Terrorism and jihad in Indonesia: Questions and possible ways forward

Abstract

We critically examine the three papers on terrorism and jihad in Indonesia contained in this issue. First, we argue that thorough discussion and definition of key terms (including religious violence and jihad) would have led to a much stronger framework for understanding the voices of the activists and their supporters. Second, the authors could have engaged more systematically with the international literature on intergroup relations and conflict to discuss how psychological and social processes of radicalization are similar or different in the Indonesian context. Third, we highlight methodological and ethical shortcomings in the three papers that call into question a number of the conclusions drawn by the authors. We outline future research questions and provide suggestions to strengthen this important line of research.

Towards an indigenous psychology of religious terrorism with global implications: Introduction to AJSP's Special Issue on Islamist terrorism in Indonesia

“…1 It remains for future research to see if these three might form a causal sequence (but sacred violence does not require step 2, and therefore might be thought to more narrowly define the theater of combat). This response can also be justified in terms of the theology of (greater) jihad which can be waged with the heart and the tongue as well as with the sword (see Harb & Fischer, 2013). According to the indigenous theory of psychology presented here, other forms of terrorism or sacred violence would require a different ideological trigger; without jihadi ideology, extremist Islamist violence should not take place (this point is vigorously disputed by Harb and Fischer, 2013, who argue for more universal causes).…”

“…The 9-11 terror attacks and responses to them can be said to have shifted the balance of global power. Arie Kruglanski (2013) extracts the what, why and how of violent extremism in Indonesia to a more universal stage, while Harb and Fischer (2013) point out some of the conceptual and methodological limitations of the papers as well as directions for future research. This has resulted in a flood of academic and popular writing, but in the English language literature, the number of Muslim authors and more importantly, insider theoretical accounts, has been less than optimal.…”

“…Various thinkers in Asia have converged on a definition of indigenous psychology as a system of psychological thought and practice rooted in a particular cultural tradition (Enriquez, 1990), 'the scientific study of human behavior (or mind) that is native, that is not transported from other regions, and that is designed for its people' (Kim & Berry, 1993, p. 2), and as 'an evolving system of psychological knowledge based on scientific research that is sufficiently compatible with the studied phenomena and their ecological, economic, social, cultural, and historical contexts' (Yang, 2000, p. 245). However, as noted by Harb and Fischer (2013), the contextual nuances and the international influences on the conceptions of religious terrorism presented require further elaboration, and the issue of whether this should be interpreted as an indigenous phenomenon or something more universal deserves further scrutiny. According to the above definitions, the key concepts and supposed causal sequences produced by the three teams of authors appear to provide the theoretical foundations for an indigenous psychology of Indonesian Islamist terrorism.…”

“…See Harb and Fischer (2013) for an impassioned appeal to distinguish clearly between the lesser jihad described here and greater, non-violent jihad. See Harb and Fischer (2013) for an impassioned appeal to distinguish clearly between the lesser jihad described here and greater, non-violent jihad.…”

“…In further examining the international implications, applications, and limitations of the issue, we are fortunate to have commentary from international experts. Arie Kruglanski (2013) extracts the what, why and how of violent extremism in Indonesia to a more universal stage, while Harb and Fischer (2013) point out some of the conceptual and methodological limitations of the papers as well as directions for future research.…”