended by the agreement on regulating undeniably fact of interfaith marriage in Jakarta. Those agreements were 1) KUA responsible for validating marriage between Moslem man and non-Moslem woman, while 2) KCS took its responsibility on registering the nonMoslem man and Moslem woman’s marriage. At the meantime, Jakarta’s Council of Ulama (MUI) announcing the Fatwa in permitting the marriage between Moslem man and woman from ahlul kitab (people of book) while remained prohibiting the opposite. (Mujiburrahman, 2006: 188) This kind of fatwa, in fact was in opposition to that of the National Council of Ulama (MUI Pusat) While sacred violence remains occurred in political and social aspects, gender dimension regarded its legal construction as part of replica where political and religious idea are crystallized together. Both of them built its ideal view of woman’s position and role in the marriage institution. Elsbeth Locher-Scholten, a postcolonial historian discovered Indonesian women’s position before law. Another word to say, Scholten preferred to say that the existence of women in family –including their status within interfaith marriage- was conducted by the unity of religion, structure of state and patriarchal type of culture. But she was not pessimistically to find this fact, because at the same time women were posed primarily in maintaining their religiosity and family. While the patriarchal view of structure determined their barriers trough position and role, Scholten saw the possibility of women in empowering their role in to gain their position as maintainer. (Locher-Scholten, 2000: 188) The more similar study was also revealed by Sri Wiyanti. She saw the gender role division has standardized women’s role and reveal their inferiority as the consequence. The utmost barrier of women’s weaknesses came from structurally and culturally gender division role which in fact accommodated by our Marriage Bill. Their status before the law has nothing to do with the guarantee of their equal role and responsibility within the marriage. This violence, said Wiyanti, make the condition more clear; in fact, marriage is not only a matter of legal description, moreover it’s a portrait of representation where religion and culture intermingled each other. (Anshor, 2004: 67, 91)
F. Bibliography Abdurrahman. 1986. Himpunan Peraturan Perundang-undangan tentang Perkawinan. Jakarta: Akademi Pressindo. Anshor, Maria Ulfa, Martin Lukito Sinaga. (edt). 2004. Tafsir Ulang Perkawinan Lintas Agama; Perspektif Perempuan dan Pluralisme. Jakarta: Kapal Perempuan. Baile, G, 1995, Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Cross-Road, New York: The Cross-Road Publishing Charm, Piet Go O., Suharto, 1987, Kawin Campur Beda Agama dan Beda Gereja: Tinjauan Historis Teologis, Pastoral, HUkum Gereja, dan Hukum Sipil, Malang: Penerbit Dioma Feillard, Andree. 1999. NU vis-à-vis Negara; Pencarian Isi, Bentuk dan Makna. Yogyakarta: LKiS. Ferlita, Ernest, 1998, “Film and the Quest for Meaning” on Michael Bird and John R. May, Religion in Film, USA: The University of Tennessee Press Hastrup, Kirsten, 2002, “Antrophological visions: some notes on visual and textual authority” on Peter Ian Crawford and David Turton Film as Ethnography USA: Manchester University Press. Jones, Gavin, Chee Heng Leng, 2006, “Muslim non-Muslim Marriage, Rights and The State in Southeast Asia, with Emphasis on Indonesia and Malaysia” background paper on Workshop on the same title organized by ARI-NUS. Lukito, Ratno, 2006, “Trapped Between Legal Unification and Pluralism: The Indonesian Supreme Court’s Decision on Interfaith Marriage” presentation paper at Workshop on Muslims non Muslims Marriage, Rights and the State in Southeast Asia organized by Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore, September 23, 2006. Locher-Scholten, Elsbeth. 2004. “Marriage, Morality and Modernity: The 1937 Debate on Monogamy” dalam Women and The Colonial State; Essays on Gender and Modernity in the Netherlands Indies 1900-1942. Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press. Mujiburrahman. 2006. Feeling Threatened; Muslim-Christian Relations in Indonesia’s New Order. Disertasi ISIM. Belanda: Amsterdam University Press. Mulia, Siti Musdah, 2007, Islam dan Ispirasi Kesetaraan Gender, Yogyakarta: Kibar Press Panggabean, Syamsurizal, 2007, Religion, Violence and Reconciliation, Materi Kuliah Yogyakarta: CRCS-UGM. Parekh, Bikhu, 2008, A New Politics of Identity: Political Principles for an Interdependent World, New York: Palgrave McMilan. Suparman, Maman. 1996. “Perkawinan Campuran Antaragama di Indonesia menurut Undang-undang Perkawinan. dalam Jurnal Untag no. 6. Jakarta: SeptemberDesember. Source, Daniel J. Leab, 2002, “Introduction: Film and Religion” on Film and Religion, Vol. 14, No. 2, USA: Indiana University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3815614 Accessed: 08/07/2008 Prasyarat Pengajuan Perkawinan, 2007,Kabupaten Gunung Kidul: Kantor Catatan Sipil http://www.icrp-online.org/wmview.php?ArtID=27. Accessed: June 24, 2007
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.