Disabilitas dan Pandangan Masyarakat

Penggunaan kosakata “disabilitas” ditengah masyarakat kita barangkali masih sangat jarang. Bukan hanya karena kata tersebut belum populer dikarenakan asal katanya yang diadopsi dari bahasa asing, melainkan juga kecenderungan masyarakat kita yang sudah terlanjur “nyaman” dengan penggunaan istilah yang telah ada sebelumnya.

Disabilitas, Sebuah Definisi
Disabilitas berasal dari bahasa Inggris (disability) yang berarti ketidakmampuan. Pada definisi selanjutnya, disabilitas merupakan istilah yang disematkan kepada mereka yang mempunyai keterbatasan fungsi tubuh, entah itu tuna netra, tuna daksa, tuna rungu, maupun tuna grahita.

Mendefinisikan disabilitas berdasarkan an sich asal katanya, menurut penulis kurang tepat. Karena satu detik pertama terdapat penghukuman bahwa penyandang disabilitas dikategorikan sebagai orang-orang yang tidak mampu melakukan sesuatu. Padahal kenyataan yang ada justru sebaliknya. Penyandang disabilitas adalah hamba tuhan yang setiap waktu berjuang untuk memaksimalkan kemampuan dirinya, meskipun dia memiliki kelemahan fisik.

Itulah mengapa WHO mendefinisikan disabilitas sebagai “…an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. An impairment is a problem in body function or structure; an activity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action; while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvement in life situations. Thus disability is a complex phenomenon, reflecting an interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she lives.

Secara singkatnya, WHO mendefinisikan disabilitas sebagai fenomena kompleks yang terjadi tidak hanya dalam ranah internal (meliputi fungsi tubuh atau struktur tubuh seseorang), namun juga mengkaitkankannya dengan faktor eksternal, yakni hubungannya dengan masyarakat di mana seorang penyandang disabilitas tinggal.

Disabilitas Dan Pandangan Masyarakat
Menarik garis relasi antara disabilitas dan pandangan masyarakat seperti di atas memang sangat tepat. Diakui atau tidak, dalam kurun waktu 20 tahun terakhir ini memang telah terjadi proses perubahan pendefinisian disabilitas di tengah masyarakat kita.

Pada tahun 1990-an, konsep disabilitas lebih diartikan sebagai fenomena yang membahas kondisi fisik atau mental belaka. Seseorang dengan kelumpuhan kaki, tangan, atau organ tubuh tertentu akan dianggap “non-aktif” hanya didasarkan pada kondisi fisik mereka.
Saat ini pandangan tersebut sudah bergeser. Tidak berfungsinya anggota tubuh tertentu, dipandang sebagai interaksi yang kompleks antara seseorang dan lingkungannya. Orang yang sama dengan kelumpuhan kaki, tangan, maupun fungsi tubuh lainnya dianggap disable (lumpuh) tidak hanya karena gangguan fisik mereka saja, namun juga termasuk di dalamnya hambatan dalam lingkungan yang membatasi mereka untuk ikut serta melakukan interaksi sosial.
Hal ini barangkali terjadi berdasarkan proses histori, dimana dulu penyandang disabilitas diidentikkan dengan sekelompok orang yang kerap menjadikan kelemahan fisiknya sebagai “senjata” untuk mendapatkan belas kasihan dengan orientasi finansial. Dan kemunculan penyandang disabilitas di ruang publik dengan “wajah” seperti itu membentuk mindset yang sangat kuat di masyarakat.

Sayangnya mindset tersebut masih bertahan hingga sekarang: ketika penyandang disabilitas mulai mengubah cara hidupnya. Masyarakat seolah lupa, bahwa seiring dengan pergumulan hidup, penyandang disabilitas pun mempunyai sebuah proses pendewasaan berpikir dan bersikap. Ini ditunjukkan dengan pembuktian diri yang mereka lakukan dengan berkarya, belajar, dan mendayagunakan kelemahan yang mereka miliki semaksimal mungkin agar keluar dari keterkungkungan anggapan sebagai “kaum yang menyusahkan”.

Terlepas dari ulasan historis di atas, perlakuan yang baik kepada penyandang disabilitas sejatinya merupakan perilaku yang harus mengakar dari dalam diri setiap manusia tanpa dilatar belakangi oleh histori maupun tendensi apapun. Sebab membahas disabilitas sama halnya membahas mengenai sebuah ketentuan hidup yang telah digariskan sejak lahir. Dan tidak ada satu orang pun yang ingin dilahirkan dengan kekurangan fisik semacam itu. Maka akan menjadi sangat naif ketika seseorang diperlakukan buruk karena mempunyai kelemahan yang tidak pernah dia harapkan.

Dalam kerangka masyarakat Indonesia, penyandang disabilitas –tidak bisa kita pungkiri- memang belum mendapatkan tempat yang wajar dan semestinya. Dari segi pembangunan sarana dan prasarana misalnya, masih sangat jarang kita temukan fasilitas umum yang merepresentasikan keberpihakan pada penyandang disabilitas. Kepedulian masyakat terhadap penyandang disabilitas juga masih sangat minim. Joke-joke segar yang ada dalam dunia entertainment kita, tak jarang juga mengekspolitasi secara bebas adegan berjalan maupun berucap penyandang disabilitas. Dan ironisnya, menirukan perilaku penyandang disabilitas masih dianggap sebagai salah satu materi lawakan yang “menjual”.

Disabilitas dan Komitmen Pemerintah
Pemerintah sendiri telah menunjukkan adanya komitmen kuatnya untuk menentukan hak-hak asasi penyandang disabilitas. Ini dibuktikan dengan telah ditandatanganinya Konvensi Hak Penyandang Cacat (Convention on The Rights of Person With Disabilities – CRPD) oleh Indonesia pada tanggal 30 Maret 2007. Ratifikasi atas konvensi tersebut juga telah dilakukan oleh pemerintah kita pada bulan Oktober kemarin.

Sesuai dengan semangat yang terkandung dalam UU No.24 Tahun 2000 tentang Perjanjian Internasional, maka sebuah konvensi akan menjadi hukum nasional apabila telah diratifikasi. Implikasinya, setelah konvensi diratifikasi, maka Pemerintah akan mereformasi peraturan perundangan yang ada sehingga sesuai dengan kewajiban yang diamanahkan dalam Konvensi, yakni meliputi pemahaman bahwa penyandang disabilitas memiliki hak asasi yang harus dilindungi melalui penegasan dan penerapan pokok-pokok HAM, antara lain martabat, kesetaraan dan kebebasan untuk menentukan pilihan.

Ketua Himpunan Wanita Penyandang Cacat Indonesia Ariani Soekanwo pernah mengungkapkan, bahwa perlu adanya “will” dari pemerintah untuk segera melakukan penyesuaian dalam penanganan kelompok masyarakat disabilitas diberbagai kehidupan seperti penyediaan aksesibilitas dan pengalokasian anggaran untuk pemberdayaan para penyandang cacat, memberikan perlindungan dan mengedepankan hak para penyandang cacat dalam berbagai bidang kehidupan. Semoga ratifikasi tersebut merupakan permulaan ke arah itu.
Apalagi hari internasional penyandang disabilitas akan jatuh pada tanggal 3 Desember 2011 nanti. Ini hendaknya akan menjadi hari yang harus kita rayakan bersama. Perayaan bukan dalam artian pesta dan hura-hura, melainkan menjadi sebuah pijakan baru untuk lebih memantapkan langkah dan makin menumbuhkan semangat inklusifitas.

Dari uraian di atas, terbesit gambaran yang jelas betapa membahas disabilitas dan pandangan masyarakat, ibarat membuka sebuah Buku Besar dengan segudang PR (baca: pekerjaan rumah) yang tertulis di dalamnya.

Pelecehan, diskriminasi, pemojokan atau apapun namanya, seharusnya harus dipahami sebagai masalah hak asasi manusia dan karenanya -sudah pasti- menjadi masalah bersama. Akar masalahnya jelas: dimana seorang penyandang disabilitas pada akhirnya justru dinonaktifkan oleh masyarakat, bukan hanya oleh tubuh mereka sendiri. Hambatan tersebut dapat diatasi, jika pemerintah, organisasi nonpemerintah, profesional dan orang-orang penyandang cacat dan keluarga mereka bekerja sama.

Kartunet di Garda Depan
Di tengah perseteruan antara moral dan empati. Lahirlah sebuah gerakan yang lebih mengetengahkan act dari sekadar wacana, gerakan itu bernama Kartunet. Seperti dikutip dari Wikipedia, Kartunet merupakan sebuah situs web yang dikelola oleh Komunitas Kartunet Indonesia sebagai organisasi nirlaba yang didirikan pada tanggal 19 Januari 2006. Kartunet dibuat dan dikelola oleh sekelompok tunanetra, namun isi yang terdapat pada media tersebut ditujukan kepada masyarakat umum. Kartunet sendiri merupakan kepanjangan dari Karya Tuna Netra.

Fokus gerakan Kartunet terletak pada pengembangan minat bakat para penyandang disabilitas dan kampanye wacana masyarakat inklusif melalui media dalam jaringan. Kartunet juga menjadi salah satu wahana untuk mempublikasikan kreasi dari pengunjung situs Kartunet baik berupa karya sastra, penyajian berita, artikel mengenai teknologi, maupun informasi-informasi lain yang berkaitan dengan isu disabilitas.

Seperti dilansir dalam situs web kartunet di www.kartunet.com, beberapa program dan kegiatan rutin yang diadakan oleh Komunitas Kartunet Indonesia diantaranya adalah:
Publikasi rutin kreasi penyandang disabilitas.

Pengembangan potensi penyandang disabilitas dalam kelompok-kelompok minat dan bakat.
Kampanye sosialisasi isu-isu disabilitas melalui media online jejaring sosial.
Pelatihan kemandirian ekonomi bagi penyandang disabilitas.
Memperluas akses bagi penyandang disabilitas untuk mengakses fasilitas teknologi informasi.
Keberadaan kartunet diharapkan dapat “menampar” siapapun yang selama ini memandang rendah penyandang disabilitas. Tamparan disini tentu bukan berarti menyakiti, melainkan mengetuk secara batiniah agar terbesit sebuah cara pandang baru terhadap penyandang disabilitas. Yakni sebuah cara pandang yang menyetarakan. Cara pandang yang arif, santun, penuh empati, dan kepedulian.

Dengan kata lain, kartunet diharapkan dapat mendobrak pandangan masyarakat yang selama ini masih memandang rendah penyandang disabilitas. Bukan dengan teriakan nyaring di jalanan layaknya sekelompok pendemonstrasi, melainkan melalui sebuah karya yang bebas untuk diapresiasi. Bukan misi yang mudah memang, namun penulis yakin, dengan dilandasi keikhlasan dan kesederhanaan yang diusung oleh stakeholder Kartunet. Penyelesaian tugas itu akan menjadi indah dan menyenangkan. Semoga.

Read More...

Islamic Science or Pseudo Science?

A unique tendency used to emerge from the religious fundamentalist perspective. Muslim fundamentalists for instance, keenly campaign about the syâmil-mutakâmil (complete and comprehensive) Islam. They like to show off that various scientific discoveries of the western scientist had referred to the Islamic history. We often hear that several scientific field such as astronomy, chemistry, physic, geography, and history has been associated with Medieval Muslim scientist such as al-Biruni, al-Kindi, Ibnu Khaldun, Ibnu Sina and others.

This attitude is asserting one thing: that the development of western science and knowledge totally depends or just a continuation of the shining Islamic civilization. In other word, western civilization’s progress owed upon Islam in the past. It is true that once west owed upon Islam and that Islamic civilization once was superior in science and knowledge because of Muslim scholar’s discoveries. But, the fundamentalists did not realize that western’s progress is not a mere duplication. It is accumulation of the never ending process of discovery and development.

Another tendency is claiming that the right/true science is the one derived from Quran, or at least compatible with Quran. This claim rejects secularization of knowledge. In other word, the right science is not ”in opposition to” the revelation. Therefore, they published books on relation between science and Quran or hadith. These are genealogist books which attempt to find the origin of knowledge among Muslim scientist.

Interaction of Civilizations

It is important to note that the shining Islamic civilization in the past did not stand alone. It was the result of dynamic interaction with other civilizations such as Greek, Egypt, Persia, and India. Muslim scientists used to hold dialog with and learn from other civilizations. The image of openness, tolerance and pluralist was dominant in the character of Muslim scientist. This is the opposite of fundamentalists who want to develop Islam by reclusion and confrontation.

We hardly ever find any piece among classic Muslim scientist’s literatures that attack other civilizations and regard Islam superior than them. In Hasan Hanafi’s perspective, the matter of anâ (ego) and al-âkhar (the other) was not an important division in knowledge. The most dominant feature in that time was the spirit of ecumenism and unity. Figures such as al-Farabi and Ibnu Sina attempted to bring great prophets close to the Greek philosophers.

Another anomaly from the fundamentalists’ thinking is that they only respect Muslim scientists’ scientific discovery, and ”demonize” their religious aspect. They often address the charge of mislead, heterodox and syncretic toward those Muslim philosophers and scientist. This is a weird contradiction. On one hand, they want to claim that the West has developed because of Islam. But when they find out that Islamic development is the achievement of the ”liberal” and inclusive philosophers, they withdraw their credit hastily and asserted that those philosophers were misled and deviated from the Islamic orthodoxy.

Afterward, they raised a new idea to answer this contradiction: it is that Quran is the source of knowledge developed by those Muslim scientists. They proposed various arguments to affirm that Quran had talked about astronomy, pharmacy, geography, physic and so on.

Those Islamic-Pseudo-science-apologists (that how I called them), attempted to dig up every aspect of Quran which they claimed contained of practical and theoretical element of knowledge. They forget that the scientific logic does not run as they think. Scientific logic is not a line of facts which is stagnant and valid for all times. Science lives and develops from the never ending accumulation, revision, criticism, and reformation.

I am with Luthfi Assyaukanie in this matter: it is very dangerous to see Quran as the encyclopedia of knowledge, since nothing is eternal in knowledge. On one occasion, a theory might be considered valid and compatible, but next time it might be criticized and substituted by another theory. If Quran is treated so, there might be clash between religious leaders and scientists such as in the age of renaissance.

I’m worried observing Harun Yahya’s works that ambitiously demonstrate the ”scientific” Islam. The Quranic verses were ”matched and adjusted” with natural and historical phenomenon. This scientific description is not as objective as the pure science. There is an ideological interest here: it is to show that science is compatible with the Islamic ”truth” and vice versa. Yahya attacked Darwin about creationism which regarded against Quran.

Such works started from the apologia spirit and almost have similar pattern. First, referring the scientific facts to the normative Islamic source: namely Quran and Hadith. Second, selecting facts which are compatible and not with Quran and hadith. Third, using the compatible facts to justify the Islamic truth as a pro-knowledge religion. Fourth, regarding things which are incompatible with Quran as wrong and setting up their antithesis.


Science and Pseudo-science

Indeed, these works were better to be called as pseudo scientific works rather than scientific ones. Once, I read a ridiculous pseudo scientific works of a Saudian ulema saying that earth is the central of universe. This premise started from Quranic verse about the movement of celestial objects such as moon and sun. It is definitely dangerous to involve religion within scientific speculation.

We may believe that Islam is a pro knowledge religion. But we must not ” match and adjust” verses which are compatible with certain scientific facts. The right attitude is opening the reasoning widely to pursue knowledge from any sources. We must not differentiate technical and social knowledge.

I agree with separation between religion and science. This is important to uphold secularization and it is important for religion. Science talks about facts, both social and natural one. In this case, scientific verification is applied to prove which one is right or wrong. The religious task is apart from that. It does not involve scientific facts. Religion, as Ulil Abshar Abdalla said, does matter with meaning. The role of religion is giving the meaning into one’s life.

Therefore we must not be ambitiously searching compatibility between Quran and scientific facts. Because whenever clash between science and religion occur, we can remain following science and upholding religion. The right religion did not talk about scientific accuracy, but the real meaning to live a life. (Andriyansyah - student of Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies Ma’had Al-Imarat, Bandung, coordinator of discussion group Progressive Moslem Society, Bandung Indonesia)

Read More...

Humanist Fatwa or Violent Fatwa?

In the end of the 1990s, Israel attacked Lebanon and murdered a number of Muslims. This event provoked strong responses from the Egyptian population. A huge demonstration was organized at University of Al-Azhar to condemn the Israeli aggression. At the same time, several people registered themselves as volunteers for the battlefield (mujahid fi sabilillah).

Within that hostile climate, Imam al-Akbar Sheik al-Azhar, Sayyed Tantawi issued a fatwa (religious edict), “Performing Jihad in Lebanon is not necessary, since working hard to support your own family and educate your children well is part of Jihad which nowadays must be a priority.”

He spoke about this fatwa in a mosque in Cairo, district 7. I used to perform my Friday prayer in that mosque, and listen to his peaceful and comforting sermons. This progressive fatwa is not the only fatwa that has been issued by Sheik Tantawi. Other progressive fatwas he issued include: the enforcement of Islamic law in a secular country is not necessary, for example it is not an obligatory to wear a headscarf in France; bank interest is halal (allowed); acceptation of the Jewish figures in al-Azhar, refusing to condemn certain thinking as heretic etc. In the case of Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid, a Muslim thinker who was forced to migrate to Leiden, the Netherlands, Sayyed Tantawi asked Nasr Hamid to return to Egypt and assured him al-Azhar would accept him.

I observed Sheik Tantawi to be an important, post-Muhammad Abduh, Muslim scholar, especially in the Indonesian context. Recently, hot debates arouse out of one of MUI’s fatwas (Indonesian Council of Ulema), the fatwa declared Ahmadiyyah, pluralism, secularism, and liberalism as heretical ideologies. Fierce reactions from NU (Indonesian’s largest Muslim mass organization), Aliansi Masyarakat Madani (Alliance of Civil Society) and prominent figures such as Gus Dur, Todung Mulya Lubis, Azyumardi Azra, Adnan Buyung Nasution would never have emerged if MUI would have taken Sheik Tantawi as an example in issuing edicts.

There are at least three important reasons why Sheik Tantawi should be followed by the Indonesian ulema: first of all, fatwas should consider the context of plurality. Respecting plurality with a textual perspective can be problematic, since some verses in the sacred text explicitly ignore and deny plurality (QS. 2: 120, 9:36), while other verses command people to keep the plurality balanced (QS. 2:62, 3:113). Therefore, reading the sacred text requires a contextual methodology, particularly when pluralism is concerned. Sheik Tantawi’s acceptation of Jewish intellectuals in al-Azhar was not merely based on textual injunctions, but rather on the fact that in the present-day context it is impossible to avoid. Other implicit reasoning (al-maskut ‘anhu) behind his verdict incorporated one of the essential steps towards a constructive solution for the Palestinian Israeli conflict, namely engaging in a dialog with Jewish religious figures. Since the heated conflict in the Middle East is also due to religious infiltration in political matters. Hence, pluralism in order to make plurality the power of creating peace, uniting aspect and care for diversity is necessary.

Secondly, fatwas must be based on profound reasoning, and not on self-interest or blind hate. Law deduction should emphasize a thorough analysis as can be seen in the work of Averroes, Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtashid. This work of the Andalusian philosopher stressed the importance of profound reasoning, when dealing with rituals (‘ibadah mahdhah) or social relations (mu’amalah ijtimaiyyah). He discussed difference of opinions wisely, therefore we do not find any words based on self-interest or hate in this book.

The use of reason in the time of issuing fatwas is necessary in understanding the text and the context of problem. Therefore, fatwa is not about dividing the world in a good and bad part, but it should prioritize the urgency of education, enlightenment, and empowerment of society. Ulema, after all, are the successor of the Prophet. Therefore, prophetic messages on good news (tabsyir) and warnings (indzar) should be considered hand in hand.

Thirdly, fatwas should bring benefits to humans. Fatwa should involve all elements of society. In the tradition of bahtsul masa’il (problem research used to be held in pesantren) that discusses about current matters (masa’il waqi’iyyah) performed by Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) for instance, the ulema were aware of their incompetence in the contemporary issues, therefore they asked the opinion of the experts (expert in medical field, etc) in formulating a fatwa. Hence, they can comprehend the object of fatwa well and accurately. Fatwa cannot be issued without a profound understanding of the matter concerned, particularly when it needs academic reference, which is unknown in the Islamic tradition.

Sheik Tantawi, for instance, consulted banking experts to study to what extend bank interest provides both benefits to the client and to the bank. Should bank interest be included in usury? During his time as the head of the Fatwa Council of Egypt until he was being Sheik al-Akbar al-Azhar, he has always insisted to issue the fatwa that bank interest is allowed (halal), partly based on the consultation with banking experts.
Initially, many people opposed the fatwa by Sheik Tantawi since it contradicted the views of other ulema. Currently, the Muslim world is aware of the importance of moderate, humanist and progressive fatwa to keep the compatibility between religion and time and space (shalihun likulli zaman wa makan). Furthermore, since radicalism and fundamentalism in Muslim world are increasing, humanist fatwas offer an alternative to build civilization that honor both God and His creatures.

However, nowadays many are leaving the violent-based fatwas. For instance, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon etc are now concerned on the rise of “hardliners” which are not building civilization, but destroying it. Using the terms of Khaled Abou el-Fadl in Speaking in God’s Name, they who issue the violent-based fatwa are actually speaking “in the name of God”. Yet, God teaches human to uphold justice, peace and virtue on the earth.

Therefore, interpreting the words of God in a social context is necessary in order to understand the essence of God’s messages in the light of humanity, plurality and benefit. In Indonesia, we need ulema like Sheik Sayyed Tantawi who have the past, present and future view. Fatwa are one of the entrances to a humanitarian civilization. Therefore, it should not be contaminated by self-interest and blind hate that will eventually eliminate the spirit of Islam. (Zuhairi Misrawi - islamlib.com)

Read More...

Heaven of Kiai Majdub

Do you know who will dwell in Heaven? Kiai (cleric) Majdub does not know. Every time this question arises, he will only affirm his total ignorance with tears. He only imagines that he will be there and is curious about three things.

First, he is astonished because of meeting people he does not expect to meet there. Second, he is amazed since he does not find people he expected to meet. (“So where are they? He wonders”).

“But the most amazing thing that makes me grateful is that I am there” Kiai Majdub said, wiping his wet eyes.

How low profile is that kiai of the small village in South Sumatra in performing his faith. He is looking forward to come into heaven, and if he is lucky, it is because of God’s mercy, not because he has performed the rituals thoroughly in his life. On the other side, he does not know about the other’s fate at all.

We often consider that some people –who seems performing prayer, fasting, worship, and pilgrimage, giving charity, and so on –as people who will definitely enter the heaven. Kiai Majdub also guessed that in the beginning. Recently he realizes his rush in summarizing about whoever enters the heaven and whoever enters the hell. It will not be that mechanistic, since God and His angels are not accountants calculating and list reward and sin.

How does the angel determine the efficiency report and reward humans? “Wallahi (I swear by God) I don’t know,” Kiai Majdub said. “I think it is up to God, since it is only Him who knows what is beating in the heart of every human”.

We often consider, with the burning faith, that certain people –who look bad, scoundrel, fond of disturbing and harming others, thinking weirdly, against the common rule and so on –as creatures whom God will curse in hell. Kiai Majdub has other considerations. He returns everything to God whenever it regards the human’s destiny after death. “We may object to their behaviors,” he said, “but we should not expect or pray that he will be buried in hell.”

Every time people asked about his “relative”, perplexed, and doubtful attitude, Kiai Majdub will give the same answer: “I am only a spot of dust, and therefore it is impossible for me to pirate the absolute rights of God.”

Whoever judges himself as more than a spot of dust, considers that his capacity and authority is beyond his humanity, should not get bored talking with Kiai Majdub (Hamid Basyaib - taken from islamlib.com)

Read More...

Religion, Reason and Liberty

An impression has been growing among some people that the terms “liberal” in Liberal Islam means a boundless liberty, or even is equivalent to the permissive outlook, ibahiyah; an attitude to tolerate everything without knowing the certain limit. By that such point of view, Liberal Islam is observed as the threat toward the institutionalized religiosity.

In Islam, the matter of “limit” (hadd) between the allowed (mubah) and the non allowed (mahdzur), place a very central position. Each Muslim always cares toward what he did, is it allowed or not. It delivers an affluent study field and leave thousands sophisticated literatures, in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) subject. Every discussion regarding the law always refers to fiqh. When a crowded discussion regarding the implementation of Islamic law emerges, fiqh turns to be the attention focus, since the majority of Islamic law is formulated in the fiqh.

In those discussions, it’s clearly observed that the highlight is on the “obligation”, a Muslim’s obligation toward Allah, toward the human fellows, and toward him. The obligation idiom is more apparent, covers the idiom of rights and human’s liberty. Liberal Islam emerges in the light of balancing “the scale” between this idiom of obligation and liberty/rights. Therefore, let’s come to a basic issue which is always debatable in the classic Islamic thoughts: about the human’s action (af’alul ’ibad).

Autonomous or not?

Let’s start with a simple question: could the human, with his logic, intuition and nature, reach the profound comprehension regarding goods and evils? Should human wait for the revelation from “the sky” in order to know those things? What is the use of religion, if eventually human could reach alone the comprehension regarding “the goods” and “the evils”? Is the human morally autonomous at identifying the goods and the evils, or does he depend on the entity out of him?

In this matter, there are two answers in the classic Islamic thought literatures. There was a dominant Sunni group, with the main view that goods and evils should be determined by religion. Human would know whether the action is good or evil only after achieving the religious instruction. The second group is Mu’tazilah who observed that human with his own reason could identify the limit of good and evil, the limit of adequacy. Of course, if it is said that the human reason could determine those limits, it doesn’t mean that the whole limit is already known by the reason since the very first minute. The human reason is developing, undertaking evolution, and growing to be mature.

I tend to the Mu’tazilah group’s view. But, it must be realized that by accepting the Mu’tazilah view, it doesn’t mean that I deny the role of revelation in inspiring the human reason’s insights to comprehend those limits. Each revelation carries a certain insight regarding “the good” and “the evil”. Revelation could lift the human reason’s degree to the higher and more qualified level in order to understand more about the limits. But, the revelation could decline the human reason, whenever that revelation undertakes a “vulgarization” that the revelation has been hijacked by a moment worldly interests. In order that the revelation could convalesce and recapture its integrity as the source of morality, then the responsible and full integrity raison d'être is required. We have known that the revelation is like a boundless horizon. It’s almost impossible for the limited human reason to reach the entire revelation horizon. Because of that wide-spread revelation horizon, everyone could say anything in the name of revelation. Guarantee that the revelation could be accurately understood is the integrity of the human reason itself.

One prophetic tradition (hadits) said, "al itsmu ma haka fi nafsika wa karihta an yath-thali'a 'alaihin naas". Sin is something incite the twitchy and turmoil in your heart and you don’t like other people see you do it. This hadits emphasizes firmly toward the human’s capability, based on his intuition, to reach the right comprehension regarding sin. Why so? It should be notice that religion since the very first minute is a matter of private consciousness; religion is not an objective regulation which could be forced from the outer. That’s why, a hadits said "innamal a'malu bin niyyaat", verily all action would not be a “genuine” action without the intention and the accountable motive. Other hadits said "niyyatul mu'min khairun min 'amalihi", intention and the subjective emotional support is nobler than the action. The scope of intention exists in the human’s subjectivity domain; that domain has the liberty characteristic. So, the objective regulations determined by the religion, is meaningless in the religiosity frame if it is detached from the human’s subjective motive.

I don’t see any idea in Islam where the human is positioned as the passive moral object. The human reason is an active participant in interpreting the divine notions contained in the revelation. I have never imagine that revelation in Islamic view observes the “human’s world” as the dirty, brutal, tentative and cruel Hobbesian world and therefore revelation reveals as a cruel “leviathan”. Islam placed the human in the full dignity position, as “the caliph” who fulfills the divine task to restore the life on earth. The popular Islamic views often illustrate revelation as that sort of “leviathan”. Human, in that sort of popular view, often positioned as “goods” that is empty at all from the free motive. It is the Islamic vulgarization process as ever pointed by Prof. Khaled Abou El Fadl.

In that “vulgar” circumstance, the first point that should be restored is the human’s dignity itself. If the human as the free moral subject is not present anymore or denied, what is the use of a religion? Qur’an often tease the Jews as “donkey carries bundles of books”, matsalulladzina hummilut Taurata kamatsalil khimari yahmilu asfaara. Donkey would never benefit anything from its load. Revelation would be useless for a donkey. And there’s no point in explaining the profundity and the perfection of the revelation upon the donkey. If the human is emptied of the motive, and his autonomy as the moral subject has been denied, what is remain from that sort of human except a passive “body’. Prophet has said, "ad dinu huwal 'aql, la dina liman la 'aqla lahu", religion is reason, there’s no religion for those who haven’t reason.

Therefore, the human’s liberty is a principle matter that couldn’t be bargained anymore. Many people think that sort of liberty leads the human to rebel toward religion and revelation. Some of them think that by limiting that liberty, they have protected the revelation. It’s obviously a wrong opinion. Because whenever the liberty is limited, the deepest and subtle dimension of the revelation would be hard to be exposed by human, since to comprehend the revelation’s complexity, a mature human’s reason is required. A hadist qudsi (God’s revelation in prophet’s words) which is popular among the Sufi said, “I am (Allah) is 'kanzun makhfiyy’, a hidden treasure. I want to be recognized, therefore I create humans”. This hadits give an important affirmation that human is created to “excavate” the hidden dimensions in God’s revelation and truth. That is impossible to occur except by supposing the existence of the human as the free and autonomous subject.

People who said that by giving liberty, you have dropped people to the depth of astray, they have denied the humanitarian value from the very first minute. Donkey always afraid of the freedom, and always look for the master who could guide it. Islam indeed doesn’t require those kinds of people. Islam’s brightness is even possible because of the existence of the humans who think freely and then capable to disclose the deepest secrets of revelation.

Worship as “I-Thou”

The main objective of the religion is lifting up the humanitarian dignity. Revelation is merely the medium toward it. The main focus in religion is the human itself, not merely the God. A popular claim which said that the main task of human is “worshipping” God is a big mistake. This view is originated from the mistaken comprehension over the verse "wa ma khalaqtul jinna wal insa illa liya'budun," and I have not created the human except to worship me. This verse, if comprehended in the popular framework which tends anti-humanistic, might means that religion is no other than the human subjugation. Human is like a threat for the God so he should be subjugated toward His will. There is no dirtier comprehension regarding the God’s reality except this kind of comprehension. The view regarding human as Prometheus who fight with God is present only in the ancient Greek myth. I notice, the popular view which develops within the Muslim community regarding that verse tends toward the human’s image as promethium. The different is, Islamic version of Prometheus is Prometheus who defeated by the God’s will. I don’t agree with the translation of the word “Ibadah” as worship, since worship have negative meaning in several things.

Worship supposes that the object which is “worshipped” is a “died” object, reified, fixated. Worship is always a one-sided process, not a dialogic process live between subject and object. If it is positioned in the framework of Martin Bubber regarding the inter-human relation, worship is a form of relation between Allah and human as the relation of “I-it”. Allah, in that sort of worshipping frame, has been “materialized”. The worshipped Allah is the idolized Allah, fixated in the illustration like an “idol”. I see that the human should keep in touch with God not in that way. The proper relation between human and Allah is relation in the frame of “I-Thou”. Religion based on the worship in the relation of “I-it” would only decline the human’s and Allah’s dignity. The verse is more proper understood as the relation of Allah-human in the model of “I-thou”; not worshipping, but a creative dialogic process.

Worship toward God has no meaning if it is not positioned in the frame of human as the free subject, with the reason that works freely. Qur’an said, "qad tabayyanar rushdu minal ghayy", the way of goods and evils has been clear. "Fa man sya'a fal yu'min wan man sya'a fal yakfur," if only human desires, he could believe in that way, and if he desires, he could deny it. These facts are obviously written in the main source of Islam, Qur’an and Hadits. But, the historical processes in Islam has transformed the religion as the law-religion based on the force, and emphasized more on the obligation idioms. Nothing is more dangerous for Islam unless the views that attempt to alter that religion’s character as the nature (fitrah)-religion, to be the law-religion which is endorsed over the force.

The conclusion I intended from this little bit “complex” and long explanation is that by adding the word “liberal” to Islam, indeed I want to verify back the liberty dimension in Islam which its anchor is “intention” or emotive-subjective motive of the human. The word liberal in “Liberal Islam” is better comprehended in this sort of framework. The word “liberal” here has no relation with the boundless liberty, with the permissive attitudes which against the “intrinsic’ tendency inside the human reason. By re-emphasizing the human’s liberty dimension, and position the human at the focus of religious comprehension, hence we have improved the integrity of revelation and Islam.

Once more, Islam is worthless for the people who denied the humanity itself, since religion is not presented for the donkey. (Ulil Abshar-Abdalla - www.liberalmoslem.blogspot.com)

Read More...

Dialog, not Confrontation

Many things are regretable subsequent to the occurrence of the gloomy Tuesday, or September tragedy at the World Trade Centre in New York and at the Pentagon. Firstly is the revival of the old “sense” in the westerners’ consciousness generally; a sort of a bad presumption about the Muslim world. As described by Edward Said, a Christian Palestinian, in his classic book, Covering Islam, there is the tendency to “generalize” about Islam and Muslim without looking at the soft and small nuances within the real life. From time to time, such presumption resurfaces. It is like a virus which sometimes sleeps, but never truly dies. Whenever a tragic event occurs in the Muslim world or in the Western world, such presumption reemerges.

A member of the National Security Council, Peter Rodman, wrote in the National Review on 11th May 1992: “Yet now the West finds itself challenged from the outside by a militant, atavistic force driven by hatred of all Western political thought, harking back to age-old grievances against Christendom”. An article with similar tone suddenly reappeared in the daily The New York Times on 16th September 2001: “The airborne assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is the culmination of a decade-long holy war against the United States that is escalating methodically in ambition, planning and execution.”

The word “Christendom” and “holy war” used in both articles seems to show that there is “a holy war” going on between the West and the outer world, especially the Muslim world. However I should highlight that the word “Crusade” and “holy war” are often used by western writers in their common definition, without any religious content. When the controversy on abortion occurred in America several years ago for instance, the advocates of abortion were illustrated as the party performing a “crusade” against the embryo’s life. A title for a book written by Charles A. Scontras about the children labor is an interesting example, In the Name of Humanity: Maine's Crusade against Child Labor. Of course the word “crusade” here has nothing to do with the crusade in the Middle Age between Muslims and Christians.

The same thing happened in Islam. When the plan of a revenge attack against Afghanistan was announced by President Bush, the reaction of (some) Muslim communities was a call for “Jihad” against America. Even at a worse level, some of them wanted to “raid” foreigners -particularly Americans- in Indonesia. Some Islamic groups created the image as if a total confrontation was occurring between the Muslim world and the Western Christian world. The theory of the “clash of civilization” conveyed by Samuel Huntington was suddenly quoted everywhere.

Yet, we know that such an impression is not true. There is an attempt to build a bridge through an interfaith dialog. The “dialog of inter-civilization” is even more common than the “clash of civilization”. Many Muslim students go to Western countries each year, to Europe, America or Australia, to study “secular” science in those countries. We have to admit that most of people who “attack” the West were the alumnus of those countries’ universities. Many Western scholars also go on “intellectual” visits to Muslim countries annually. The attempt to show Islam in various faces and aspects is also done by scholars, journalists and so on.

We remember the attempt of the President of Iran, Ali Khomeini, who campaigned for an inter-civilization dialog as an attempt to prove that “clash” is not the only possible way. Apart from several bad presumptions underlying the Western media’s consciousness of the Muslim world, as discussed critically by Edward W. Said in his book Covering Islam, we should not forget several “good intentions” of the Western scholars to understand the Muslim world as well. I think the best seller book: History of God written by Karen Armstrong is a good example. Popular books written by American anthropologist named Elisabeth Warnock Fernea is another example. Fernea wrote a best seller book about Iranian people by the title Guest of the Sheik. She also wrote two other books, Street in Marrakech and In Search of Islamic Feminism. With her anthropologist husband, Robert A. Fernea, she wrote a witness of living “within” muslim community in Middle East, The Arab World: Personal Encounters.

The famous as well as the mostly misunderstood name in the muslim world is John L. Esposito who wrote four volumes of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, an important source for Muslim and Western scholars in general. With several intellectuals in Georgetown University, Esposito established the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. In this centre, several famous scholars are assembled like John O. Voll, Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, and a Malaysian intellectual, Osman Bakar. Georgetown University was established by the Catholic Church in Washington, DC.

The establishment of the Center of Muslim-Christian Understanding in a University of the Catholic Church is an interesting example, since it shows that dialog between both religions is possible, and it is necessary. It’s interesting that since spring 1999, Georgetown University has appointed a “chaplain” for muslim students in that university. A “Chaplain is similar to an “imam”. This position is occupied by Jordanian ulama, Imam Yahya Hendi.

This does not mean that there is no problem with the US foreign policies towards the muslim world. A paradox which often perturbs many people is the US campaign to disseminate ideas about democracy and human right, while giving unreserved support to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which often violates its citizens’ civil rights. The unfair and discriminating US policy regarding Palestine is the source of annoyance and hatred toward the US government in Arab regions. However, mixing the American government and American citizen is improper. Not all American citizens agree upon its foreign policies, hence the “sweeping” upon Americans in Indonesia is unreasonable.

Such sweeping supposes the presence of an equal vision between the government and its citizens, which is not the case. The condition post 11th September tragedy is regrettable, since it seems that the inter-civilization dialog is impossible. It seems that there is a big gap between “West” and “East” which is hard to bridge. People who assume that the world is formed by two contradictory blocks -good and evil blocks- are benefited by such condition. The black-white view is easy to accept since such a view is the simplest to absorb by uncritical thought.

What has been forgotten by many people is what is called as “West” and “Islam” which never have a clear and precise definition. Which part of West? In its popular definition, West often identified to European and American. Obviously there is a big distinction between nations living in both continents. We know that America is a federal country, with a range of societies having various views. The clearest tendency in American society is the strong spirit of “anti-state” because of the historical heritage of Europe where state is identical with oppressive imperial power supported by the (Catholic) Church. This “anti state” ethos explain the strong spirit of federalism in that state, and hatred for centralization. That is why America which is very “imperial” is not accompanied by the “imperial” awareness of its citizens. American people, in my impression, do not care about matters regarding their government’s foreign policy.

This explanation indicates that it is wrong and improper to suppose the Western people as something clear and single; that American society is identical with its government; and that American society is a set of people with a homogeneous opinion.

It is similar to Islam. What is called as “Islam” with a big exclamation mark is not as obvious as they assume. Since eventually, the definition of Islam is a social definition. Islam is not one uniform entity. It is impossible to say about the confrontation between “West” and “Islam”, which Islam? We know that Muslim’s opinion regarding WTC and Pentagon tragedy varies. If we suppose that by such tragedy Islamic world has “incited the spirit of jihad” versus America as often stated by the preachers, which Islam do they mean?

Another misunderstanding is the one about Afghan people-Taliban Government-Afghanistan Country-Islam. Since the majority of Afghan people are Muslim and governed by the Taliban which enforced Islamic sharia, hence the US invasion upon Afghanistan was an invasion of Islam and it should be resisted. But considering such attack as the attack upon Islam is a messy attitude. Deep sympathy must be given to the Afghan people who suffer due to internal conflicts approaching the Soviet Union’s invasion on 1979, due to the invasion itself, due to civil war post the invasion, and due to the repressive policy of Taliban government which eliminate the civil rights of its citizens. The Government of Taliban’s policy carrying tragic consequences on women obviously can’t be considered as “Islamic” (see www.rawa.org). It’s regrettable if the Taliban rulers are considered as the representatives of the Muslim world as their treatment of their citizens is against the prophetic values of Islam.

****

Dialog is the only possible road to take currently. Confrontation will only benefit people who have polar views regarding life: “Islam” and “infidel”, good or bad and etc. This way will only benefit the conservative and extreme people of any religion. This way also will benefit any religious elites who will manipulate their community’s ignorance for their own interest. (Ulil Abshar-Abdalla Co- ordinator of Liberal ISlam Network Indonesia - www.liberalmoslem.blogspot.com)

Read More...

Freshening Up Our Understanding of Islam

In my view Islam is first and foremost a living “organism”, a religion that evolves in accordance with the pulse of humankind’s development. Islam is not a static monument that was carved in the 7th century CE and thereafter regarded as a beautiful “statue” that may not be touched by the hand of history.

As I see it, the tendency to make an unchanging monument of Islam is very prominent at present and the time has come for clear voice to combat this tendency.

Below I will put forward a number of basic thoughts as a simple effort to “freshen” the Islamic thought that in my view has gone stale – it is treated as a “package” that can hardly be queried or discussed, a divine set of doctrines that is placed before us with the curt message: take it or leave it! This way of presenting Islam is extremely hazardous for the progress of Islam itself.

The sole route which can lead to the progress of Islam is to raise the question of how we interpret this religion. To move in this direction, several things are needed.

First, an interpretation of Islam that is not literalistic, that is substantial, that is contextual and that is in step with the ever-changing civilization of humanity.

Second, an interpretation of Islam that can separate out whatever is the product of the local culture from the values which are basic. We have to be able to distinguish those teachings which reflect Arabian cultural influence from those which don’t. Islam is contextual, in the sense that its universal values have to be translated into particular contexts – Arabian, Malay, Central Asian and so on. But the differing contextual forms are merely cultural and we are not obliged always to conform to them. Any aspects of Islam which are reflections of Arab culture, for instance, are not binding on us. Examples of what we do not have to take over, because they are merely expressions of a particular local Islam in Arabia, are the jilbab (female head covering), the amputation of hands (for theft), retaliation (for death or injury), stoning (for adultery) and obligatory beards and gowns of particular styles. What have to be followed are the universal values which underlie these practices. The essence of wearing the jilbab is to conform to a standard of public decency. What is generally regarded as decent is obviously flexible and may change in accordance with the development of culture. So it is with the other practices mentioned.

Third, the Muslim people should not regard themselves as a community or “nation” (ummat) which is cut off from other groups. The ummat of humankind are a universal family who are united by their very humanity. Humanism is a value in line with, and not in opposition to, Islam. The ban on inter-religious marriage, in casu between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man, is no longer relevant. The Quran itself never explicitly forbids it, because the Quran espouses a universalist view that people are on the same level, irrespective of differences of religion. All those legal products of classical Islam which discriminate between Muslims and non-Muslims should be amended on the basis of the universal principle of human equality.

Fourth, we need a social structure that clearly distinguishes between political power and religious power. Religion is a private matter, while the ordering of public life is entirely the product of the community reaching agreement through democratic deliberation. Certainly it is to be hoped that the universal values of religion will contribute to the formation of public values, but the particular doctrines and worship practices of each religion are an internal matter for that religion.

In my opinion, “the law of God”, as most Muslims understand that concept, does not exist. For instance the law of God concerning theft, buying and selling, marriage, government and so on. What do exist are general principles, which in the classical Islamic tradition of legal study are called maqasid al-shari’ah, i.e. the general goals of Islamic law. These values are the protection of religious freedom, reason, property, the family and honor. How these values are translated into any given historical and social context is something the Muslims must work out for themselves through “ijtihad” (intellectual endeavor).

***

How do we locate the position of the Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him, in the context of this kind of thinking? I view him as a historical figure who should be the object of critical study (and so not become just an always admired mythical figure by ignoring his human aspects and possibly weaknesses), yet he must be a model to be followed (qudwah al-hasanah).

How should we follow the Prophet? Here, I disagree with the dominant view. In his endeavors to translate Islam into the social-political context of Medina, he certainly had to encounter many constraints. Indeed, he succeeded in Medina in making a translation of the social and spiritual aspirations of Islam, but the Islam thereby realized was a historical, particular and contextual Islam.

We are not obliged to imitate the Prophet literally, because what he did at Medina was to “negotiate” between the universal values of Islam and the concrete social situation at Medina with all its constraints; the result was a “trade-off” between the universal and the particular.

The Islamic ummat must strive-in-interpretation (ijtihad) to seek a new formula to translate those values in the context of its own life situation. The Prophet’s

“Islam” at Medina was one possible translation of the universal Islam onto the earth’s face. But there are possibilities of translating Islam in other ways, in different contexts. Islam at Medina was one among others, one of the forms of Islam that have existed on earth.

Consequently the Muslims should not come to a halt looking to the Medina model only, because life goes on, in the direction of betterment and improvement. For me, revelation did not cease with the age of the Prophet; it still works and descends to mankind. True, verbal revelation ceased with the Quran, but non-verbal revelation continues in the form of ijtihad by human reasoning.

The great discoveries of human history as part of the endeavor to improve the quality of life are divine revelations too, because they were the fruits of human reason, which is a gift of God. This is why all the works of human creativity, from whatever religious group, are the possession of the Muslims. There is no point in Muslims erecting a great wall between Islamic culture and Western culture, pronouncing the one superior and the other low, because all cultures are the products of human endeavor and consequently belong to all nations, and thus to Muslims too.

The Muslims have to understand that Islam as interpreted by a certain group is not absolutely true, so there must be a readiness to accept truth from all sources, including those outside Islam. Let each group value the right of others to interpret Islam in their own way; what has to be combatted is every effort to absolutize a religious viewpoint.

I would go further and say that all good and positive values, wherever they are, are in their true nature Islamic values. Islam --as Cak Nur and a number of others have pointed out-- are “generic values” which can be found in Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, Judaism, Taoism, in local religions and beliefs, and elsewhere. It may be that there is “Islamic” truth in the philosophy of Marxism.

I am no longer looking at the form but at the substance. Islamic convictions and practices embraced by people who call themselves Muslims may be only a “garment” and a form; this is not what is important. The essential thing is the value that is concealed behind the form.

How foolish it is when people bicker over the different garments they wear, while forgetting that the heart of the matter is to guard the dignity of men and women as civilized creatures. All religions are garments, means (wasilah), tools directed towards a fundamental end: the surrender of the self to the All-True. There have been periods when religious people thought that the “garment” was absolute and all-in-all, so that they squabbled over those differences in outward form. But the time for such squabbling is past.

***

The enemy of all religions is injustice. The value that Islam stresses is justice.

The mission of Islam that I regard as most important now is how to erect justice on the face of the earth, especially in the political and economic fields (also, of course, the cultural). I don’t want to erect the jilbab, restore the segregation of women, conserve the proper conformation of the beard, regulate the shape of the trousers and other fine distinctions that I regard as quite secondary (furu’iyyah). Justice cannot be only sermonized about, but must be realized in the structure of the system and in the rules of the game, the laws and so on and it must be realized in deeds.

The present efforts to implement Islamic (shari’ah) law are for me a demonstration of the incapacity of the Muslim ummat to face up to the problems that are pressing on them and deal with them in a rational manner. The ummat take the view that all problems will automatically be solved as soon as the shari’ah, in its most traditional and dogmatic form, is applied on the earth.

Human problems cannot be solved by simply referring to the “law of God” (to repeat, I do not believe in any “law of God”, I only believe in divine values which are universal), but must be dealt with by resorting by the laws or regularities (sunnah) which Allah himself has implanted in each field of endeavor. The field of politics knows its own intrinsic laws, so does the field of economics, so does the field of society and so on.

The Prophet is supposed to have said: man aradad dunya fa’alaihi bil ‘ilmi, wa man aradal akhirata fa’alaihi bil ‘ilmi; whoever wants to overcome the problems of world, let him do it by science, and whoever wants to attain happiness in the next world, let him do that by science too. Each field has its own rules and principles, and cannot arbitrarily refer to the law of God without first doing the appropriate research. Each science, in its own field, continuously develops, in accordance with mankind’s evolution. In that sense the divine sunnah also changes

It goes without saying that laws which regulate each field of life must be subordinated to the primary value, namely justice. Therefore the Islamic shari’ah is only a collection of basic values which are abstract and universal. How these values are realized and can fulfill the need to deal with a particular matter in a particular period is left entirely to humankind’s own ijtihad

The view that the shari’ah is a “complete package” fully made up, a prescription from God that settles every problem in every age, is a manifestation of ignorance and incapacity to understand the sunnah of God itself. To put forward the shari’ah as a solution to all problems is a form of mental laziness, or even further a way of fleeing from problems, a form of escapism using the law of God as an excuse.

It is this escapism which is the source of the decline of Islam in the world. I cannot accept this kind of laziness, especially when it is clothed in the excuse that all this is for the sake of implementing the divine law. Do not forget: there is no law of God. What exists is the divine sunnah and the universal values which all human beings possess.

The most dangerous enemy of Islam at the present time is dogmatism, a kind of closed conviction that a particular doctrine is an infallible medicine for all problems and ignores the fact that human life is continually evolving, and that the development of civilization from the past to the present is the result of common endeavors, an accumulation of achievements supported by all nations.

Every doctrine which wants to build a wall between “us” and “them”, between the hizbul Lah (party of Allah) and the hizbush shaithan (party of satan), with a narrow interpretation of these two terms, between “the West” and “Islam”; such a doctrine is a social disease which will destroy basic values of Islam itself, the value of the equal dignity of the human race and the value that we are all members of one world.

The separation between “us” and “them” as the basic root of dogmatism denies the fact that truth can be studied anywhere, in the environment that is called “ours”, but also in “their” environment. In my view, the knowledge of God is greater and broader than just what is found in the pages of the Quran. The science of God is the totality of all the truths inscribed on all the pages of the Holy Books as well as the non-Holy ones, plus the pages of knowledge produced by human reason, as well as the truths not yet spoken, and so not printed in any book. Thus the truth of God is greater than Islam itself, considered as a religion that is embraced by a social entity called the Islamic ummat. The truth of God is greater than the Quran, the Hadith (prophetic traditions) and the entire corpus of exegetic books produced throughout the history of Islam.

Because of this, Islam is actually better regarded as a “process” which never ceases than as a “religious institution” that is dead, completed, stiff, archaic and a restraint on freedom. The verse Innaddina ‘indal Lahi Islam (Q 3:19) is more appropriately translated “Verily the path of true religiousness is the relentless process that ends in submission (to the All-True).”

Without any feeling of shyness or awkwardness, I say that all religions are on a road like that, a long road towards the All-Truthful. So all religions are true, but with variations in the level and depth to which they “live” that religious road. All religions belong to the same extended family: the family of the lovers of the way to the truth which will never end. So, fastabiqu al-khayrat, says the Quran (2:148): “compete in experiencing the road of religiousness”.

The fundamental requirement to understand Islam aright is always to remember, however we interpret the religion, that the prime criterion is benefit (maslahat) for humankind. Religion is a blessing on the human race, and as humans are an organism that always develops, quantitatively and qualitatively, religion must also be able to develop itself in accordance with the needs of humanity. What exists is the laws of humanity, not the law of God, because it is people who are the stake holders who have a vital interest in all discussions of religious matters.

If Islam is to be dragged into an interpretation which is precisely in conflict with the welfare of mankind or even oppresses the human race, then that kind of Islam will have become a fossil religion that is no long useful to humanity.

Let us all seek an Islam that is fresher, more enlightened, more able to be of benefit to mankind. Let us abandon the rigid, inflexible Islam that has become a nest of dogmatism which oppresses human welfare. (Ulil Abshar-Abdalla, Co-ordinator of the Liberal Islam Network, Indonesia - www.liberalmoslem.blogspot.com)

Read More...