Jajang Jahroni, Boston, Massachusetts – The phenomenon of our mosques today reflects the idea of incongruity. I recently visited Samarinda, East Kalimantan, where the local government has built a beautiful mosque near the Mahakam River.

It is equipped with a library, seminar rooms, office space, parking spaces and 24-hour security guards.

In Depok, West Java, Dian al-Mahri Mosque is popular. Tourists frequent the mosque not only to see its architectural arrangement, but also the place of worship's dome, which is gold-coated. It is therefore called the Mosque of the Golden Dome.

About five kilometers away to the west of Jakarta, precisely in Sawa-ngan, Depok, a mosque has been built by collecting pennies from drivers. From a distance, a man with speaker urges people to donate. God's name is uttered.

Drums are installed in the middle of the street to force drivers slow their cars. Men and women, covering their heads, faces and hands to fight the heat, are holding containers to collect donations.

It is unclear whether it is legal to collect donations in such a way. But I know people who do this job earn money for themselves. So this is not really about donations. It is business!

We don't have to talk about the Samarinda Mosque or Mosque of the Golden Dome. But we need to talk about those poorly organized mosques that are at risk of being manipulated by any group of people.

Embezzlement is so rampant in this country that it involves not only white collar workers, but also white cap clerics.

Poor organization raises problems that are relevant for our discussion: Mosques are at risk of being used by radical groups.

I argue that any deradicalization attempts in Indonesia without taking mosques into account will come to failure.

Efforts should begin from the mosque because the mosque is the place where everything happens. Like it or not, many terrorist groups have misused mosques for their activities: promoting their ideologies or recruiting new cadres.

This is because most mosques are too informal and too exposed. Anybody can come in, pray, read, talk, sleep, or even date.

Informality is not necessarily bad. In the previous times, Islam was easily advocated through informal networks (family, marriage, sufi order, student, trader). But in modern times, this is serious.

In a seminar, Liberal Islam Network (JIL) activist Luthfi Asysyaukanie complained about findings that more and more mosques were taken over by non-moderate Muslim groups.

Muslim professionals working in downtown Jakarta have also complained about the same thing. They love to go to mosques but not to listen to the cleric's arguments which, in the name of God, sometimes urge Muslims to attack other groups.

Sadly to say, moderate Muslim intellectuals at all levels do not really care about the mosque. They go to the mosque once a week, hesitatingly sitting under the verandah and waiting for the preachers to end their speech.

To give a sermon, let alone to be active in mosque management, is a big deal. Yet they are too busy with seminars and conferences, giving talks on TV or radio – a job that earns them money and popularity.

The mosque has gradually lost its magnet on these groups. Whereas in the past, quoting Sidi Gazalba, it had become the place for ritual and the center for Muslim civilization.

I know the late moderate Muslim scholar Nurcholish Madjid gave sermons. But most of his successors do not. One by one, Muslim intellectuals are gone as the hall of fame moves to the media, which may link them to politics and power.

This is probably the reason why I have never heard Komaruddin Hidayat or Bahtiar Effendy give a sermon.

The question is, what will happen if this strategic institution is taken over by narrow-minded people? What will it be if massive audiences are injected by bigoted doctrines? The answer is radicalism.

We need to reform our mosques that, at least, should take care of with two important issues: management and financial support.

Management is not something new for a mosque. In 1972, the Indonesian Mosque Council (DMI) was founded.

This organization claims to have the largest number of members in the country. Instead of improving mosque management, DMI is involved in politics together with other Islamic organizations that tend to oppose religious pluralism.

Needless to say, moderate Muslim groups are not interested in this organization. So, wherever you go, the story of this country is the same. Bus stations are run by vigilantes, parliament by nasty politicians and mosques by radical groups.

How can mosques find strong financial support? This is a tough question. But realizing that most of the mosques in our country belong to society and realizing that there are a number of charities society pays to support religious and social activities, mosques deserve top priority.

This means the state should refrain from organizing and distributing alms, religious endowments and other forms of charity. Let civic associations, in this case mosques, organize this. The charities can be used for salary payment of mosque functionaries.

Deradicalization begins with empowering civic associations and redistribution of economic resources. For this reason, we don't need a bill on giving alms, as it will impoverish civic associations. It is a backlash.

Radicalism will never be resolved unless the state and civil society mutually co-exist.

[The writer is pursuing a doctoral degree at Boston University.]