現代東南亞的穆斯林：歷史觀點中的極端主義

Muslims in Modem Southeast Asia: Radicalism in Historical Perspectives

在大眾媒體大肆報導「伊斯蘭恐怖主義」的今天，穆斯林堅稱他們之中支持恐怖主義的激進派只是少數的極端份子。筆者在本文中將檢視穆斯林涉入有關使用暴力的爭論之歷史事件。首先我將重新檢視穆斯林學者間有關十九世紀「聖戰」（jihad）的傳播的辯論，特別是在荷蘭東印度殖民地。大部分的學者主張穆斯林可以藉由宗教來啟動聖戰以結束歐洲人所施加的不公和殖民對待；然而，有的學者則認為當今的情境並無助於開展聖戰，因此主張在伊斯蘭上聖戰是違法的。在20世紀的後半葉，東南亞很多地方的穆斯林或伊斯蘭教運動開展出許許多多的武裝鬥爭，以對抗當地的中央政府。這些鬥爭並不必然都是針對非穆斯林的統治者，有的使用暴力作為竭力主張他們議程的運動甚至對於政府更替或政權轉移興趣缺缺，他們反而會堅持透過具體的行動來促使宗教原則的執行，包括使用暴力。除了比較歷史現象和時期外，本文也旨在說明那些由不同的伊斯蘭教運動所挑起和擁有的意識形態論辯和知識的面相。

Amid the overwhelming mass media coverage of ”Islamic terrorism” today, Muslims insist that radicals from among their fold who endorse terrorism are minorities and extremists. In this article, I shall examine some historical episodes where Muslims are involved in argument about the use of violence. First of all I shall re-examine the debates among Muslim scholars on the propagation of ”holy war” (”jihad”) during the 19th century, especially in the Dutch East Indies territories. The majority maintain that holy war can be religiously launched in order to end injustice and colonization meted out by the Europeans. Some other scholars, however, argue that the contemporary conditions were not conducive to launch holy war, and thus it is Islamic ally unlawful.During the second half of the 20th century, armed struggles were launched by Muslims or Islamic movements in many different parts of Southeast Asia against the central governments. These struggles are not necessarily directed against non-Muslim rulers. Still other movements, using violence as a means of pressing their agenda, are less interested in changing government or taking over power. They rather insist on the implementation of religious principles through concrete actions, including the use of violence.In addition to comparing historical phenomena and periods, this article aims to delineate the ideological arguments and intellectual facets raised by and found in these diverse Islamic movements.