Your Next President: "The Act of Killing"

Introduction

Toward the end of this post, I will comment on a recent movie I'd seen - a masterpiece called The Act of Killing - which focused on the motivations and emotions of death squad killers responsible for the mass murder of 1,000,000 alleged and unarmed members of the Communist Party in Indonesia in 1965. These crimes against humanity were never prosecuted at the international level nor even investigated - then or since - by Indonesian authorities.

As I watched this film, I noticed that there was only one (indirect) reference to Islam, which is relevant since Indonesia was then and is now predominantly Sunni Muslim. I will begin my essay with a comment on one incident in early Islamic history which, I believe, had a ripple effect concerning the acceptability of violence among Muslims. I will refer to that one incident as I compare it to my personal experience with Buddhists.

Here's a link to The Act of Killing's movie trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQhIRBxbchU

The Origin of Violence in Islamic Culture

I'm going to make a bold assertion here, though it's one I feel is an inescapable conclusion:

Since the Prophet Muhammad was violently introduced to the Quran - at the very beginning - it seems reasonable to suppose that such a violent origin could be expected to have a ripple effect throughout its history.

The following quote, which embraces a narrative supported by Sunni Muslims, illustrates my point:

QUOTE*:

He used to go in seclusion in the Cave of Hira', where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food likewise again, till suddenly the truth descended upon him while he was in the Cave of Hira'.

The angel came to him and asked [I've read other accounts that say the angel didn't "ask," but instead "ordered"] him to read. The Prophet replied 'I do not know how to read'. The Prophet added, 'The angel caught me (forcibly) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, "I do not know how to read". Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read, but again I replied, "I do not know how to read" (or what shall I read?). Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said: "Read, in the name of Your Lord, who created, created man from a clot. Read! And Your Lord is the most bountiful" ... [Bukhari, I, No. 3; VI, No. 478; Muslim I, No. 301.]

The narration goes on to tell us that the Prophet went back to his wife Khadija and recounted to her his dreadful experience...

:UNQUOTE*.

So that's how Muhammad was introduced to Islam - with a violence sufficient to induce a distress great enough for him to contemplate suicide, a claim which is supported by similar narratives I've read. It's interesting that one who claims go be the last prophet and messenger of God is the only one to have been terrorized into submission.

As a side note, I find it interesting that the angel in question - Gabriel - didn't simply use these words instead: "In the name of Allah, recite [or repeat] after me." Today, we understand that when the word "read" was used, Gabriel meant "read aloud." But even that doesn't make much sense unless there was a written document on hand from which Muhammad was supposed to read. And for Gabriel to be unaware that Muhammad was illiterate seems unbelievable in and of itself.

Disclaimer: Before any Muslims reading this consider getting upset at me for pointing out these few obvious points, I want you to know that I am a believer who is even more severe with his own faith - which happens to be Buddhism.

By way of comparison: Buddhism v. Islam

I can' speak for all Buddhists, but it's fairly safe to say their forays into violent behavior are few and far between. The only incidents I can think of took place in Sri Lanka and Myannmar, and these were inspired by tribalistic loyalty playing itself out against Hindu/Muslim minorities. However, it might be more enlightening for me to share with you the experience of my personal introduction to a Buddhist sect.

Back in 1975, I was approached by friends of mine who had themselves just recently joined one of the Nichiren sects calling itself Nichiren Shoshu of America (now called SGI - Soka Gakkai of America). These friends had been approached by street preachers who were fairly recent converts themselves. I had always maintained a healthy agnosticism throughout my life, so I liked the way NSA pitched its faith to me:

"We don't ask that you believe, just that you try its practices for 100 days as an experiment. Those practices consist of chanting twice per day for a total of 40 minutes; chant for whatever you want. That's how we ourselves judge the truth of this faith, based on the results we get when we chant. We believe in the Law of Karma, which means this faith is based on cause and effect. If you put out the cause of chanting, you will get the resulting benefits in your life which are the direct results of your practice.

"We also ask that you attend Buddhist discussion meetings once per week and make a modest attempt to learn some of the core concepts. After 100 days, if you're not satisfied with the results you receive, then go ahead and quit - for you'd be a fool to continue without some sign satisfactory to you personally that these practices are valid. If you go to work, you expect to be paid. Same here: The work you do is the effect you put out to consistently practice, and you should expect to get 'paid' for this."

After my 100 days was over, I saw enough results to continue my practice. However, flash forward to today: I am no longer a member of this sect since my in-depth study of its core scripture - The Lotus Sutra - led me to the conclusion that NSA/SGI was practicing in a manner inconsistent with the Buddha's instructions. When I quit, I wasn't beheaded or even shunned. I wasn't told I'd be going to hell for forsaking this sect, only that they hoped I would see the light and return to the fold. Of course, I am hoping they will see the light (or at least the light as I see it), but I know how hard it is for people to break with a tradition they've kept for (in some cases) decades.

The Act of Killing

The Act of Killing is brilliant in its casual, laid back approach, which allowed mass murderers to be treated as people with their own story to tell. It isn't judgmental; it simply unfolds and draws you in. There are scenes which are difficult to look at, which is surprising given that make-up and props are all that's being viewed rather than real blood and guts. That disconnect gives this film its surreal quality. This quote from Wikipedia introduces us to the film's backdrop:

QUOTE**:

When Sukarno was overthrown by Suharto following the failed coup of the 30 September Movement in 1965, the gangsters Anwar Congo and Adi Zulkadry in Medan (North Sumatra) were promoted from selling black market movie theatre tickets to leaders of the most notorious death squad in North Sumata, as part of the Indonesian killings of 1965-1966. They also extorted ethnic Chinese, killing those who refused to pay. Anwar personally killed approximately 1,000 people, usually by strangling with wire.

Today, Anwar is revered as a founding father of the right-wing paramilitary organization Pemuda Pancasila that grew out of the death squads. The organization is so powerful that its leaders include government ministers, and they are happy to boast about everything from corruption and election rigging to genocide. ...

Invited by Oppenheimer, Anwar and his friends eagerly re-enact the killings for the cameras, and make dramatic scenes depicting their memories and feelings about the killings. The scenes are produced in the style of their favorite film genres: gangster, western, and musical. Various aspects of Anwar and his friends' filmmaking process are shown, but as they begin to dramatize Anwar's own nightmares, the fiction scenes begin to take over the film's form, leading the film to become increasingly surreal and nightmarish. Oppenheimer has called the result "a documentary of the imagination."

:UNQUOTE**.

At first, I was surprised by Oppenheimer's restraint. He barely inserts his own views or questions into the film itself, doing so only once to my recollection. He doesn't give his subjects the third degree or even inquire as to whether they were or are now religious. He doesn't even mention Islam by name, though there's one scene in the movie where the killers are reenacting a brutal interrogation scene but stop when one of them mentions that he can hear (outside in the street) the "call to prayer." At that point, the four reenacters simply pause and bow their heads. I don't know if they were praying or not, since it looked more to me like an embarrassed silence.

The film had lengthy scenes when it was a film within a film or took us behind the scenes showing us what the sets and props looked like and the directorial discussion taking place among these former mass murderers. What struck me in particular was the total impunity with which these killers acted and how laughingly boastful they were of what they had done. Not only that, by all appearances the vast majority of the Indonesian nation support even to this day what had been extralegal murders.

There's one scene in which a Chinese shopkeeper is being extorted for money in order to help finance a pep rally of Pemuda Pancasila And this wasn't a reenactment of something that happened almost 50 years ago. This took place as the documentary was being filmed. And it was obvious that this particular extortion was for an amount above and beyond the usual monthly protection money demanded of this poor man.

Of course such a scene couldn't be used as evidence against the extortionist, since it was plainly obvious that no Indonesian court would even consider hearing such a case.

Several times during the film Anwar defines what he is - a gangster - in terms of being a "free man." Apparently, there's a Dutch word that allows such a liberal translation. However, I would point out, "But the fact is, you were and are in a gang which, by more commonly accepted definitions, is a group that operates outside the law. You might be free, but only from the restrains imposed by society and because your gang was supported by the military - as well as the Western democracies."

I don't know how Oppenheimer did it, but somehow he got Anwar to act the part of a Communist who was being brutally interrogated in a newspaper editor's office. That seemed to give Anwar pause as he then felt (though only as an actor) what it was like to have one's dignity assaulted. I also don't know how the filmmaker got one of the killers to dress up in drag for a particularly brutal scene.

Anwar admits to atrocities such as shoving wooden splinters up the anuses of his hapless victims. However, I was hard put to see how such extremes could be justified in the minds of the most fanatical "patriot." Instead of massacring unarmed people who posed no threat to the established order, the authorities could have simply misused the judicial system to dispossess or otherwise harass this minority. The excessive cruelty wasn't necessary from a Machiavellian point of view; the Communists could have been neutralized far more simply, effectively, and humanely - starting with a ban on their political party, which was legally in existence at the time.

Reflections on Indonesia

I admit that a rather macabre impulse made me look up the lyrics to the Indonesian national anthem, entitled Great Indonesia:

QUOTE***:

Indonesia, my homeland
The land where I shed my blood
Right there, I stand
To be a guide of my motherland
Indonesia, my nationality
My nation and my homeland.
Let us exclaim "Indonesia unites!"
Long live my land, long live my state
My nation, my people, entirely
Let us build its soul, let us build its body
For the Great Indonesia.
[REFRAIN]
Great Indonesia, independent & sovereign!
My land, my country which I love
Great Indonesia, independent & sovereign!
Long live Great Indonesia!
Great Indonesia, independent & sovereign!
My land, my country which I love
Great Indonesia, independent & sovereign!
Long live Great Indonesia!

:UNQUOTE***.

As you can see, there isn't any mention of liberty and justice for all or of reverence for the rule of law. As for "the land where I shed my blood," since Indonesia has always had its military staffed by volunteers and has never seen action except for the local suppression of insurrectionists and separatists, the average citizen never even had a chance to shed his blood. As for "let us build its soul" and "Indonesia unites," those are tacit admissions that true national unity has evaded Indonesia to date.

As for Indonesia being "great," I fail to see it. True greatness lies in the rule of law instead of allowing the continued existence of paramilitary organizations. It lies in protecting the weak and minorities. It lies in abhorrence of corruption. It lies in security forces which don't look the other way when gangsters engage in political and ethnic cleansings.

Two reasons the West isn't worried about Indonesia being Islamic: It's not militantly Islamic and, being a collection of islands, they're not in a position to threaten their neighbors. However, if China should ever decide it wants to exert its naval power in its neighborhood, Indonesia might end up praying the USA comes to its rescue. And if the USA isn't so inclined, well...the ironic result could be payback for those massacres of Chinese and communists nearly half a century ago.

The Act of Killing - post script

It's tragic that so few people will end up seeing this movie, which cost only $1M to make. According to IMDb, on its fourth weekend it grossed $38,537 after being shown on 26 screens in the USA...(sigh). Say, I wonder what the Kardashians are up to?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *