By Dani Muhtada
Published on The Jakarta Post, January 15, 2013
After learning that the city government of Lhokseumawe is familiarizing a bylaw that bans women from straddling motorcycles, something has gone wrong with the implementation of sharia (Islamic law) in Aceh. It’s wrong because policymakers in the city have failed to adequately respond to endless criticism against the impact of sharia implementation on women’s rights. Instead of formulating better Islamic regulations that protect women’s rights, Aceh keeps producing sharia-inspired bylaws that discriminate against women.
Let me make my point clear. I am not saying that sharia-based bylaws are not friendly to women. In fact, 14 centuries ago, one of the purposes of the introduction of sharia by the Prophet Muhammad was to protect women’s rights. In the seventh century, the culture of patriarchy was so strong among Arabic societies. Women were not equal to men. They were a group of second-class “citizens” who had few, if any, rights. They were generally seen as objects, not as subjects. Instead of having inheritance rights, for example, women could be “inherited”. Step children could marry their step mothers when their fathers passed away.
The Prophet Muhammad came to change the order. He tried to reform unfair social structures. He defended women’s rights, including their rights to inherit from their parents and husbands. He condemned female infanticide, which was a common response committed by the fathers who considered a female baby a disgrace to the family. The Prophet emphasized, through his sayings and deeds, that women had equal rights to men. They should not be viewed as objects and should have the same rights as men to control themselves.
Unfortunately, this anti-discrimination spirit is hardly found in the case of Lhokseumawe’s ban on women straddling motorcycles. Policymakers in the city maintain that women are the source of problems, not individuals whose rights and dignity should be protected. As this newspaper reported (Jan. 3), the mayor of Lhokseumawe said that the ban was intended to preserve Islamic values, to protect society from poor morality and to make it easier to distinguish between male and female motorcyclists. This intention implies that the way women sit on motorcycles has impacted on people’s morality. The rule assumes that straddling women can encourage men to commit sexual misconduct. Therefore, a specific law is needed to regulate how women should sit and behave on motorcycles. This bylaw is just an example of policymakers’ perception of women as objects, not subjects.
Why did the policymakers in Lhokseumawe decide to formulate an “Islamic” regulation that is actually against the spirit of sharia? There are at least three possible explanations.
First, it is a result of policymakers’ limited understanding about the philosophy of sharia, which is purported to save and protect, rather than to endanger lives. Yet, the ban on straddling motorcycles for women will make them vulnerable to fatal accidents. It is also the purpose of sharia to protect human dignity. Unfortunately, the ban has treated women as the source of “moral” problems, not as the victims of sexual misconduct that they often are.
Second, the mayor said that several parties had been consulted with the plan, including the local ulema. If this is so, then the problem lies in the strong patriarchal culture that prevails in Lhokseumawe society. This strong culture obscures the ulema’s understanding of the basic purposes of sharia. It does not necessarily mean that the ulema does not know about the basic purposes of sharia, which is an important topic in the study of Islamic law. Nevertheless, they failed to translate these basic goals into appropriate actions and practices. Therefore, when the city government consulted the plan, the ulema “approved” it despite its substantial breach of the spirit of sharia.
Third, political motives can be behind all of this. By introducing a regulation that seems to be “Islamic”, the city government, or at least a group of political elites in the government, is trying to raise political support from the Muslim community, which is the majority of the population. If this is true, they are actually digging their own political grave. Indonesian voters are more rational and mature than they used to be. They do not cast their votes because of religious symbols or jargon. The victory of Joko “Jokowi” Widodo in the Jakarta gubernatorial election and the failure of Islamic parties in many local elections showed the weakness of “religion” as political ammunition in the contemporary politics of Indonesia. Religion may still play an important role, but alone it cannot determine political outcomes. If politics is truly behind this ban, the players should be ready for disappointment.
