Loading…
Theologians “Moralising” Indonesia?
After the fall of the New Order in 1998, the Ulama Council of Indonesia ( MUI ) has been in the limelight for many of its controversial and conservative fatwa (legal opinions). Formed in 1975 by President Suharto, MUI was intended to serve as an institution to manage and discipline dissent, challeng...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Asian journal of social science 2016, Vol.44 (4-5), p.546-570 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Citations: | Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c905-910f6bdefec67bdb9445b3e3d84a20544ad38b9fd8fb56d7bd1cf3473de1e3903 |
|---|---|
| cites | |
| container_end_page | 570 |
| container_issue | 4-5 |
| container_start_page | 546 |
| container_title | Asian journal of social science |
| container_volume | 44 |
| creator | Saat, Norshahril |
| description | After the fall of the New Order in 1998, the Ulama Council of Indonesia (
MUI
) has been in the limelight for many of its controversial and conservative fatwa (legal opinions). Formed in 1975 by President Suharto,
MUI
was intended to serve as an institution to manage and discipline dissent, challenges and defiance by grassroots organisations. However, recent writings point to its changing character: Its fatwas are becoming more conservative; it is more assertive and powerful; and its fatwas, particularly the 2005
SIPILIS
(anti-secularism, pluralism and liberalism), are deemed as contributing to violence towards minorities. This article reassess the scholarly conclusions and media reports made about the relationship between
MUI
, the Indonesian state and society. Examining
MUI
’s attempt to define public morality as a case study, particularly its role in the 2008 pornography bill and efforts to “moralise” entertainment, the article argues that
MUI
is internally fragmented and weak. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1163/15685314-04404005 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1163_15685314_04404005</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1163_15685314_04404005</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c905-910f6bdefec67bdb9445b3e3d84a20544ad38b9fd8fb56d7bd1cf3473de1e3903</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNj01KQzEUhYMoWKsLcNaZo-i95iZNRiLFn0LFyZuH5CWpkeeLJCNnXYhurivRogVH53D4OPAxdo5wiajEFUqlpUDiQAQEIA_YZLdx0mQO__VjdtLaKwAqZfSEXXQvsQxlnd3YZtvN51Opbsgtj-vt5mu2HEMZY8vu5pQdJTe0ePaXU9bd33WLR756flguble8NyC5QUjKh5hir-Y-eEMkvYgiaHLXIIlcENqbFHTyUoUfBPskaC5CxCgMiCnD39u-ltZqTPa95jdXPyyC3Ynavajdi4pv1NpHVg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Theologians “Moralising” Indonesia?</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Saat, Norshahril</creator><creatorcontrib>Saat, Norshahril</creatorcontrib><description>After the fall of the New Order in 1998, the Ulama Council of Indonesia (
MUI
) has been in the limelight for many of its controversial and conservative fatwa (legal opinions). Formed in 1975 by President Suharto,
MUI
was intended to serve as an institution to manage and discipline dissent, challenges and defiance by grassroots organisations. However, recent writings point to its changing character: Its fatwas are becoming more conservative; it is more assertive and powerful; and its fatwas, particularly the 2005
SIPILIS
(anti-secularism, pluralism and liberalism), are deemed as contributing to violence towards minorities. This article reassess the scholarly conclusions and media reports made about the relationship between
MUI
, the Indonesian state and society. Examining
MUI
’s attempt to define public morality as a case study, particularly its role in the 2008 pornography bill and efforts to “moralise” entertainment, the article argues that
MUI
is internally fragmented and weak.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1568-4849</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1568-4849</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1163/15685314-04404005</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>Asian journal of social science, 2016, Vol.44 (4-5), p.546-570</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c905-910f6bdefec67bdb9445b3e3d84a20544ad38b9fd8fb56d7bd1cf3473de1e3903</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Saat, Norshahril</creatorcontrib><title>Theologians “Moralising” Indonesia?</title><title>Asian journal of social science</title><description>After the fall of the New Order in 1998, the Ulama Council of Indonesia (
MUI
) has been in the limelight for many of its controversial and conservative fatwa (legal opinions). Formed in 1975 by President Suharto,
MUI
was intended to serve as an institution to manage and discipline dissent, challenges and defiance by grassroots organisations. However, recent writings point to its changing character: Its fatwas are becoming more conservative; it is more assertive and powerful; and its fatwas, particularly the 2005
SIPILIS
(anti-secularism, pluralism and liberalism), are deemed as contributing to violence towards minorities. This article reassess the scholarly conclusions and media reports made about the relationship between
MUI
, the Indonesian state and society. Examining
MUI
’s attempt to define public morality as a case study, particularly its role in the 2008 pornography bill and efforts to “moralise” entertainment, the article argues that
MUI
is internally fragmented and weak.</description><issn>1568-4849</issn><issn>1568-4849</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNj01KQzEUhYMoWKsLcNaZo-i95iZNRiLFn0LFyZuH5CWpkeeLJCNnXYhurivRogVH53D4OPAxdo5wiajEFUqlpUDiQAQEIA_YZLdx0mQO__VjdtLaKwAqZfSEXXQvsQxlnd3YZtvN51Opbsgtj-vt5mu2HEMZY8vu5pQdJTe0ePaXU9bd33WLR756flguble8NyC5QUjKh5hir-Y-eEMkvYgiaHLXIIlcENqbFHTyUoUfBPskaC5CxCgMiCnD39u-ltZqTPa95jdXPyyC3Ynavajdi4pv1NpHVg</recordid><startdate>2016</startdate><enddate>2016</enddate><creator>Saat, Norshahril</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2016</creationdate><title>Theologians “Moralising” Indonesia?</title><author>Saat, Norshahril</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c905-910f6bdefec67bdb9445b3e3d84a20544ad38b9fd8fb56d7bd1cf3473de1e3903</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Saat, Norshahril</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Asian journal of social science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Saat, Norshahril</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Theologians “Moralising” Indonesia?</atitle><jtitle>Asian journal of social science</jtitle><date>2016</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>4-5</issue><spage>546</spage><epage>570</epage><pages>546-570</pages><issn>1568-4849</issn><eissn>1568-4849</eissn><abstract>After the fall of the New Order in 1998, the Ulama Council of Indonesia (
MUI
) has been in the limelight for many of its controversial and conservative fatwa (legal opinions). Formed in 1975 by President Suharto,
MUI
was intended to serve as an institution to manage and discipline dissent, challenges and defiance by grassroots organisations. However, recent writings point to its changing character: Its fatwas are becoming more conservative; it is more assertive and powerful; and its fatwas, particularly the 2005
SIPILIS
(anti-secularism, pluralism and liberalism), are deemed as contributing to violence towards minorities. This article reassess the scholarly conclusions and media reports made about the relationship between
MUI
, the Indonesian state and society. Examining
MUI
’s attempt to define public morality as a case study, particularly its role in the 2008 pornography bill and efforts to “moralise” entertainment, the article argues that
MUI
is internally fragmented and weak.</abstract><doi>10.1163/15685314-04404005</doi><tpages>25</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1568-4849 |
| ispartof | Asian journal of social science, 2016, Vol.44 (4-5), p.546-570 |
| issn | 1568-4849 1568-4849 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1163_15685314_04404005 |
| source | JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection |
| title | Theologians “Moralising” Indonesia? |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T00%3A36%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Theologians%20%E2%80%9CMoralising%E2%80%9D%20Indonesia?&rft.jtitle=Asian%20journal%20of%20social%20science&rft.au=Saat,%20Norshahril&rft.date=2016&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=4-5&rft.spage=546&rft.epage=570&rft.pages=546-570&rft.issn=1568-4849&rft.eissn=1568-4849&rft_id=info:doi/10.1163/15685314-04404005&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_1163_15685314_04404005%3C/crossref%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c905-910f6bdefec67bdb9445b3e3d84a20544ad38b9fd8fb56d7bd1cf3473de1e3903%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |