A Controversy of Monks and Mosque: A Setback for Indonesians’ Tolerance?

A seeming act of tolerance by a mosque in Central Java did not turn out as planned. On 16 May 2024, 44 monks from Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore were making their way on foot from Pudak Payung village, Semarang to the famous Borobudur (in Magelang, 40 kilometres from Yogyakarta). The monks’ 78-kilometre-long journey was an annual Vesak Day ritual. Pilgrims would normally make several stops, for meals and rest. A Nahdlatul Ulama (NU)-affiliated mosque in Bengkal village, Temanggung regency, Central Java, agreed to host them. While this gesture demonstrated interfaith tolerance, it drew flak from prominent Indonesian religious scholars and netizens. This episode proves that interfaith relations remain fragile in Indonesia.

On 19 May, the monks arrived at the mosque and occupied its veranda, a space outside the main prayer hall. They rested, ate, and prayed in a Buddhist-style ritual but avoided the main hall. The Muslim hosts were conscious not to offend, so they segregated these guests but left open the doors to the main hall. (Note: For conservative Muslims, even allowing the monks to be on the veranda is objectionable, if all parts of the mosque are viewed as sacred and exclusive to Muslims.) The mosque is a popular resting place for sojourners because it is well connected and has a huge car park.

This noble gesture did not sit well with a prominent member of the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI), Cholil Nafis. Cholil, 49 years old, is a key leader of this conservative network of religious scholars formed by former president Suharto in 1975 to issue fatwas (legal rulings), some of which have caused tensions, especially on inter-faith and intra-faith issues, gender, and halal consumption. Today, Cholil is regarded as MUI’s poster boy and rising star, and has a wide following on social media platforms Instagram and X. Cholil said the mosque was too accommodating (in Javanese: keblabasan) and that a mosque is a sacred place where Muslims perform religious rituals. Instead of allowing the monks to occupy the mosque’s veranda, he opined that the mosque should have received them in its office, separate from the sacred prayer area. He also recommended that MUI or the Ministry of Religious Affairs should have hosted the monks. Within two days, his Instagram post was seen by over 300,000 people, drawing 1,808 comments and 5,847 likes.

Despite this traction on social media, Cholil’s personal views remain isolated. A member within his own organisation sought to diffuse the matter: Zainut Tauhid Sa’adi, MUI’s Advisory Council deputy chairman, called on everyone to end the controversy and cool tensions between Cholil’s opponents and supporters.  

Historically, MUI would have been capable of mobilising the country towards its goals. MUI was part of rallies in 2017 that eventually brought down Chinese Indonesian-Christian Jakarta governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (nicknamed Ahok). Controversially, its fatwas had triggered communal violence towards religious minorities, including Ahmadiyya and Shias, during Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s presidency. In this light, the MUI leaders’ responses, including Cholil’s, towards the issue of the monks in the mosque seem comparatively meek.

…Indonesia can still be a model in promoting tolerance, a diversity of views, and respect for local or non-Muslim cultures and practices.

Cholil’s supporters praised him for being firm in upholding the principle of Islam and his sympathisers contend that non-Muslims, including those monks, must not perform Buddhist prayers in any part of a mosque, as the space is exclusively for Muslims. To them, the mosque is the house of Allah (God).

Other users on social media and in the mainstream media, however, praised the mosque management for its tolerance of the monks. This demonstrates that many Indonesian Muslims still uphold a commitment to interfaith relations despite occasional tensions. The irony is that Cholil himself had, in the past, contributed to promoting interfaith dialogues, better governance, and Muslim self-development.

This controversy is a stern reminder that a popular religious figure such as Cholil must be careful when commenting on social media, especially since he comes from a prominent institution such as MUI. Some may consider even his passing remarks, albeit uttered in his personal capacity, as representing MUI. Moreover, there are religious opinions within Islam that do not strictly forbid the use of mosques by those in need, which the monks arguably were. That the NU leadership did not object to the mosque’s welcome for the monks underscores its tacit acceptance; other Islamic scholars must respect this diversity of views, which is a merit in Islam.  

Even the local leaders, including Temanggung government and security officials, publicly stated that the welcome was appropriate because the veranda was not in the mosque’s main area of prayer. Thus, it was not an act that should offend Muslims.

This episode demonstrates that Indonesia can still be a model in promoting tolerance, a diversity of views, and respect for local or non-Muslim cultures and practices. The act would have been unthinkable in other parts of maritime Southeast Asia. In most parts of Malaysia, for instance, Christians and non-Muslims cannot use certain words that Muslims see as belonging exclusively to Islam. Unlike many Islamic countries in the Middle East, which continue to view religious diversity with suspicion, in Indonesia, various ulama have nurtured tolerance for many generations, starting from the time of the Wali Songo, the nine saints who disseminated Islam in Java.

2024/171