At the family level, religious doctrines have gained ground in terror movements. In dealing with these pro-extremist calls, the concept of freedom in democracy faces a crucial test.
By
SARIE FEBRIANE
·3 minutes read
A little girl swayed her body in agile movements to the rhythm of dangdut music. Her long black veil bobbed, her smile broadly beaming occasionally. Together with dozens of other children, she participated in a morning exercise held on a large field at a social shelter in Bambu Apus, East Jakarta.
The girl was left an orphan after her parents and two older siblings blew themselves up in a suicide terror attack on the Surabaya Police headquarters in East Java on May 14, 2018.
"That she now is inclined to dance like that is extraordinary [progress]," said a volunteer at the shelter.
The girl, aged 8, survived the explosion after a police officer rushed her out of the scene of the blast. She has since been undergoing rehabilitation at the social shelter, under intensive monitoring from a psychologist.
Apart from curing her trauma, neutralizing the radical ideology that had already been strongly internalized in her mind was no less a daunting task. She viewed several things as haram, including music, dancing, making friends with those of different faiths and flag ceremonies. She even stayed away from eating chicken, which she said violated religious teachings on slaughtering. All these the result of intense indoctrination from her parents.
However, she has changed. When asked about her favorite food, she shyly said “fried chicken”, especially the kind from a popular franchise eatery.
This girl’s journey represents the sphere of radicalization creeping into households in today\'s extremely violent movements.
The suicide bombing at a church in Makassar, South Sulawesi, has also been attributed to a family terror cell, with a recently married couple being the suspected perpetrators.
A family terror cell would be able to better prepare for an attack because there is no need to resort to the frequent use of telecommunication devices that risk being bugged by the police.
“Exactly. That’s the loophole. But they are victims of misinterpreted religious doctrines,” said Ansyaad Mbai, a terrorism observer who is also a former head of the National Counterterrorism Agency.
That’s the loophole. But they are victims of misinterpreted religious doctrines
In dealing with terrorism, Ansyaad pointed out the need for the state to pay attention to the proponents of extreme ideology at the elite level, whether they are from political parties or non-governmental organizations.
Extremist movement tends to operate what he believes in “two legs”, one through scene of violence and the other through political narratives that voice pro-extremism elements, such as khilafah, God\'s law, takfiri, jihad and "migration” (formerly to Syria).
Without addressing the pro-extremism ideology raised by its proponents, family terror cells may continue to emerge. Initially, their thoughts just get radicalized; eventually, they resort themselves to acts of terror.
At this family level, religious doctrines have gained ground in terror movements. In dealing with these pro-extremist calls, the concept of freedom in democracy faces a crucial test.
Francis Fukuyama in his book Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment (2018), says that the universal recognition on which liberal democracy is predicated has been increasingly challenged by narrower forms of recognition based on nation, religion, sect, race, ethnicity or gender. These result in antiimmigrant populism and the rise of politicized religions.