UNVEILING THE DIVERGENT NEEDS IN THE QUEST FOR RESOLUTION: A SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE 2016 DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ISLAMIC JIHAD FRONT AND ST. JAMES ALFEUS CHURCH IN YOGYAKARTA, INDONESIA
License
Authors who publish with JSR agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
Abstract
In 2016, the Islamic Jihad Front (FJI) organized a demonstration against the installation of a monumental statue depicting the face of Jesus at St. James Alfeus Church, located in Sendangsari Village, Bantul, Yogyakarta Special Region, Indonesia. Despite the occurrence of this event some years ago, it is crucial to pursue a theoretical framework for analyzing this interfaith conflict in the field of Sociology of Religion. In light of this requirement, the objective of this study is to reassess the dispute between FJI and St. James Alfes Church by employing an onion clone conflict analysis that specifically examines the stances, desires, and requirements of both entities, namely the church and FJI. The research was undertaken using a process-tracing technique to gather extensive data on the causes and mechanisms of the dispute. The analytical results indicate that the disagreement did not facilitate integration due to FJI's refusal to comply with the requests of St. Yaobus Alfeus Church. Conversely, each participant possesses distinct demands and interests that are not mutually comprehensible, hence reducing the likelihood of integration. This study suggests that effectively addressing interfaith disputes may be achieved by identifying and comprehending the individual needs of each participant involved.
Pada 2016 lalu, Front Jihad Islam (FJI) menggelar aksi memprotes pendirian patung besar wajah Yesus di Gereja St. Yakobus Alfeus, Desa Sendangsari, Bantul, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Meskipun peristiwa ini telah terjadi beberapa tahun silam, namun upaya untuk terus mencari kerangka teoritik untuk ‘membaca’ konflik lintas agama ini menjadi kebutuhan dalam studi Sosiologi Agama. Berdasarkan kebutuhan ini, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk membaca ulang konflik FJI dengan Gereja St. Yakobus Alfes melalui the onion clonflict analysis yang berfokus pada posisi, kepentingan, dan kebutuhan kedua belah pihak, yaitu gereja dan FJI. Penelitian ini dilakukan melalui process-tracing approach untuk mendapatkan data yang komprehensif tentang apa dan bagaimana konflik tersebut terjadi. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa konflik tidak memunculkan peluang integrasi karena tidak diterimanya tuntutan dari FJI kepada Gereja St. Yaobus Alfeus. Pada sisi lain, masing-masing pihak memiliki kebutuhan dan kepentingan masing-masing yang tak bisa dipahami satu sama lain sehingga semakin memperkecil peluang integrasi. Penelitian ini selanjutnya memberikan rekomendasi bahwa penyelesaian konflik lintas agama dengan mengungkap masing-masing kebutuhan antar aktor akan berfungsi apabila kebutuhan tersebut dipahami dengan baik oleh masing-masing pihak.
Keywords:
Religious discord, Collective needs, Cultural assimilationReferences:
Ahnaf, M. I., & Hairus Salim H. S. (2017). Krisis keistimewaan: Kekerasan terhadap Minoritas di Yogyakarta. CRCS.
Ali-fauzi, I., & Darningtyas, R. (2023). Third Essay Religious Freedom and Mediation : Some Notes on Three New Initiatives in Indonesia. 2(2022), 213–221.
Bae, S. W., & Shin, C. S. (2012). The onion diagram: a Voronoi-like tessellation of a planar line space and its applications. International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications, 22(01), 3-25.
Bagir, Z. A. (2023). Agama dalam KUHP: Kemajuan Setengah Jalan. CRCS UGM. https://crcs.ugm.ac.id/agama-dalam-kuhp-kemajuan-setengah-jalan/
Bagir, Z. A., Asfinawati, Suhadi, & Arianingtyas, R. (2019). Membatasi tanpa Melanggar: Hak Kebebasan Beragama dan Berkeyakinan. CRCS.
Bagir, Z. A. (2018). The Politics and Law of Religious Governance. In R. W. Hefner (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Indonesia. Routledge.
George, C. (2016). Hate Spin: The Manufactured Religious Offense and Its Thread to Democracy. MIT Press.
Hafez, M. M., & Wiktorowicz, Q. (2004). Violence as contention in the Egyptian Islamic movement. Islamic Activism: A Social Movement Theory Approach, 61–88.
Juergensmeyer, M. (2017). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (Fourth edi). University of California Press.
Kimball, C. (2008). When Religion Becomes Evil: Five Warning Signs (3rd ed.). HarperCollins.
Klinken, G. van, & Berenschot, W. (2018). Everyday Citizenship in Democratizing Indonesia. In R. W. Hefner (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Indonesia (pp. 151–162). Routledge.
Lederach, J. P. (2014). The Little Book of Conflict Transformation: Clear Articulation of The Guiding Principles By A Pioneer In The Field. Good Books.
Lestari, A. (2022). Politik Rekognisi sebagai Penyelesaian Konflik Agama di dalam Masyarakat Multikultural (Studi Kasus di Kabupaten Bantul). Jurnal Adhikari, 1(April), 204–220.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. McGraw-Hill.
Telle, K. (2018). Faith on Trial: Blasphemy and ‘Lawfare’ in Indonesia. Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology, 83(2), 371–391
Tusalem, R. F. (2015). State regulation of religion and the quality of governance. Politics & Policy, 43(1), 94-141.
Varshney, A. (2002). Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India. Yale University Press.
Wilson, I. (2014). Morality Racketeering: Vigilantism and Populist Islamic Militancy in Indonesia. In K. B. Teik, V. R. Hadiz, & Y. Nakanishi (Eds.), Between Dissent adn Power: The Transformation of Islamic Politics in the Middle East and Asia (pp. 248–274). Plagrave Macmillan.
NN. “Peresmian Patung Wajah Kerahiman di Gereja St. Yakobus Alfeus.” tribratanewsbantul.id, 2 October 2016, http://www.tribratanewsbantul.id/2016/10/peresmian-patung-wajah-kerahiman-di.html. Accessed 25 November 2022
NN. “Ormas Islam Yogyakarta Protes, Peresmian Patung Kerahiman Libatkan Umat Islam.” Panjimas.com, 4 October 2016, https://www.panjimas.com/news/2016/10/04/ormas-islam-yogyakarta-protes-peresmian-patung-kerahiman-libatkan-umat-islam/. Accessed 25 November 2022
NN. “Datangi Kantor Bupati, FJI Tagih Janji Robohkan Patung Yesus.” Panjimas.com, 25 October 2016, https://www.panjimas.com/news/2016/10/25/datangi-kantor-bupati-fji-tagih-janji-robohkan-patung-yesus/. Accessed 25 November 2022
NN. “Jika Tak Ada Ijin, Ormas Islam Yogyakarta Desak Pembongkaran Patung Kerahiman.” Panjiman.com, 4 October 2016, https://www.panjimas.com/news/2016/10/04/jika-tak-ada-ijin-ormas-islam-yogyakarta-desak-pembongkaran-patung-kerahiman/. Accessed 25 November 2022
NN. “FJI Yogyakarta Benarkan Gambar Kelompok Ibu Pengajian Selfie Berlatar Patung Yesus.” Panjimas.com, 4 October 2016, https://www.panjimas.com/news/2016/10/03/fji-yogyakarta-benarkan-gambar-kelompok-ibu-pengajian-selfie-berlatar-patung-yesus/. Accessed 25 November 2022.
NN. “Patung Wajah Kerahiman Gambarkan Tuhan Yesus yang Dekat dan Merengkuh.” Katolikana.com, 21 January 2023, https://www.katolikana.com/2023/01/21/patung-wajah-kerahiman-gambarkan-tuhan-yesus-yang-dekat-dan-merengkuh/. Accessed 20 November 2023.
NN. “Sejarah Gereja St. Yakobus Bantul.” styakobus.org, June 2008, http://santoyakobus.blogspot.com/2008/06/sejarah-gereja-st-yakobus.html. Accessed 20 November 2023.