Religion Is Not The Root Of Sampang Riot,

But Misused
Akh Muzakki
Chairman of East Javas LP Maarif Nahdlatul Ulama, A Lecturer at the State
Institute of Islamic Studies (IAIN) Sunan Ampel in Surabaya
Jakarta Post , 01 September 2012
Media reports have used religion as the scapegoat for the recent attack
on the Shia community in Sampang, Madura. They have even depicted
religious faith as the causal factor of the act of violence, giving the public
an impression that the incident was a result of a conflict between Sunnis
and Shiites.
An article by Tobias Basuki also highlights a shared responsibility of all
parties in the country behind the Sampang tragedy (The Jakarta Post,
Aug. 29). He specifically relates the attack to the unclear relationship
between religion and the state.
The only question is: Is religion really behind the Sampang tragedy? If
not, why is it easily politically commodified?
From the perspective of sociology of conflict, there are differences
between the trigger factor and the causal factor.
The so-called trigger factor is a factor that serves to be the initial cause
of an angry mob, which in most cases leads to riots.
It is found on the surface of what is initially understood by the masses.
The causal factor is a factor that is hidden and is generally associated
with the issues of social relations, social distance and social structure of a
society.

A tragedy such as the one in Sampang, as several media outlets have

reported, arose from a very personal matter in one leading, religious
family.
Rooted in issues of love, the matter leaves two brothers (Rois and Tajul)
in an unresolved state of tension.
More precisely, the case was fueled by jealousy set in romance. The deep
disappointment has ignited the emotions of either party to bring the case
within the realm of religion.
The incident began when Rois found out his santriwati (female student),
named Halima, would marry one of Tajuls neighbors. Tajul, who is the
older brother of Rois, assisted his neighbor to woo Halima.
Unexpectedly, Rois already had an intention to marry Halima. This
caused conflict between the two brothers.
The feeling of disappointment mixed with resentment then fueled Rois
anger at Tajul. Rois allegedly subsequently constructed a particular
agenda for attacking Tajul. Various ways to discredit Tajul began.
Rois increasingly unbridled revenge did not stop at his decision to
renounce Shia teachings (Jawa Pos, Aug. 30).
Not surprisingly, therefore, Constitutional Court chief Mahfud MD, a
leading figure with a Madura background, said that the so-called
Sampang tragedy was triggered by issues of romance, rather than
differences in religious faith between Sunnis and Shiites (detik.com, Aug.
28).
If that was the case, why did Rois and his followers attack Tajuls people
on behalf of religious tenets? They did this by accusing Tajul and his
followers of holding and practicing so-called heretical teachings.
This case is possible because the majority of people in Sampang follow
Sunnism. Based on this fact, Rois would find it easy to provoke people in
the name of religion.
The differences in religious tenets between Shiism and Sunnism, which
have lasted since the early periods of Islam, and have become an
increasingly sensitive issue in Islamic theology in recent periods, were
then manipulated for personal interests.

Above all, Tajul and his followers were accused of committing

blasphemy against Islam. This accusation is so effective and empassioned
that people can easily be mobilized to attack minorities, including Tajuls
group.
This is effective because heresy is one of very sensitive issues for
Muslims. All Muslims tend to claim that they are a part of genuine
Muslims. For this reason, they keep maintaining that what they believe
and practice is in accordance to Islamic teachings.
The Sampang case makes it clear that religion is not only a symbolic but
also a real commodity, both in the business world through
commodification, and in the sociopolitical world through politicization.
This is not to deny that religion, as represented by its teachings and
values, lends itself to become a commodity for the purposes of businessbased production and consumption.
However, religion can be used or misused for social mobilization for any
possible purpose, leading individuals to come to power in a wide range
of senses, from personal pride, to political access, to social authority.
In short, the tragedy in Sampang is, frankly, not about religious conflict.
Nor is it even specifically about the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites.
Rather, it is about a personal case of resentment. It is as simple as that.
Religion has been brought into the case due to its effectiveness as a
medium and instrument to socially mobilize people for a certain purpose