%A - Mark Woodward
%A - Mariani Yahya
%A - Inayah Rohmaniyah
%A - Diana Murtaugh Coleman
%A - Chris Lundry
%A - Ali Amin
%J Springer
%T The Islamic Defenders Front Demonization, Violence and the State in Indonesia
%X In this paper we explore the ways in which the Indonesian Front Pembela Islam
(Islamic Defenders Front–FPI) uses hate speech and demonization to legitimize violent
attacks on organizations and individuals it considers to be sinful or religiously deviant,
and civil discourse to establish credibility and respectability.1We argue that the use of a
discursive frame established by fatwa (legal opinions) issued by the semi-official
Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI–Indonesian Council of Muslim Scholars) and tacit
support from powerful political factions enable FPI to conduct campaigns of demonization
and violence with near impunity and to avoid being labeled as a terrorist
organization. We elaborate on a distinction between what the Center for Religious
and Cross-Cultural Studies (CRCS) at Gadjah Mada University calls the two faces of
FPI (Bagir et al. 2010a). The CRCS report distinguishes between civil and uncivil
modes of FPI discourse and praxis. The civil mode seeks to establish the organization’s
credibility in the public sphere. It presents FPI as the ally of authorities in attempts to
control deviance and assisting those in need, especially victims of natural disasters. The uncivil mode uses demonizing rhetoric to build and maintain a base for violently
confronting, brutalizing and sometimes killing those it deems deviant.2 We show that
FPI has not two, but three faces: one civil; a second that dehumanizes and demonizes
enemies; and a third explicitly calling on members and supporters to attack and kill
them. FPI discourse becomes increasingly violent as the audience they are engaging
changes from the general public to in-group religious gatherings. While it demonizes
nearly all of its opponents, FPI targets for physical violence only those who lack official
status and protection. Factions within the government and police are reluctant to curb
FPI violence for fear of appearing “un-Islamic,” or because they sympathize with the
group’s goals despite their criminality. Collusion between elements of the security
forces and FPI is a significant factor contributing to the seeming disconnect between
official discourse that condemns violence and practices that accommodate or even
facilitate it.
%N 8
%K Indonesia . Islamic Defenders Front . Hate Speech . Terrorism . Sufism
%P 153-171
%D 2014
%L digilib50667