Muhammad As'ad, Surabaya – Many people, from civil society activists to pedicab drivers, are debating whether it is necessary for the House of the Representatives (DPR) to build a fancy building that will include an Rp 800 million (US$92,000) suite of offices for each legislator.
Critics have lashed out – in loud voices, naturally – at the plan, calling it ridiculous, irrational and insensitive of the millions of people who live below the poverty line.
Many critics argue that the building's Rp 1 trillion budget would be better spent on building thousands of new homes for the poor or thousands of kilometers of new roads in Jakarta and other regions across the country.
However, these protests have fallen on the deaf ears of all but a few opposing lawmakers. House leaders and members have stubbornly defended their plan, saying the new building would give them needed space and facilities to increase their progress in passing legislation.
Surely this reflects the real image of our country, where the elite never care for the people.
There is an irritating question related to the controversy: Where on earth are our clerics, the religious leaders of this Muslim-majority nation? Do they stand with the legislators? Or do they stand with the people who want to reject the megaproject? If they are with the people, why have the clerics not articulated their followers' opposition?
This question is aimed squarely at the Indonesia Ulema Council (MUI). The MUI guide their ummah (people), usually in the form of an edict. This ongoing debate in the House needs guidance from the MUI – particularly through an edict that would show that the council cares about the ummah, unlike the legislators.
Opposition to the project was voiced by the chairman of the Association for Indonesian Muslim Intellectuals' (ICMI) Europe branch, Sofjan Siregar.
Sofjan told reporters that "construction of the new building is forbidden under Islam [haram]. The people as taxpayers are not willing to have their money spent on the project and think that the new building is not a necessity."
He suggested that the MUI issue an edict that would forbid the construction project as an extravagant and superfluous violation of popular will.
The MUI is known for issuing counterproductive edicts condemning secularism, pluralism and liberalism and members of the minority Ahmadiyah Muslim sect.
In the case of Ahmadiyah, the MUI's stance sparked a controversy as it provided legitimacy to hard-liners to attack the sect's followers. We still remember the incident in February where attackers killed three Ahmadis in Banten. In some ways the acts of violence were stimulated by the edict.
Issuing an edict forbidding construction of a new House building would allow the MUI to rehabilitate its name as a moral and spiritual compass for the ummah and also unify the people against the will of the politicians.
In Islam, clerics are considered heirs of the Prophet (warathat al-anbiya). One of their missions is to command what is right and forbid what is wrong (amar ma'ruf nahi munkar). That is why the clerics are given authority to issue edicts that will guide their ummah toward what is right.
In addition, the Prophet is seen by Muslims as both a religious and political leader. Referring to those dual functions, clerics are allowed to provide guidance related to religious and political matters.
Given mounting public opposition to the House building, the MUI should issue an edict that bans the construction project. It is better for the House to use the money for programs that might improve their constituents' quality of life.
Such an edict would help the MUI regain public respect and confidence as it dares to stand with the people.
[The writer is a lecturer at the Sunan Ampel State Institute of Islamic Studies (IAIN) in Surabaya and the University of Darul Ulum (Undar) in Jombang.]