Name of Student : Muhammad Tholhah Al Hadi
Student Number : 07320101
ABC Interview with Abdurrahman Wahid
(source www.abc.net.au)
A. Introduction
As language users, people choose words, construct phrase, arrange sentence, and choose certain topic to reach the interest. In this case, having conversation is an activity which is considered as an individual need. Conversations are defined as sequences of messages exchanged between interacting software agents. For conversations to be meaningful, agents ought to follow conversational principles governing the exchange of messages at any point in a conversation. These principles must be defined in publicly verifiable terms (if they are to be used in open environments) and must allow the composition of flexible conversations (if they are to account for the context in which they occur).
In accordance with the description, this paper analyzes the utterances made by Jennifer Byrne and KH. Abdurrahman Wahid, better known as Gus Dur. He spoke to Jennifer Byrne during a visit to Sydney where he was guest of honour at Foreign Correspondent’s 10th anniversary celebrations in 2002. In addition, Gus Dur was one of the country’s most influential activists and public figures. The writer is interested in analyzing this conversation in order to understand the way how to view certain phenomena, especially Islamic dynamics. At the second hand, the writer will be able to analyze conversation linguisticly.
Before going to any further, the writer employs Hyme’s SPEAKING analysis as the following in order to make the readers easy to understand.
1. S (Setting and Scene).
The setting of the conversation was in Sydney, Australia, where he was a guest of honour at Foreign Correspondent’s 10th anniversary celebrations in 2002. While the scene was at the interview between two persons.
2. P (Participant)
This conversation was conducted between KH. Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) as the former Indonesian president and Jennifer Byrne as the reporter.
3. E (Ends)
The purpose of the conversation was to reach interesting interview. In this case, Jennifer Byrne wanted to get information and response from Gus Dur concerning with religions especially Islamic issues. At the second hand, Gus Dur gave response and clarified to Jennifer Byrne’s questions.
4. A (Acts Sequence)
The context of the conversation was in formal situation.
5. K (Key)
The tone which was in the conversation was relax, even though the issue was quitely serious.
6. I (Instrumentalities)
The style of the interview being given was oral conversation and mostly about Islamic view.
7. N (Norms)
What is socially acceptable at the interview is interuption oftentimes.
8. G (Genre)
The type of conversation is being given is interview.
In order to be able to analyze the conversation, it absolutely needs some theories which are supported to the topic being analyzed. Hereby, the writer analyzes the conversation by applying three theoris; (a) Speech Acts which is conducted by John Searle (Austin’s theory development), (b) Politeness Strategies which is conducted by Brown and Levinson, then (c) Implicature in which is conducted by Grice.
B. Analysis
1. Speech Acts
Firstly, the writer analyzes the conversation between Byrne and Gus Dur – which is carried on the form of interview – by applying speech act theory. In this case, Speech Acts is the central theory of linguistic communication. This theory is a part of how speakers use language to communicate; likewise knowledge of how to identify that act is critical or another to listener understanding (Deborah, 2002: 57).
Furthermore, language is not merely used to explain the word, but also to perform an action. It means that in understanding speaking and interpreting meanings of certain sentences are not enough because identifying an act also must be done. So, by this component, we will find out what utterances do, how they can be used, and how we used them in a conversation.
According to Searle –as the follower of Austin, Speech Acts is classified into three kinds of acts, they are:
a. Locutionary Act
The first utterance of Byrne “I’d like to talk first, not about politics but about religion – specifically about Islam, which you’ve described as a religion of peace…”. Here, the writer focuses on the statement of the reporter “…Islam, which you’ve described as a religion of peace…”. Based on its Locutionary act, the meaning of the statement is that Islam is a religion of peace. Then, ‘you’ refers to Gus Dur as the responder.
Then in the sixth utterances (Gus Dur statement) “Because as I said before, they think that defending Islamic… so-called Islamic institutions is important. Well, in my opinion defending Islamic culture is more important.” Literally meaning, this only indicates that defending Islamic culture is important in accordance with Gus Dur’s opinion. Then, the word ‘my’ refers to Gus Dur as the speaker. At the same time, Locutionary act contains the act of saying something which is only a production of sound and word with meaning. In other words, Locutionary act is the literal meaning or what is linguistically stated.
b. Illocutionary Acts
Concerning with the first statement which was produced by Byrne in the first utterance ‘… Islam, which you’ve described as a religion of peace…” this utterance has implied meaning as a result of the frequency of suicide attacks at that time. In this case, Byrne seemed in doubt and tried to confirm to Gus Dur about general statements in which Islam was described as a religion of peace. In fact, there were several suicide attacks againts West countries especially the United States. Moreover, there was civil war among mostly Eastern countries which were symbolized with Islam.
Secondly, in sixth utterance (Gus Dur) ‘Well, in my opinion defending Islamic culture is more important’. This indicated that Gus Dur wanted to emphasize on his previous statement in which Islam was divided into two kinds; (a) the institution of Islam and (b) the culture of Islam. This is the result of Byrne’s inquiring about Islamic teachings in which suicide attacks are considered as wrongness, any killing of an innocent civilian is also wrongness, but why it cannot be said in some forms that the Middle Eastern Islamic countries would accept that. In addition, Gus Dur satirically addressed this statement to some fundamentalist moslem taking arms and using violence that is against Islamic teachings.
It is important to understand that Illocutionary act is the act performed in saying the locution. In this case, a person is not just saying something but also doing something if the conditions are met in the future.
c. Perlocutionary Act
In connection with Gus Dur statement in the sixth utterance ‘Well, in my opinion defending Islamic culture is more important’, This indirectly persuades all moslems especially and people in general to be fair in terms of how to view any kinds of phenomena. Gus Dur wanted to Fortwith, it was implied by However, some conservative moslems (fundamentalism) were still going on. They thought that using violance in solving social problems was legal. In addition, Gus Dur wanted to show the historical context of Islamic teachings that were achieved through cultures. In fact, the existance of Islam in Indonesia was also implemented through cultures. As the result now, most of people in Indonesia are moslems.
Comparing with those two components, this theory deals with the effect of illocutionary act which is focused on the listener. For example: The speaker’s utterance” Well, in my opinion defending Islamic culture is more important” (illocutionary act), can be included as perlocutionary act if the listeners give a respond of speaker’s utterances; such as defending Islamic cultures in different context (depend on each country or area). This aspect as the consequential effect of an utterance is achieved by saying something. The speaker cannot just say ”I persuade you” to show that he or she persuade to the listener.
In short, if the listener to do something, automatically the speaker will say something (locutionary), then the speaker will act something to get what she or he wants (illocutionary). Consequently, the listener will do something as a response to the speaker utterance (perlocutionary).
2. Politeness Strategies
Politeness is generally expressed as the practical application of good manners or etiquette. It is a culturally defined phenomenon, and therefore what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be quite rude or simply eccentric in another cultural context.
In this case, the eighth utterance (Gus Dur) ‘Yeah. Precisely that. The problem now is that they equalise even Palestine and Islam – which is very wrong, because Palestine is Palestine… and you know, Islam is Islam… so you cannot say that if something happens to the state of Palestine that won’t happen to Islam’ has Negative politeness meaning which means making a request less infringing. The speaker (Gus Dur) did not let the reporter (Jennifer Byrne ) free to equalise some fundamentalits in which Islam tended to correlate with Eastern countris, Palestine especially.
And yet, Brown & Levinson identified two kinds of politeness; (a) Negative Politeness, which means respect a person's right to act freely. In other words, deference. There is a greater use of indirect speech acts. Another one is (b) Positive politeness, that seeks to establish a positive relationship between parties; respects a person's need to be liked and understood. The example from the conversation is in the sixth utterance ‘…Well, in my opinion defending Islamic culture is more important.’ And that belongs to Positive politeness because Gus Dur indirectly showed respectful conversation to the presenter.
In addition, this indicates that Gus Dur wanted moslems to think what he thought in which defending Islamic culture is better than defending everything institutional in the belief that they defend Islam. However, he used ‘… in my opinion’ in order to be more polite rather than direct statement like ‘overall, defending Islamic culture is the best way’ or ‘what is thought by the fundamentalist is absolutely wrong’.
3. Implicature
The last theory which is implied in analyzing the conversation is Grice’s Implicature. This theory can be simply defined as the additional meaning from the speaker which is sometimes does not exsist yet at the utterance. In other words, Implicature itself is meant to cover a number of ways in which literally unsaid information can be conveyed.
In general, Implicature is divided into two part; (a) conventional implicature, in which the conventional meaning of the words used will determine what is implicated, besides helping to determine what is said. The example from this dialogue is in the fifteenth and sixteenth utterance as follows:
Byrne : And as someone who has been… during your time as president you have tried to forge links with Israel, and taken some political pain for that – what do you think will be the outcome?
Gus Dur : Israel believes in God. While we have a diplomatic relationship and recognising diplomatically China and Russia, which are atheist states, then it’s strange that we don’t acknowledge Israel. This is the thing that we have to correct within Islam.
Conventionally meaning, Byrne’s statement indicates that she tried to give information in which Gus Dur was taking some political links with Israel. At the same time, Gus Dur also gave an information in term of Israel’s belief in God however. In addition, he then informed to the people of Indonesia that Indonesia had had links with China and Russia.
Another one is (b) conversational implicature which is triggered by certain general features of discourse rather than by the conventional meaning of a specific word. Concerning with the two utterances before (15th and 16th utterance), conversationally meaning, Byrne’s utterance has a deep meaning in which indicates that she was in questioningly about the way Gus Dur put his diplomation up with Israel. Yet, she wanted to know the reason of him. At the same time, Gus Dur’s implicature meaning at his utterance indicates that he wanted to set Indonesian (moslems) to be able to look up any problem equally and consistantly.
In this case, it was strange that Indonesia had relationship with China and Russia which are atheis states while they closed their eyes with Israel which also believed in God. So, this is more than simply information related to have links with Israel. However, the weaknesses of moslem up to now is at their human sources. Overall, for moderate moslems Ijtihad is the preferred method of choice for social and political change and military Jihad the last option. For militant moslims, military Jihad is the first option and Ijtihad is not an option at all.
2. Wahid : Well, the most important thing about Islam is that we have to differentiate between two kinds of Islam. The first one is the institution of Islam… second, the culture of Islam. If we cling to the institution of Islam, then we tend to defend it against whatever we see as a danger to it, so because of this we see now that many people are defending states, defending territories, defending everything institutional in the belief that they defend Islam. Well, in fact Islam lives… and lived through the centuries by projecting a certain culture.
3. Byrne : Does it worry you that for many non Muslims in the world, what they see in the Middle East… the fundamentals in that ceasefire…..
4. Wahid : I’m not worried. I ask their understanding that in Islam as well as in other religions there are fanatics always. See, the fact that those Muslims… fundamentalist Muslims, or extremist Muslims or whatever, you see, take arms and use violence that is against Islamic teachings.
5. Byrne : But you’re an Islamic teacher yourself… you can say that. Even President Mahatir of Malaysia got up and said that… suicide attacks are wrong… any killing of an innocent civilian is wrong. Why cannot it be said in some form that the Middle Eastern Islamic countries would accept that?
6. Wahid : Because as I said before, they think that defending Islamic… so-called Islamic institutions is important. Well, in my opinion defending Islamic culture is more important.
7. Byrne : You believe the culture is strong, but the institutions have been what?… perverted?
8. Wahid : Yeah. Precisely that. The problem now is that they equalise even Palestine and Islam – which is very wrong, because Palestine is Palestine… and you know, Islam is Islam… so you cannot say that if something happens to the state of Palestine that won’t happen to Islam.
9. Byrne : Just a specific question on the Middle East – do you believe that both Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat should go?
10. Wahid : Yes. They should be replaced… by people showing leadership… leadership and courage… moral courage, too, you know – to respect each other. This is what I see… that between the two of them there is no trust.
11. Byrne : Are they in fact cowardly men, you’re saying, because of their lack of respect…?
12. Wahid : Oh no, no, no. Mr. Sharon’s a very brave man. Otherwise he wouldn’t be a general. But the problem now is that he cannot just peddle that kind of courage without understanding… without showing respect… to Arafat.
13. Byrne : And what is your opinion of Arafat?
14. Wahid : Arafat is a weakling. He’s very weak. He cannot control the fundamentalists.
15. Byrne : And as someone who has been… during your time as president you have tried to forge links with Israel, and taken some political pain for that – what do you think will be the outcome?
16. Wahid : Israel believes in God. While we have a diplomatic relationship and recognising diplomatically China and Russia, which are atheist states, then it’s strange that we don’t acknowledge Israel. This is the thing that we have to correct within Islam.
17. Byrne : What… you believe that the Islamic world as a whole should start recognising and acknowledging Israel’s right to exist and prosper?
18. Wahid : Oh yes… yes.
19. Byrne : But will it happen, sir… will it happen?
20. Wahid : (laughs) I don’t know…. anyway… because you know, however slow, I think Muslims are rational and rationality dictates that. We recognise Israel diplomatically.
21. Byrne : You became the first democratically elected president of Indonesia. When you look now at the political situation in Indonesia, do you wish you could return, or are you well out of it?
22. Wahid : Well, first I have to say that …. there is no wish to return because for the first time, I didn’t want to become a president. I was drafted…. by the Muslim’s collars … by the political system… because you know that to avoid a bloodbath, I had to do that. I was aware totally that I cannot not see… Where in the world can an unseeing man run the government?
23. Byrne : Was it your sight…. was that really the reason why you didn’t want to become president…. because you couldn’t see? Was that the only reason?
24. Wahid : Yeah… and beside that I’m not a politician, you know. I… actually I abhor politics… so it’s better to let the politicians run the country, not … not like myself.
25. Byrne : Mr. Wahid, you were a politician…. you were the president of Indonesia.
26. Wahid : I was a forced politician, yes, but not a true politician….. in the sense that I never cared about public opinion, for example… No politician will do that. (laughs)
27. Byrne : What was your best day? What was the day when you said ‘I am glad I am a politician today’?
28. Wahid : The best day was the day when I left the palace. That was the best day.
On the day I left the palace, and I went to Merdeka Square and hundreds of thousands of people came there, just to pay respect…. and for me, that’s more important than anything else. You don’t realise that losing the presidency for me is nothing…. I regret more the fact that I lost 27 recordings of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, which I collected for more than twenty years. It’s more ( ? ) for me than the presidency.
29. Byrne : That last image that I remember really clearly of you standing on the step of the presidential palace – which I thought was a sad moment – you’re saying that was a great moment for you.
30. Wahid : Oh, yes…. yes. And many people believe that since I wore short pants, that it was a sign of flood…. (laughs)
31. Byrne : Of what?
32. Wahid : Flood. (laughs)
33. Byrne : Well you escaped the palace, and welcome to Australia. Thank you very much.
34. Wahid : Thank you very much.
As language users, people choose words, construct phrase, arrange sentence, and choose certain topic to reach the interest. In this case, having conversation is an activity which is considered as an individual need. Conversations are defined as sequences of messages exchanged between interacting software agents. For conversations to be meaningful, agents ought to follow conversational principles governing the exchange of messages at any point in a conversation. These principles must be defined in publicly verifiable terms (if they are to be used in open environments) and must allow the composition of flexible conversations (if they are to account for the context in which they occur).
In accordance with the description, this paper analyzes the utterances made by Jennifer Byrne and KH. Abdurrahman Wahid, better known as Gus Dur. He spoke to Jennifer Byrne during a visit to Sydney where he was guest of honour at Foreign Correspondent’s 10th anniversary celebrations in 2002. In addition, Gus Dur was one of the country’s most influential activists and public figures. The writer is interested in analyzing this conversation in order to understand the way how to view certain phenomena, especially Islamic dynamics. At the second hand, the writer will be able to analyze conversation linguisticly.
Before going to any further, the writer employs Hyme’s SPEAKING analysis as the following in order to make the readers easy to understand.
1. S (Setting and Scene).
The setting of the conversation was in Sydney, Australia, where he was a guest of honour at Foreign Correspondent’s 10th anniversary celebrations in 2002. While the scene was at the interview between two persons.
2. P (Participant)
This conversation was conducted between KH. Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) as the former Indonesian president and Jennifer Byrne as the reporter.
3. E (Ends)
The purpose of the conversation was to reach interesting interview. In this case, Jennifer Byrne wanted to get information and response from Gus Dur concerning with religions especially Islamic issues. At the second hand, Gus Dur gave response and clarified to Jennifer Byrne’s questions.
4. A (Acts Sequence)
The context of the conversation was in formal situation.
5. K (Key)
The tone which was in the conversation was relax, even though the issue was quitely serious.
6. I (Instrumentalities)
The style of the interview being given was oral conversation and mostly about Islamic view.
7. N (Norms)
What is socially acceptable at the interview is interuption oftentimes.
8. G (Genre)
The type of conversation is being given is interview.
In order to be able to analyze the conversation, it absolutely needs some theories which are supported to the topic being analyzed. Hereby, the writer analyzes the conversation by applying three theoris; (a) Speech Acts which is conducted by John Searle (Austin’s theory development), (b) Politeness Strategies which is conducted by Brown and Levinson, then (c) Implicature in which is conducted by Grice.
B. Analysis
1. Speech Acts
Firstly, the writer analyzes the conversation between Byrne and Gus Dur – which is carried on the form of interview – by applying speech act theory. In this case, Speech Acts is the central theory of linguistic communication. This theory is a part of how speakers use language to communicate; likewise knowledge of how to identify that act is critical or another to listener understanding (Deborah, 2002: 57).
Furthermore, language is not merely used to explain the word, but also to perform an action. It means that in understanding speaking and interpreting meanings of certain sentences are not enough because identifying an act also must be done. So, by this component, we will find out what utterances do, how they can be used, and how we used them in a conversation.
According to Searle –as the follower of Austin, Speech Acts is classified into three kinds of acts, they are:
a. Locutionary Act
The first utterance of Byrne “I’d like to talk first, not about politics but about religion – specifically about Islam, which you’ve described as a religion of peace…”. Here, the writer focuses on the statement of the reporter “…Islam, which you’ve described as a religion of peace…”. Based on its Locutionary act, the meaning of the statement is that Islam is a religion of peace. Then, ‘you’ refers to Gus Dur as the responder.
Then in the sixth utterances (Gus Dur statement) “Because as I said before, they think that defending Islamic… so-called Islamic institutions is important. Well, in my opinion defending Islamic culture is more important.” Literally meaning, this only indicates that defending Islamic culture is important in accordance with Gus Dur’s opinion. Then, the word ‘my’ refers to Gus Dur as the speaker. At the same time, Locutionary act contains the act of saying something which is only a production of sound and word with meaning. In other words, Locutionary act is the literal meaning or what is linguistically stated.
b. Illocutionary Acts
Concerning with the first statement which was produced by Byrne in the first utterance ‘… Islam, which you’ve described as a religion of peace…” this utterance has implied meaning as a result of the frequency of suicide attacks at that time. In this case, Byrne seemed in doubt and tried to confirm to Gus Dur about general statements in which Islam was described as a religion of peace. In fact, there were several suicide attacks againts West countries especially the United States. Moreover, there was civil war among mostly Eastern countries which were symbolized with Islam.
Secondly, in sixth utterance (Gus Dur) ‘Well, in my opinion defending Islamic culture is more important’. This indicated that Gus Dur wanted to emphasize on his previous statement in which Islam was divided into two kinds; (a) the institution of Islam and (b) the culture of Islam. This is the result of Byrne’s inquiring about Islamic teachings in which suicide attacks are considered as wrongness, any killing of an innocent civilian is also wrongness, but why it cannot be said in some forms that the Middle Eastern Islamic countries would accept that. In addition, Gus Dur satirically addressed this statement to some fundamentalist moslem taking arms and using violence that is against Islamic teachings.
It is important to understand that Illocutionary act is the act performed in saying the locution. In this case, a person is not just saying something but also doing something if the conditions are met in the future.
c. Perlocutionary Act
In connection with Gus Dur statement in the sixth utterance ‘Well, in my opinion defending Islamic culture is more important’, This indirectly persuades all moslems especially and people in general to be fair in terms of how to view any kinds of phenomena. Gus Dur wanted to Fortwith, it was implied by However, some conservative moslems (fundamentalism) were still going on. They thought that using violance in solving social problems was legal. In addition, Gus Dur wanted to show the historical context of Islamic teachings that were achieved through cultures. In fact, the existance of Islam in Indonesia was also implemented through cultures. As the result now, most of people in Indonesia are moslems.
Comparing with those two components, this theory deals with the effect of illocutionary act which is focused on the listener. For example: The speaker’s utterance” Well, in my opinion defending Islamic culture is more important” (illocutionary act), can be included as perlocutionary act if the listeners give a respond of speaker’s utterances; such as defending Islamic cultures in different context (depend on each country or area). This aspect as the consequential effect of an utterance is achieved by saying something. The speaker cannot just say ”I persuade you” to show that he or she persuade to the listener.
In short, if the listener to do something, automatically the speaker will say something (locutionary), then the speaker will act something to get what she or he wants (illocutionary). Consequently, the listener will do something as a response to the speaker utterance (perlocutionary).
2. Politeness Strategies
Politeness is generally expressed as the practical application of good manners or etiquette. It is a culturally defined phenomenon, and therefore what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be quite rude or simply eccentric in another cultural context.
In this case, the eighth utterance (Gus Dur) ‘Yeah. Precisely that. The problem now is that they equalise even Palestine and Islam – which is very wrong, because Palestine is Palestine… and you know, Islam is Islam… so you cannot say that if something happens to the state of Palestine that won’t happen to Islam’ has Negative politeness meaning which means making a request less infringing. The speaker (Gus Dur) did not let the reporter (Jennifer Byrne ) free to equalise some fundamentalits in which Islam tended to correlate with Eastern countris, Palestine especially.
And yet, Brown & Levinson identified two kinds of politeness; (a) Negative Politeness, which means respect a person's right to act freely. In other words, deference. There is a greater use of indirect speech acts. Another one is (b) Positive politeness, that seeks to establish a positive relationship between parties; respects a person's need to be liked and understood. The example from the conversation is in the sixth utterance ‘…Well, in my opinion defending Islamic culture is more important.’ And that belongs to Positive politeness because Gus Dur indirectly showed respectful conversation to the presenter.
In addition, this indicates that Gus Dur wanted moslems to think what he thought in which defending Islamic culture is better than defending everything institutional in the belief that they defend Islam. However, he used ‘… in my opinion’ in order to be more polite rather than direct statement like ‘overall, defending Islamic culture is the best way’ or ‘what is thought by the fundamentalist is absolutely wrong’.
3. Implicature
The last theory which is implied in analyzing the conversation is Grice’s Implicature. This theory can be simply defined as the additional meaning from the speaker which is sometimes does not exsist yet at the utterance. In other words, Implicature itself is meant to cover a number of ways in which literally unsaid information can be conveyed.
In general, Implicature is divided into two part; (a) conventional implicature, in which the conventional meaning of the words used will determine what is implicated, besides helping to determine what is said. The example from this dialogue is in the fifteenth and sixteenth utterance as follows:
Byrne : And as someone who has been… during your time as president you have tried to forge links with Israel, and taken some political pain for that – what do you think will be the outcome?
Gus Dur : Israel believes in God. While we have a diplomatic relationship and recognising diplomatically China and Russia, which are atheist states, then it’s strange that we don’t acknowledge Israel. This is the thing that we have to correct within Islam.
Conventionally meaning, Byrne’s statement indicates that she tried to give information in which Gus Dur was taking some political links with Israel. At the same time, Gus Dur also gave an information in term of Israel’s belief in God however. In addition, he then informed to the people of Indonesia that Indonesia had had links with China and Russia.
Another one is (b) conversational implicature which is triggered by certain general features of discourse rather than by the conventional meaning of a specific word. Concerning with the two utterances before (15th and 16th utterance), conversationally meaning, Byrne’s utterance has a deep meaning in which indicates that she was in questioningly about the way Gus Dur put his diplomation up with Israel. Yet, she wanted to know the reason of him. At the same time, Gus Dur’s implicature meaning at his utterance indicates that he wanted to set Indonesian (moslems) to be able to look up any problem equally and consistantly.
In this case, it was strange that Indonesia had relationship with China and Russia which are atheis states while they closed their eyes with Israel which also believed in God. So, this is more than simply information related to have links with Israel. However, the weaknesses of moslem up to now is at their human sources. Overall, for moderate moslems Ijtihad is the preferred method of choice for social and political change and military Jihad the last option. For militant moslims, military Jihad is the first option and Ijtihad is not an option at all.
Transcript
1. Byrne : I’d like to talk first, not about politics but about religion – specifically about Islam, which you’ve described as a religion of peace. How then do you see what’s happening in the Middle East, and in many Arabic countries where Islam is effectively being used as a banner for fundamentalism… for suicide attacks, for war?2. Wahid : Well, the most important thing about Islam is that we have to differentiate between two kinds of Islam. The first one is the institution of Islam… second, the culture of Islam. If we cling to the institution of Islam, then we tend to defend it against whatever we see as a danger to it, so because of this we see now that many people are defending states, defending territories, defending everything institutional in the belief that they defend Islam. Well, in fact Islam lives… and lived through the centuries by projecting a certain culture.
3. Byrne : Does it worry you that for many non Muslims in the world, what they see in the Middle East… the fundamentals in that ceasefire…..
4. Wahid : I’m not worried. I ask their understanding that in Islam as well as in other religions there are fanatics always. See, the fact that those Muslims… fundamentalist Muslims, or extremist Muslims or whatever, you see, take arms and use violence that is against Islamic teachings.
5. Byrne : But you’re an Islamic teacher yourself… you can say that. Even President Mahatir of Malaysia got up and said that… suicide attacks are wrong… any killing of an innocent civilian is wrong. Why cannot it be said in some form that the Middle Eastern Islamic countries would accept that?
6. Wahid : Because as I said before, they think that defending Islamic… so-called Islamic institutions is important. Well, in my opinion defending Islamic culture is more important.
7. Byrne : You believe the culture is strong, but the institutions have been what?… perverted?
8. Wahid : Yeah. Precisely that. The problem now is that they equalise even Palestine and Islam – which is very wrong, because Palestine is Palestine… and you know, Islam is Islam… so you cannot say that if something happens to the state of Palestine that won’t happen to Islam.
9. Byrne : Just a specific question on the Middle East – do you believe that both Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat should go?
10. Wahid : Yes. They should be replaced… by people showing leadership… leadership and courage… moral courage, too, you know – to respect each other. This is what I see… that between the two of them there is no trust.
11. Byrne : Are they in fact cowardly men, you’re saying, because of their lack of respect…?
12. Wahid : Oh no, no, no. Mr. Sharon’s a very brave man. Otherwise he wouldn’t be a general. But the problem now is that he cannot just peddle that kind of courage without understanding… without showing respect… to Arafat.
13. Byrne : And what is your opinion of Arafat?
14. Wahid : Arafat is a weakling. He’s very weak. He cannot control the fundamentalists.
15. Byrne : And as someone who has been… during your time as president you have tried to forge links with Israel, and taken some political pain for that – what do you think will be the outcome?
16. Wahid : Israel believes in God. While we have a diplomatic relationship and recognising diplomatically China and Russia, which are atheist states, then it’s strange that we don’t acknowledge Israel. This is the thing that we have to correct within Islam.
17. Byrne : What… you believe that the Islamic world as a whole should start recognising and acknowledging Israel’s right to exist and prosper?
18. Wahid : Oh yes… yes.
19. Byrne : But will it happen, sir… will it happen?
20. Wahid : (laughs) I don’t know…. anyway… because you know, however slow, I think Muslims are rational and rationality dictates that. We recognise Israel diplomatically.
21. Byrne : You became the first democratically elected president of Indonesia. When you look now at the political situation in Indonesia, do you wish you could return, or are you well out of it?
22. Wahid : Well, first I have to say that …. there is no wish to return because for the first time, I didn’t want to become a president. I was drafted…. by the Muslim’s collars … by the political system… because you know that to avoid a bloodbath, I had to do that. I was aware totally that I cannot not see… Where in the world can an unseeing man run the government?
23. Byrne : Was it your sight…. was that really the reason why you didn’t want to become president…. because you couldn’t see? Was that the only reason?
24. Wahid : Yeah… and beside that I’m not a politician, you know. I… actually I abhor politics… so it’s better to let the politicians run the country, not … not like myself.
25. Byrne : Mr. Wahid, you were a politician…. you were the president of Indonesia.
26. Wahid : I was a forced politician, yes, but not a true politician….. in the sense that I never cared about public opinion, for example… No politician will do that. (laughs)
27. Byrne : What was your best day? What was the day when you said ‘I am glad I am a politician today’?
28. Wahid : The best day was the day when I left the palace. That was the best day.
On the day I left the palace, and I went to Merdeka Square and hundreds of thousands of people came there, just to pay respect…. and for me, that’s more important than anything else. You don’t realise that losing the presidency for me is nothing…. I regret more the fact that I lost 27 recordings of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, which I collected for more than twenty years. It’s more ( ? ) for me than the presidency.
29. Byrne : That last image that I remember really clearly of you standing on the step of the presidential palace – which I thought was a sad moment – you’re saying that was a great moment for you.
30. Wahid : Oh, yes…. yes. And many people believe that since I wore short pants, that it was a sign of flood…. (laughs)
31. Byrne : Of what?
32. Wahid : Flood. (laughs)
33. Byrne : Well you escaped the palace, and welcome to Australia. Thank you very much.
34. Wahid : Thank you very much.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar