Liberal Moslem

Disabilitas dan Pandangan Masyarakat

2011-11-24T17:25:00.004+07:00

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.

Islamic Science or Pseudo Science?

2007-07-17T03:26:00.000+07:00

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)

Humanist Fatwa or Violent Fatwa?

2007-07-17T02:43:00.000+07:00

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)

Heaven of Kiai Majdub

2007-07-17T02:14:00.001+07:00

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)

Religion, Reason and Liberty

2007-07-13T07:15:00.000+07:00

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)

Dialog, not Confrontation

2007-07-13T06:12:00.000+07:00

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)

Freshening Up Our Understanding of Islam

2007-07-13T05:57:00.000+07:00

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)

Islam, Pluralism, and Freedom of Religion

2007-07-11T22:12:00.000+07:00

Tradition of difference of opinion among Muslim society would be fruitful as long as it is well managed. Based on this tradition, one will not easily claim his or her only truth. Unfortunately, difference of opinion and response on MUI’s (Indonesian Council of Ulema) fatwa does not involve any productive and conducive dialog. Furthermore, some element of society, who claimed on behalf of truth and God’s will, attacked other group that regarded as heretic in order to correct their religious creed and ritual.

MUI is expected to be the mediator of various Islamic thoughts that currently develop in Indonesia. Unfortunately, MUI issued an authoritarian fatwa (religious edict) that constrains the freedom of thought, which is pillar of democracy. MUI condemn pluralism, liberalism and secularism on their own judgment that contradicts its real definition. In fact, definition of pluralism, liberalism and secularism must be resulted from a profound and serious study based on a broad perspective.

Pluralism in Islam

Pluralism is recognition of the law of God who created men of different groups, tribes, colors and religions so that they can learn, associate, and help each other. Pluralism recognizes those differences as inevitable reality. Pluralism excavates the common commitment to fight for something beyond the interest of group and religion namely justice, humanity, poverty alleviation/reduction, and education. Hence, describing pluralism as relativism is a fatal mistake since pluralism recognizes the existence of different faith and religion.

Recognition upon religious pluralism pledges the priority of inclusive principle (openness) within a community, which prioritizes accommodation and not conflict among them. It is because each religion wants to establish its claim of truth, whereas society is culturally and religiously heterogenic. Therefore, inclusive attitude becomes important as a way to raise the sensitivity toward any distinctive possibility that enriches human effort in searching spiritual and moral welfare. Allah explained in Quran (Al Hujuraat: 14) that plurality is God’s policy so that man may know one another and cooperate each other.

Quran (Al-Baqarah: 213) mentions: “Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) Prophets as bearers of good tidings as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differed”. There are three facts on the fundamental conception of Quran regarding religious pluralism: (1) mankind unity under one God; (2) distinctiveness of religions brought by prophets; and (3) the role of revelation (Holy book) in harmonizing differences among different religious communities. On one hand, it does not deny the distinctiveness of religions; on the other hand, this also emphasizes the necessity to recognize human unity and the need of raising better understanding among religious community (The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism, 2001).

To Abdulaziz Sachedina (2001), the main argument of religious pluralism in Qur’an based on the relation between the private faith and the public implication of faith within Muslim society. Quran is non-interventionist in regard with one’s personal belief, where human authority cannot perturb individual faith and belief. Meanwhile, Quran based on the principle of co-existence in regard with public faith, where the dominant religious community gives freedom to other religious communities. Based on this principle, Indonesian community that are Muslim majority, has to recognize, respect, and perform religious pluralism.

Freedom of Religion

In the past, all religion experienced misery and conflict due to the discriminative policy of government or the attitude of major religion. Therefore, almost all religion gives more attention upon the rights of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion, justice and political freedom are pillars to establish and uphold democracy. For this reason, human rights that guarantee the freedom of everyone to profess and practice their own religion and belief must be maintained. Certain religion or group must not force and use violence to dominate the scope of dakwah or missionary endeavor.

Islam as moral tradition recognizes pluralism and freedom of religion based on two matters: first, pluralism calls upon the use of human reason. Quran respects the rational choice and individual motivation. Being Muslim is a rational choice and individual response. Quran explained that there is no compulsion in religion, since religion is the result of individual choice and freedom. Second, social acceptation upon Islamic value as an individual understanding that differs from society to society. This basis of pluralism is maintained by difference of opinion allowed by the social norms. This social dialectic will develop and strengthen the acceptable definition of ethical values (M. Khalid Masud, The Scope of Pluralism in Islamic Moral Traditions, 2002). Hence, tradition of interfaith dialog is important to develop Islamic ethical values that honor freedom of religion.

Therefore, the state has to affirm its role as guarantor of freedom of religion. State has to guarantee that freedom of religion will not violate other people’s rights. State should not endorse one religion or group and oppress the others. The function of state is to guarantee freedom of everyone to profess and practice their own religion because there is an absolute relation between freedom of religion, institution, and policy that guarantee the freedom. Otherwise, the democratic life and the guarantee of freedom for citizens will be under a big threat.

Finally, Indonesian government and society must honor and implement the principle of religious pluralism and religious freedom. It is because freedom and recognition upon pluralism is a good potency to revive this country out of tyranny and corruption. Principles of freedom, equality, and social justice must be established beyond differences of group, religion and religious understanding. We have to pray together and try hard to end this democratic crisis and religious authoritarianism. Walahu A’lam Bisshawab. (Ahmad Fuad Fanani - taken from http://islamlib.com)

Shahrur and the Theory of Limits

2007-07-11T22:05:00.000+07:00

One fresh contribution to the contemporary study of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) is the theory of limits (nadzariyyat al-hudûd) promoted by a Syrian liberal Islamic figure, Muhammad Shahrur. According to Wael B. Hallaq, Shahrur’s theory of limits solves the epistemological deadlock of previous works (Wael B. Hallaq: 1997). Through his controversial works, al-Kitâb wal Qur’ân: Qirâ’ah Mu`âshirah, Shahrur asserts that the theory of limits is an approach within ijtihad (individual interpretation) to study the muhkamât verses (clear and direct verses of law) of the Koran. The term limit (hudûd) used by Shahrur refers to the meaning of “the bounds or restrictions of God which should not be violated, contained in the dynamic, flexible, and elastic domain of ijtihad.”

The theory of limits makes four significant contributions to the enhancement of fikh. Firstly, by the theory of limits, Shahrur makes a fundamental paradigm shift for fikh. The meaning of hudûd is perceived rigidly by the fukaha (experts in canon law) as verses and hadits concerning legal punishment (al-`uqûbât) which should not be added to nor reduced, such as hand amputation for the thief, 100 lashes for adultery, and so on. Apart from that, the theory of limits (nadzariyyat al-hudûd) offered by Shahrur tends to be dynamic and contextual, not only in regards to legal punishment (al-`uqûbât). His theory of limits also concerns other legal restrictions, such as those concerning libâsul mar’ah (woman’s attire), ta`addud al-zawj (polygamy), inheritance, and usury etc.

Secondly, Shahrur’s theory of limits offers the stipulation of minimum limits (al-hadd al-adnâ) and maximum limits (al-hadd al-a`lâ) within which to carry out Allah’s laws. It means that Allah’s laws are elastic, as long as the sentence is between the minimum and maximum limits. To Shahrur, the domain of human’s ijtihad is between that minimum and maximum limit. The elasticity and flexibility of God’s law is illustrated as the one who plays soccer within restraints, as long as it is inside the limits of the sports ground. Briefly, as long as a Muslim acts within the domain of hudûd-u-lLâh (Allah’s determination between the minimum and maximum limits) he should not be consider to be outside of Allah’s law.

Take for instance: the stipulation of hand amputation for a thief (Q.S. al-Mâ’idah: 38). To Shahrur, hand amputation is the maximum sanction (al-hadd al-a`lâ) for a thief. Its minimum limit is to be forgiven (Q.S. al-Mâ’idah: 34). Here Shahrur assumes that a judge may perform ijtihad by observing the objective conditions of the thief. Besides giving the punishment of hand amputation to enforce sharia, the judge may perform ijtihad around those maximum and minimum limits, such as giving a prison verdict. The dismissal penalty for a corrupt officer is also still between both limits. Shahrur argues that the essence of a legal punishment is daunting for the offender. Therefore state or government which do not execute hand amputation, stoning, qishas (death sentence) and several other laws in Koran and hadits, should not be accused as being infidel states as claimed by the fundamentalists.

In the case of woman’s attire (libâs al-mar’ah), Shahrur considers the minimum limit of woman’s attire to be satr al-juyûb (Q.S al-Nur: 31) or covering the chest (breasts) and genitals so as not to be naked. Its maximum limit is the covering of the whole body excluding the palms of one’s hand and one’s face. In this approach, the woman who does not wear hijab has in fact fulfilled Allah’s stipulation. On the contrary, women who cover their whole body including the face are considered to have gone beyond hudûd-u-lLâh (Allah’s limits) since it is beyond the maximum limit determined by Koran. This means that women who cover their face and their whole body are “not Islamic”.

Thirdly, through his theory of limits, Shahrur deconstructed and reconstructed the methodology of ijtihad, mainly of the verses of hudûd that have been claimed as muhkamât verses which contained single interpretations. To Shahrur, the muhkamât verses may be perceived dynamically and may have interpretational alternatives, since the Koran was revealed to respond to human problems and is valid forever. All the Koranic verses can be perceived, even pluralistically, since the meaning of a verse can develop, and sometimes have changed from the former meaning when it was revealed for the first time. Hence, an interpretation is relative according to the progress of the ages. In other word, by the theory of limits, Shahrur wants to make a productive reading (qirâ’ah muntijah) of muhkamât verses and not a repetitive and retrospective one (qirâ’ah mutakarrirah).

Fourthly, by the theory of limits, Shahrur wants to prove that Islamic teaching is truly a relevant teaching for all times and places. Shahrur assumes that the positive side of the Islamic message is that it contains two aspects of movement: constant movement (istiqâmah) and dynamic and flexible movement (hanîfiiyah). This Islamic flexibility is within the frame of theory of limits which he perceived as the bounds or restrictions that God has placed on man’s freedom of action. The analytical framework of the theory of limits is based on two main Islamic characters (the constant and the flexible) which will lead to Islam’s survival. Those two contradictory things will deliver dialectic movement (al-harakah al-jadaliyah) in knowledge and social science. Here the new paradigm is expected in the formation of the Islamic legal legislation (tasyri’), therefore it will result in an incessant dialectic and progress of the Islamic legal system. (Abdul Mustaqim, MA, Lecturer of UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta)

Of Hope, Faith, and Frailty

2007-07-11T21:55:00.000+07:00

At the calendar‘s last page lies our primary question: is hope ever possible? Each December we surmise and make plan. We ask: Will 2005 be a dismal year? Will growth exceed 5 percent? Will there be new acts of terror?

Statistics and astrology provide responses ready with possible faults. Each prognosis is a Delphic oracle. Yet we enter each New Year (with a thrilling party, paper trumpets blaring on the streets, or a lone prayer in a cramped room) with an unsaid feeling: life is admittedly never beautiful, but it is precious.

Of course, there are those who turned themselves into self-made explosives demolishing what is perceived as an evil foe; there was Jasih, the woman from Lagoa village who burned herself and her kids to death because she saw poverty would always cruelly be with her. But these all are precisely an appreciation of the perverse kind: to the suicide bomber, life was so precious that his death was the highest of gifts towards what he or she believed to be a noble goal; to Jasih, life was so treasurable that suffering should have had no part in it.

In this crowded world full of squalor, corruption, brutality and injustice – which we starkly see everyday in the streets of Jakarta – people nevertheless do not choose to say, ‘‘oh, we have no desire for tomorrow.’ People will always wake up, tidy up or go jogging, or listen to a morning preacher at the radio, and then repeat what they did yesterday, time and again. Radical despair does not have a universal appeal. To this day, no community has ever headed collectively towards the sea to drown themselves like lemmings.

In other words, we are ‘with-hope’, even if we do not want ‘to hope’ or ‘to expect’. There’s a beautiful line by Vaclav Havel, when he was still an inspiring literary man, on the basic distinction between ‘hope’ and ‘optimism.’ Hope, said Havel, ‘is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out’.

Havel did not go into detail about optimism. But by inference, we may say that optimism is a more or less consistent conviction about the future; it is a love affair with tomorrows. Perhaps because of that, optimism constitutes daring, but could also signify conceit, and therefore arrogance. For actually there is no human faculty capable to grasp (and not merely suppose) ‘what is to come’. Indeed, even ‘what was’ and ‘what is’ cannot be fully ascertained and turned into a basis for action. Optimism is like a property commercial: the house is always brightly lit, and the words are always to lure potential buyers, so that illusion is added to deceit, even if just a bit.

Thus there is a world of difference between hoping and expecting. ‘Being with-hope’ is not intentional and purposeful. It implies humility in the face of space and time. Muslims associate this with ‘taqwa’. This is a unique concept, because it simultaneously contains two conflicting tendencies: ‘submission’ and ‘resolution.’

In the context of religion, ‘taqwa’ bonds both tendencies within ‘iman’ (faith). A close examination indeed reveals that religion places ‘hope’ at its center. Faith comforts us in an intricate, quiet, and solitary way. . We are told that life is everlasting, and that eternity will come after death. We are told about paradise, or spiritual attainment that ultimately means freedom from worldly suffering. In religion, without faith, there is no hope.

In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas explained why. He said that hope must be distinguished from desire because hope is ‘difficult’ while desire is not; hope is also distinct from despair, because hope is ‘possible’ while despair is not. Fluctuating between being difficult and being possible, hope necessitates God. ‘No man alone is capable of obtaining grace from everlasting life; he needs divine help,’ said Saint Thomas. Thus there is a duality: ‘everlasting life is what we hope for, and divine help is what we hope with.’

****

In the 21st century, people still associate hope with faith, as in the past. But unlike what Thomas Aquinas conceived: today ‘divine help’ is important, but for a totally different agenda. In the 21st century, people no longer see that hope often fluctuates between ‘the difficult’ and ‘the possible.’ They see hope as no mystery. Today people expect, rather than ‘to be with-hope’.

By expecting, I face a world and a future that I desire. ‘Whatever is to come’ I pull in my direction, and in this manner I know it and I control it. Here faith and hope hinge on strong subjectivity: I step into the future because of I will, with a coherent intent, with a measured and effective step based on reason. God is with me: He makes my desire, my will and my reasoning more powerful. God is with me: He is present not to remind me my weaknesses, but to make me, as a subject, overcome that part of me that refuses to follow the commands of the subject, such as my body.

It is this strong subjectivity that forms the modern world, to this day. Modernity is expectation. With a stout will, steady consciousness and keen reasoning, progress surges forward. Out of this arises a society that, like a sorcerer, transforms land and water into a formidable source of production. In Europe, the birthplace of that modernity, within a space of less than 100 years, was born a ‘productive force that was more massive and more colossal than the collective work of an entire generation before it.’ These words are from Marx and Engels in the ‘Communist Manifesto,’ describing how thunderous mankind’s progress has been since the advent of this new history, which is basically a history pioneered by the bourgeoisie. What Marx and Engels never expected was that these people, this class, remain the generators of optimism to this very day.

In the process there may indeed be something that makes us concerned. Someone describes this victorious modern era as a shining bright road, but each ray of light hides a tragedy. Academics, progressive youths, concerned religious people and who knows how many more have repeatedly lashed out against this bourgeois progress, condemning Mr. Capital as an evil force. The outcry is still clamorous, but none knows how to stop capitalism. Marx, Lenin and Mao once tried it, and socialism was one way in which people hoped. Socialism was optimism, but today it is nostalgia. We know it failed. The one who planned the redistribution of the pie on an equal basis was not smart enough to produce a big enough pastry.

So what is left, after each last page of the calendar is torn off? Perhaps it is the 21st century version of ‘hope’, which actually is an expectation mixed with faith. In other words, the one who remains is an ‘I’ that gazes on ‘what is to come’ with assurance, a subject roused by will, intent and increasingly powerful reason, because I have one certainty - the certainty provided by religion. The problem is how can a faith-based subject, which considers itself powerful, escape the illusion of optimism?

There is a famous poem by Iqbal, the great poet of Pakistan, describing a dialog between God and human being. We know that Iqbal believes humankind is God’s regent on earth, with the ‘freedom of the human ego’ granted by the Creator. And the human ego said, proudly:

You made the night; I made the lamp for the light

You created the clay, I crafted pottery

But in Iqbal’s poem, God replied, reminding human’s fearsome side:

From the earth I made steel, safe and sturdy
But you made sword and weaponry

The last line is a critique of modernity, of course. But it is not just modernity that is ‘unbelieving.’ Whoever sets out to conquer, to tame everything outside of him or her – the night, the mortar, the steel – ultimately invests him/herself as nature’s king of kings: the regent becomes an alienated idol.

One failing of subjectivity that is so formidable is its shortsightedness of the other side of hope, namely ‘difficulty.’ There is never certainty. Human, also if she or he is a ‘vanguard’ as conceived by Said Qutb, the ideologue of Islamic revivalism, – meaning someone deemed capable of keeping the path of the faithful towards an ‘Islamic’ future – is a being shaped by his/her unfinished history and his/her unpredictable body. In its very act to be, a subject implies its perpetual deficiency.

Pious people like Qutb and Aquinas believed that the lack would be compensated, the unpredictable brought to order and so hope would meet a happy end through divine guidance. But this is the 21st century: God is invisible and truth is vulnerable. We do not know if He is indeed ‘guiding’ us or if we are merely imagining Him doing so. God, in fact inconceivable, convinces us only when we can find His shadow – just His shadow – within the ordinary, everyday faces. That is the sign that humankind is necessarily noble, but throughout its life in history, nobility has been impossible to achieve. Its frailty is not necessarily a self-negation.

Optimism ignores this, but hope does not: human is a precarious being.

****

Fearing disillusion, we play with irony. So many goals have failed, so it is better to accept what is at hand, we say. The important thing is to be honest to ourselves that we do like human beings, their togetherness and their environment. We will never refuse to lend our hands if tragedy strikes them. . We do not give up making things better – although we will never fully know what the word ‘better’ signifies. For standards continue to change. Indeed, God’s word is not always clear; wise men have written thousands of books in its interpretation. .

But 2005 is imminent, the calendar has been ripped off, and we realize that many matters remain unresolved. Irony alone will not propel us. Relying on transient and unclear imperatives to be good, we continue to choose to act. We do not expect -- mengharap. We hope -- berharap. Because we know that in life, darkness is never complete, light does not totally produce day. Within that gap lies hope: simple, temporary but always with us if we don’t let go. (Goenawan Muhammad - taken from http://islamlib.com)

The Fate of Democracy in the Middle East

2007-07-11T21:51:00.000+07:00

The ambitious democratization project in the Middle East initiated by President George W Bush by toppling Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq is obviously a big failure. Iraq is out of control. Instead of being the model of democracy, Iraq has become a soil land for the birth of “terrorists”. Polarization between Shiah and Sunni is much more complicated than what Washington has predicted.

The decision makers in Washington talked about remapping the Middle East, exactly like British and French colonizers in 19th century and the beginning of 20th century when they saw world as a piece of map to be marked and divided as they like.

In fact, “democratization” and remapping has involved the lost of thousand innocent souls in vain. To the decision makers in Washington, thousands of civil casualties are called as collateral damage, an euphemism in military vocabulary since the Vietnam war.

Israel’s brutal attack to Lebanon (according to Israel military officials, the attack was very well calibrated), would make most of Arabs skeptical upon the democratization process in the Middle East. What US want seems not merely “democratic” governance in the Middle East. They want nice guy such as Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries, who would bow to US and Israel’s will and interest. Israel and US’s boycotting Hamas who won the democratic election in Palestine indicates that US government and Israel does not want democracy only.

I doubt whether President Bush and Interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert believe that democracy in the Middle East is a principle the must fight for. Just as democracy can deliver government who support illiberal ideas (as Fareed Zakaria discussed in The Future of Freedom, 2004), it also can deliver government who do not want to bow to US pressure. Hamas is the best example. US government seems dislike Hamas’s victory therefore to them, democracy is not “political virtue” which must be defended unconditionally, but only instrument with secondary value.

Two Requirements

Democracy in the Middle East cannot be held without two requirements. First, popular support or grass root support. Here, the Islamic teaching plays an important role in forming public opinion. Democracy as a political system should have cultural anchor within religious tradition in the Middle East. Therefore, democracy cannot be “imported” from the West or “cultivated” by force. Democracy must grow from “inside” although the external factor and international milieu are also influential. A homegrown democracy is very important.

US government’s dream to “democratize” Middle East would be fail since the very beginning due to two reasons. First, democracy is not an important “political virtue” for US government. It is only instrument. Second, democracy is enforced from the outside through war, like in Iraq. Democratic rhetoric also comes lately when the public begins to know the lie behind the weapon of mass destruction’s argument to justify the invasion upon Iraq.

Actually, there is no antithetical contradiction between Islam and democracy, although few Muslims regard democracy as an “infidel” system. Most of Muslims observe democracy as compatible with Islam. Therefore, it is inappropriate for US government to promote and campaign for democracy in the Muslim world. The problem is that while US government is busy promoting democracy in the Middle East, their attitude has not been supporting at all. US government’s unconditional support toward despotic regimes in the Middle East is a good example. US government’s attitude who do not want to “have any relation” with Hamas who won democratic election in Palestine is another example. Once more, US’s measures, mainly led by President Bush, indicate that what they wanted is not democracy, but something else.

Israel-Palestine Conflict

The second important thing is Israel-Palestine conflict. Campaign for democracy in the Middle East will be hindered if the US government does not provide “fair” treatment toward Palestinian. The problem of Palestine will always be the black sheep of the relation between US government and the Muslim world. The Muslim world has been observing US’s unconditional support toward Israel, while they constantly force Palestine government to fulfill their interest. Hamas victory in the recent election is “political punishment” for not only PLO and other secular factions in Palestine, but also for US and Israel that never predict this would happen.

The Muslim world has seen obvious injustice every minute in Palestine. While the Jewish people live freely, and even suggested, to come and live in Israel, millions of Palestinian who endure the “exodus” and “Diaspora” across the world were not given any right to come back. While Palestine government has always been obstructed for establishing sovereign state, US gave unconditional support to Israel. While Israel has never been disturbed for having nuclear, US government relentlessly force Iran into corner for having the similar arsenal (however, it does not mean that I agree with Iranian nuclear project).

In the case of Israel’s attack to Lebanon, President Bush says within G-8 countries conference in Russia, that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah. This statement is obviously weird. Is it only Israel that has the right to defend itself while Palestinians who were kicked out of their motherland has not? One serious problem of US is an assumption that Palestine seems to be always on the wrong side and Israel is always right.

In this constellation, I become more skeptical on the US democratization project in the Middle East. What is obvious now is a combination of two annoyed things, despotism of Arab government which always supported by Washington, and “enforcement” of democratization from the outside which makes the Middle Eastern citizen suspicious about the project. Once more, Islam is compatible with democracy. What matter now is US unfair treatment toward the Muslim world today. A big gap between “Muslim world” and “America” cannot be solved without radical overhaul and change in US foreign policy. (Ulil Abshar-Abdalla - taken from http://islamlib.com)

Quran, Christmas and Religious Pluralism

2007-07-11T21:17:00.000+07:00

As a Muslim, I would like to wish the Christians a merry Christmas. While Christmas is a celebration of the birth of prophet Isa (Jesus Christ), Qur’an congratulates on three important moments of his life: his birthday, death and day of resurrection. “Peace on me (Isa: Jesus) the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!” (Surah Maryam: 33). I think, Quran does not merely “celebrate” Christmas, but also celebrates “religious pluralism”.

I simply understand plurality as diversity, whereas pluralism is the positive attitude and perception upon plurality. Plurality must stand on the principle of equality and the absence of superior feeling among plural entities. Tolerance, particularly the passive tolerance from majority toward minority, is not enough for nurturing plurality. In this case, dialog is more appropriate therefore those plural parties may know, learn, respect and honor one another.

In this context, religious pluralism that means as recognition on the equal right of all religions is correct. All religions must be positioned equally to create a free dialog without any subordination. The objective of this pluralism as Quran described is this: to know and learn one another (li ta’ârafû), and not to fight each other (li takhâshamû), or to regard one another infidel (li takâfarû), or to kill each other (li taqâtalû)!

How does Quran recognize pluralism? First, Quran regards plurality as a given matter and part of the will of God (masyî’atullah). Surah al-Hujarat 13 explained that Allah has created humans male and female, and has made them nations and tribes (sya’b wa qabîlah) that they may know and learn one another. In surah al-Rum 22, Allah said about the difference of languages (al-sinah) and colors (al-alwân) and compared them to the creation of heavens and earth. In addition, Allah wanted human to cherish and nurture this plurality.
As regards religious plurality, Quran gives human the right to believe or disbelieve. Allah is the one who has the right to determine whether one is a true believer or disbeliever. Anyone who wants to call people toward faith should avoid compulsion. Surah Yunus 99 affirms: And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Would thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers? It is not for any soul to believe except by the permission of Allah. He had set uncleanness upon those who have no sense.

Here, Abd Aziz Sachedina (2003) elucidated that religious pluralism leads to double meanings: first, that faith is a private matter (non-interventionist) therefore no one has the right to come into this area, which is out of his authority. Second, this generates co-existence where freedom of religion is maintained in order to keep peace. Compulsion will destroy religious harmony.

Second, Quran recognizes the power of salvation within other religions. Surah al-Baqarah 62 mentioned four religions namely Islam, Jewish, Christian, and Sabians. Most of the experts of tafseer interpret Sabians as ancient people who worship stars, as a symbol of God as their highest devotion. Ibn Jarir al-Thabarî in his book of tafseer, Jâmi’ al-Bayân quoted: Sabians are people who change their faith to another for seeking truth. Here, I conclude that if only those worshippers of stars were given salvation, other religions with the belief in God deserved the salvation more.

The verse says: Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians –whoever believed in Allah and the Last Day and did right- surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

Third, belief in the teaching of Prophet Muhammad (Islam) leads to the belief in the teaching of the preceding prophets. Prophet Muhammad said ‘The parable of me in relation to the Prophets who came before me is that of a man who built a house beautifully and well, except that one brick in its corner was missing. The people went around it and wondered at its beauty, but said: "If only that brick were put in its place!" I am that brick, and I am the last of the Prophets.’ Quran affirms the faith upon former Prophets and Holy Scriptures in surah al-Baqarah 285: The messenger believed in that which had been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) the believers. Each one believed in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers- We make no distinction between any of His messengers- and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord! Unto Thee is the journeying..

Fourth, Quran gives constitutional recognition upon prior Holy Scriptures. Quran in this case does not “abrogate” the preceding books, but it is “confirming” (mushaddiq) whatever Scripture was before it and a “watcher” over it (muhaymin) (surah al-Ma’idah: 48). Quran asserted Torah as “guidance” and “light” (hudan wa nûr) which consist of “laws of Allah” (fîhâ hukm Allâh), and also affirmed Gospel as “guidance” and “light” (hudan wa nûr) and “confirmer” (mushaddiq) of the teaching of Torah. (surah al-Ma’idah: 43, 44, 46).

In fact, not only that Quran recognizes the laws in Torah and Gospel but also it commands us to implement it. Nowadays, many Muslim fundamentalist are supporting the enforcement of Islamic law or “God’s law” and rejecting “human’s law” based on the verses of Quran “Who judge not by that which Allah had revealed: such are disbelievers (5: 44); such are wrong-doers (5: 45); such are evil-livers (5: 47). In fact, these verses were God’s criticism upon people of the books who do not implement the law of Torah and Gospel!

Allah had refused Jewish community who visited the prophet Muhammad to decide their case based on Quranic laws as narrated in surah al-Maidah 43: How come they unto thee for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah had delivered judgment (for them)? Indeed, the law of qishâsh (equal retaliation: life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose etc which is the penal code of classical Islam) in surah al-Maidah 45, was derived from the law of Torah. In the meantime, God commanded the Christians to implement the law of Gospel as recited in surah al-Baqarah 47: Let the people of the Gospel judge by that which Allah had revealed therein.

I think, this is the Quranic way to celebrate Christmas and furthermore, religious pluralism.(M. Guntur Romli taken from http://islamlib.com)

Abu Syuqqah & Woman

2007-07-11T21:03:00.000+07:00

I have just reviewed Abdul Halim Muhammad Abu Syuqqah’s six volume-books under title Tahrirul Mar’ah Fi Ashril Risalah (Woman Emancipation in the Days of Prophet). This book is an important documentation of women’s lives in the days of Prophet Muhammad, which based on critical studies upon the main Islamic sources, in particular hadith (prophet’s sayings). The author told that the book was born out of his concern about women discrimination among the Middle Eastern Muslim societies.

Abu Syuqqah, who was a student of the prominent expert of hadith Nashiruddin Al-Albany, astonished as he found many hadith about the moderate life of women in the days of the Prophet. In that time, Muslim women were engaged in many outdoor activities as they participated in battles (Jihad), offered their prayers in mosque, listened to the Prophet’s sermon, complained and proposed their problems to the Prophet, served male and female guests, involved in the meeting with Prophet’s companions etc.

These finding shocked him because it contradicts against the general perception of women among Muslim society. Some viewed that woman is creature who arouse man’s desire and libido therefore she should stay indoor. Her voice is aurat, her body opens the way to discord ( fitna), her mind is deficient, and her faith is incomplete. Therefore, she has no freedom to do anything or to determine her choice.

This has motivated Abu Syuqqah to analyze the texts of Quran and hadith concerning woman in two great sources of hadith, Shahih Bukhari and Shahih Muslim. This analysis aims at exposing the historical facts of women’s life in the days of Prophet. Furthermore, he wanted to revive the spirit of freedom that Prophet had given to women.

To me, this critical study upon hadith is considerably useful today. This study shows several aspects of freedom which prophet had given to women, like freedom to choose a husband and divorce him, freedom to work and manage the asset and property, and other aspects. A hadith narrated by Bukhari told that a girl, daughter of Ja’far, worried that she will be force to marry a man she hated. She wrote about her anxiety toward two sheikh from Anshar, Abdurrahman and Majma’, who afterward deliver the letter to the Prophet. The Prophet responded her.

Unfortunately, many have forgotten the aspect of women’s freedom in the days of prophet. Most of ulema and religious leaders were more concerned upon hadith and religious perception that tends to discredit and discriminate women. No wonder that post the death of the Prophet, women return to the age of ignorance ( jahiliyyah ). Women must stay indoors, have limited activities and subordinated under man’s supremacy, which sometimes justified by fake hadith.

One of hadiths which used to “tame” women as narrated by Fathimah, daughter of the Prophet, asserted that woman should not see others and should not be seen by others ( innal mar`ah la tara ahadan wala yaraha ahadun ). Abu Syuqqah rejected this hadith and regarded it as a fake one. First, the narrator of hadith ( sanad ) was doubtful. Second, the content of hadith ( matan ) contradicts against the historical facts in the days of Prophet as well as his statements.

Unfortunately, the mysoginic hadith were more popular and therefore there must be a follow up of Abu Syuqqah’s breakthrough so that women will not be oppressed by religious spirit based on lack knowledge. We want women to have their rights, at least just as the Prophet had already given them. (Umdah El-Baroroh - taken from http://islamlib.com)

Islamic Studies Textbook and Violence

2007-07-11T20:59:00.000+07:00

Recently, U.S. Freedom House’s Centre for Religious Freedom released a report analyzing the syllabus and textbook of Islamic studies courses used in Saudi schools. One of the important findings is that ideology of hatred and enmity toward Christians, Jews and Muslims who do not subscribe to the Wahhabi doctrine remains in this area of the public school system.

The research was quite comprehensive since it involved several researchers from Middle East who collected the study materials for elementary and secondary students. Most of them was concerning on theology (tawheed), Islamic jurisprudence (fikh) and prophet traditions (hadith). Despite of the fact that the object of research was Saudi Arabia, this finding is interesting and important to discuss since the issue of Islamic teaching and doctrine is concerning Muslims in general. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is regarded as the Islamic “centre” and “model” for most of Muslim in the world.

Saudi Arabia is a state that rigorously applies the Islamic law (sharia). Formally, it has declared itself as the Islamic kingdom and implemented social regulations in Islamic way. Islamic education is being over-emphasized by separating boys and girls in schools and inserting religious materials in every discipline of science.

The Saudi schools curriculum is not quite unique. Some Islamic doctrine and teaching in the curriculum can be easily found in any other schools in the Middle East. We even find some of them among Indonesian schools. In general, the Islamic studies curriculum in the Muslim world was taken from the main sources of Islam i.e. Quran and hadith. Other sources were literatures of fikh and theology written by previous ulema, which some of them contained intolerance and enmity toward other religions and sects. That was natural because the era of Islamic formation has been colored by tensions and clashes with non-Muslims as well as Muslim dissidents. No wonder in these textbooks, we find hatred propagation toward Jews, Christians or Shiite, which is along with Sufism, were condemned and denigrated by the Saudi government.

Almost every Islamic studies textbook in Saudi schools –and I think in any other Muslim countries as well- taught about the universality of Islam and that it is the only true religion. This doctrine is not the creation of ulema, but it is derived directly from Quran that says: “And who seek as religion other than Islam it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.” (Sura 3:85)

It demonize other major religions “deviant, bad, and enemies of Islam”. This perception is derived from Quran: “And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed.” (Sura 2:120).

Hatred and enmity toward other religions were cultivated within Muslim children minds since the very beginning. A textbook for the first grade, for instance, put the question bellow: "Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________."

Students of the fourth grade were taught about the true belief (iman) which means, “that you hate the polytheists (musyrik) and infidels (kafir) but do not treat them unjustly." Polytheists and infidels are always referred to the Jews, Christians, and other religion than of Islam. It always emphasized on the enmity toward the adherents of other faith.

In this case, “unbelievers” does not only refer to Jews and Christians, but whoever adhere different belief, including non-Wahhabi Muslims who do not adhere particular understanding of Islam. This is for the sixth grade, with additional affirmation that Muslims are brothers even without blood relationship, but non-Muslims are enemies although they are relatives.

The eight grade students were given more profound study materials, with some hatred nuances such as about Prophet’s saying (which is probably not the sound one) as cited in Ibn Abbas: “The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."

Hatred toward Jews and Christians was preserved for good. Students of the ninth grade were taught that the clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills. Students of higher grade were given broader and more analytical study materials, with some obvious discrimination here and there. The tenth grade text on Islamic jurisprudence (fikh) teaches that life for non-Muslims (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a "free Muslim male."

The treatment upon non-Muslims in those curriculums is parallel to the treatment upon women. Referring to the classic book of fikh, women are entitled to only half the inheritance of males, and woman’s testimony in court is worth only half of a man’s.

With such curriculum, no wonder many has believed in the strong connection between Arabs’ religiosity and doctrines being taught in their schools. The spirit of hatred toward America, the infidel state where many Jews and Christians live, has been implemented by crushing the WTC on 11th September 2001. Aren’t 15 of the 19 hijackers were the citizens of Saudi Arabia? (Luthfi Assyaukanie - taken from islamlib.com)

Resisting Religion by Religion

2007-07-02T04:11:00.000+07:00

On October 14, 1965, Dr. Bhimarao Ambedkar, the architect of India’s constitution, announced that he was moving away from Hinduism, which he embraced since his childhood, and converting to Buddhism. After an extensive process of search and research, he finally came into conclusion that he rejected Hinduism and Hindu philosophy.
In his point of view, Hinduism cannot be separated from the caste system which trapped him as a Dalit (the untouchable or the outcaste). He believed that religion will be no more whenever it preserves oppression. When religion enslaves humanity, the answer will be this: leave this religion. His conversion to Buddhism is a symbol of resistance against years of caste discrimination and oppression upon his people.

However, not everyone agree with Ambedkar. His criticism is aimed at the Hindu fundamentalists who develop puritan spirit called as Hindutva. This spirit preserves inter-religious conflict in India and asserts negation of the others (of different faith). They believed that India is Hindu and Hindu is India. Therefore adherent of different religion should be regarded as second class citizen.

Although Hindutva is not dominant among modern Indian society, this movement’s voice is loud and it preserves conflict and caste discrimination across India. Consequently, resistance against Hinduism becomes medium of resistance for the marginal people. We would be amazed to hear about the recent fact in India.

On Sunday, 27th of May 2007, more than fifty thousand of tribals and dalits gathered at Mahalaxmi Race Course in Mumbai to commemorate the 50th anniversary of B.R. Ambedkar's conversion. They held Dhamma Deeksha ceremony. These people came from various Indian regions to escape the rigid Hindu caste system and embrace the Buddhist faith in what is considered the largest mass conversion in the country. On October 2006, the similar event involved fifteen thousand people. Although some of them did not follow Hinduism, the Hindu leaders treated them as a part of Hindu and therefore justified the oppression upon them.

They were born again human. They took refuge in Buddhism because this is religion without proselytizing spirit which used to be political and attention on the institutional aspect of religion. And more importantly, Buddhism provides them the right answer about equality and justice among humankind.

This case indicates that whenever religion did not appear in peaceful form and respect humanity, its adherent will move away. When it is being rigid and nonnegotiable with the context, it will lose its prophetic mission. When religious institution becomes dominant, the politic of identity and power relation will take over.

Interestingly, Indian society regarded this conversion as an ordinary incident. Despite of some reactions from Hindu leaders, the conversion did not result any conflict. As a democratic country, India is an example for us. Preferring certain religion or embracing no religion is the right of every citizen.

Although the Indonesian constitution guarantees this freedom, conversion has always been huge matter in this country. Instead of being inward criticism and introspective medium for religion, we often blame and persecute anyone who move away from our religion. (Anick H.T. - Editor of Liberal Islam Network. Activist of Alliance for Freedom of Religion)

The Relation between Religion and Terrorism

2007-06-30T03:13:00.000+07:00

Many people say that to be religious is easy. It is an easier road to heaven rather than to hell. Nevertheless, the fact is different since to be religious can become very hard. The road to heaven is not taken by worship or siding with the weak people, but by exploding bombs and killing other people.

Unlike the Sufi who attempt to reach Allah and heaven by mujâhadah (practices and rituals within mysticism performed in order to know Allah), we recently view the fact that God and heaven must be redeemed by blood and soul. Rationally, it’s hard for us to say that the last one is the road to God.

Nevertheless, it is the latest reality of our religiosity. Religion which should be a holy place now is accused as being the mastermind behind terrorism. It is experienced also by the recent muslim community. The tragedy of 11th September, 12th October in Bali and Jakarta’s JW Marriot Hotel’s bombing has dragged the muslim community into a hard position. Now, many people called as “Muslim activists” by the media are caught by police as suspects behind terrorism.

Islam is not a religion of terrorism. But this explanation is unable to reduce the impression that Islam is a terrorist’s net. This ethical-normative argument is true although it hides many facts behind, not only related to the behavior of religious community, but also related to the religious doctrine. We must admit that several religious doctrines can be used to legitimate terrorism, regardless whether it is right or not.

***

Hence, religion’s involvement within terrorism is a problem of interpretation upon a fact. Explanation separating religion from its disciples is the inability of viewing the reality of a religious community’s life which is far of its ethical-normative teaching. The question is this: when should the behaviors of religious disciples be related or distinguished from its disciples? If the good behavior is accepted as part of religion, why is its bad behavior rejected?

In social science studies, interrelation between doctrine and its disciples has been an important topic. Taufik Abdullah (1987) might never imagine that terrorism would be a crucial issue in Islam, hence he simply said:”… it’s not a paradox when Islam, as the universal revelation and started from the perfect and eternal doctrine, show itself in diversity painted by the history and social cultural situations of its disciples. Tension between eternal doctrine and manifestation in private and social life is the main factor in the Islamic dynamic.

That statement may be rightly related to the world of idea or thought. However radical a thought, it would not be called as terrorism if it’s not followed by physical violence etc. But the destruction over humanitarian value and dignity is hard to be observed as “Islamic dynamic” and not as a paradox. It obviously paradox if religious manifestation is against the sacred doctrine of religion.

An adage states that a textual interpretation started from certain philosophy should produce any “social structure” and behavior mode which is a pure reproduction of “Islamic doctrine”. But there has often been an apology within muslim intellectuals by treating the doctrine and the religious disciples differently. Both are separated not because of methodological obligation, but because of an ethical push in order to protect religious “holiness”. Briefly, doctrine is never mistaken, it is human’s error who believe in such doctrine.

This way of thinking, is looked at as “protecting the holiness of religious doctrine”. But on the other hand this way of thinking is demonstrating how the religious doctrine’s holiness has no influence upon its disciple. Hence, what is being religious for? Here is the weak point of assumption that textual study tradition is the only way to see phenomena of muslim society. Hence, we have to realize the importance of Islamic study starting from reality.

However, religion is a social reality although it came from divine doctrine. In academic tradition, positioning Islam as the object of scientific study is actually new, since there is no “reluctance” therefore Islam can be approached as merely a ‘religion of revelation’. Yet, scientific study should place Islam as a “historical religion” rather than as a divine religion. Therefore, “religion” has to be open for criticism.

*** From the description above, this question arises: is it true that terrorism has no relation with religion? It’s hard to say precisely. If we say ‘yes’, it seemed to drag religion into the dirty world against the meaning of religion itself. But if we say ‘no’, it seemed to cover the fact that the actor often uses religious symbol and spirit. The fact that religion is always involved in terrorism should not be covered. It is a bitter fact we should accept. Courage to admit does not always mean making religion “black faced” since there is other community out of it who comprehend their religious doctrine differently. Hence, the problem is not always laid on religious doctrine but more on interpretation over that doctrine.

Some explanation might be used to capture the relation between religion and terrorism. Firstly, on the doctrinal level, religion has the potency to raise “fundamentalist” group. The fact indicates that the extreme movements are almost there in all religion. Here, Amrozi’s confession -one of Bali’s blast suspects- is interesting. To him, Bali’s bombing was in order to maintain religious life. “What would happen to Bali in the next 15 years if I didn’t explode the bomb? People complain about losing material, but actually religion and morality are more important.” Amrozi (Koran Tempo, 13 June 2003).

Secondly, religion in post modern era is noted by the appearance of “spiritual violence” which later is expressed as “social violence”. It appears due to the failure of modernism like the pledge of freedom and pluralism emerging from the mist of vagueness and ambiguity. Due to rational hesitation which is paralyzed by the spirit of post modernism, the chosen way out is running from freedom to enter the ‘definite’ world which soothes hearts. The chosen way is by submitting the self toward a transcendental authority promising eschatological happiness.

Thirdly, response upon the western hegemony and secularism is considered to threaten the muslim community. Western secular thoughts which has come into the muslim world is considered as a serious threat from the “infidel” and should be fought back. This hegemony is gripping stronger with capitalist ideology which shackles economic principles of muslim community. The Muslim world will be increasingly buried by the high dependence on the west.

Out of those three matters, many people agree with the conspiracy theory. The basic assumption of conspiracy theory is that terrorism addressed toward Islam is the conspiracy of US and its allies which seemed to be threatened by Islam. The conspiracy theory’s follower believe that US also responsible upon the emergence of terrorism in various region. This theory used to be connected to Samuel P Huntington’s clash of civilization. It is the fact that after the cold war won by US and its allies, the Eastern power including Islam are potential to be a threat.

Based on the above illustration, terrorism is not a “single” phenomenon which emerges suddenly. However, I see that it is a camouflage if religion is not responsible upon the tragedy of terrorism. It is impossible to separate diametrically between the normative teachings of religion with the expression of its disciples. That confession also obliges us as the religious people to do a critical observation upon religious doctrines which is comprehended arbitrarily.

Therefore, I mention the interrelation between religion and terrorism as a “prohibited relation”. Like a beautiful girl, many people entice religion with happiness. Religion can be tempted to do something against its nature. Someone taking religion as ammunition for doing terrorism is basically pushing a prohibited relation between religion with the “forbidden” spouse, terrorism. (Rumadi, Student of Doctoral program UIN Jakarta, Contributor Jaringan Islam Liberal)

From Fundamentalism toward Secularism

2007-06-30T03:03:00.000+07:00

On the 17th of December, President of France Jacques Chirac pitched a “hot ball” before the French parliament. The “hot ball” was a ban on using religious symbols in French public school. The ball rolls up, and Muslim community tried hard to kick it back.
The militant Muslim group are against the rule since the Muslim female students in French public school will be forced to take their scarves off. Syekh Al-Azhar Sayyid Tantawi believes that the French government has the right to issue the rule but it was protested against by the Muslim hardliners in Egypt (Al-Hayât, 3/1)

Few Muslims try to be critical and objective in observing the above phenomenon as if the French government only focused upon Islam on banning the use of headscarf. Yet, the ban also includes all religious symbols like cross, skullcap and other identical symbols of certain other religions. To Chirac it is against “secularism” which is the foundation of French society.

Why was this regulation created? To me, two rational reasons are the backgrounds. Firstly, the rapid growth of religious fundamentalism symptom which has become a global phenomenon. As Karen Armstrong (2002: ix) has written, the growth of religious “fundamentalism” phenomenon is a very significant phenomenon at the end of 20th century.

Fundamentalism meant here is not only occurring in the Semitic religions –Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- but also be in all “formal” world religions. Religious fundamentalism is the strong desire to return to the fundamental teaching of religion and the attempt to hold up and withstand “historical duplication” in the current condition. Furthermore Armstrong viewed that fundamentalism is not only a movement back to roots, but also a movement against modernity which leads to multi-dimensional crisis.

Secondly, there is the spread of global terrorism and universal humanitarian crimes using religious teaching as a “mask” for legitimacy. There have been many instances, for example, WTC 11-9-01, American military aggression upon Afghanistan supported by the word “Crusade” of George W Bush, the Bali blast and the Marriot blast, escalating violence in the Middle East due to the battle of Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism, the nuclear crisis between Pakistan and India rooted from the Islamic and Hindus fundamentalism and many other cases of violence fed by religious “labels”.

To modern society – especially France - the phenomenon of religious fundamentalism and terrorism has become a very serious threat since the modern century has “imprisoned” religion in the private domain while it previously dominated the public domain. But by the end of 20th century, religion has escaped from the “prison” and return to the public sphere. It is as if the “historical ghoul” haunting European society like religious hegemony upon civil political sovereignty and bloody conflict between the Catholic and Protestant will reoccur due to the appearance of religious fundamentalism symptom.

Religiosity in the modern age expected by the western intellectuals to take the form of “civil religion” hasn’t come true. Instead, religious fundamentalism has become strengthened by the use of religious symbols. For the fundamentalist, religious symbols are not only identity markers but are symbols of resistance.

THE headscarf is an Islamic symbol. It is no longer a symbol of piety and modesty, but has become a symbol of resistance. (Fadwa El Guindi: 1999).

The problem of the relation between secularism and religion in the western society is never ending. It has an antagonistic relation: like oil and water which never meet and are always contradictory. However, the objective of the French government regulation is no more than the reaffirmation of the antagonistic relation between secularism and religion.

Substantially, not all secular governments are against religion. The government has not used religion as legitimacy for their policies. In America, Holland, Germany, England, religions still have space. What happened in France is –in Roger Garaudy’s terms- “secular fundamentalism”, or in Arkoun’s terms –“secularianism” (al-‘almânawiyah) and not “secularism” (al-‘almâniyah).

Muhammad Arkoun, a secular muslim thinker living in France criticized “secularianism” brought by “militant secularist” (les laicistes militants) rejecting any religious subject in French public school. What is meant by religious subject here is not about religious rituals or about using religious symbols- but the subject of historical critic of religions which is an integral part of society. (Arkoun, 1998:61).

Arkoun illustrates that secularism contains liberalism. Secularism tries to be open and free. Unlike secularism, liberalism is often being understood as “libertinism”: unlimited and unregulated freedom.

Whereas for Abd Karim Soroush, an Iranian intellectual, the growth of modern science thought and rationality implicates the appearance of secularism. Modern scientific knowledge has changed not only human’s view about world, but also his ability and position. He affirms that, secularism is “scientification” and rationalization of social and political considerations. (Soroush, 2002: 79-80)

The same ideas are conveyed by Moroccan intellectual, Muhammad ‘Âbid Al-Jâbirî, who writes that the essence of secularism is “democracy” and “rationality” (al-dimuqrâthiya wa al-‘aqlâniyah). Debates happening in Arabic and Islamic intellectual circles regarding secularism are worthless debates, since they never handle the core of the problem. To him, it’s better to eliminate the terms of secularism from Arabic thinking and replace it with the terms “democracy” and “rationality”. (Al-Jâbirî, 1992: 104)

To me, the negative impression of secularism is the result of ignorance. If only we try to understand the essence of secularism, the “fear” of Al-Jâbirî should not re-appear. Debates about secularism will no longer be about labels and packaging, but about content and substance.

Whereas to the western society, secularism has become a “monument” which will always remind them of tragedy. Lets secularism becomes “text” which will constantly be interpreted according to history. Moreover, within the growing religious fundamentalism revolution currently, secularism –not “secularianism”- is still the alternative. It is supported by the substance of secularism: rationality, democracy, liberalism, inclusivism, tolerance, which is the primary requirement of the modern human. If one offered me a choice between “religious fundamentalism or religious secularism?” I would definitely choose “religious secularism.” (Luthi Assyaukani - taken from www.islamlib.com)

Religion, Reason and Liberty

2007-06-30T02:48:00.000+07:00

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, Liberal Islam Network Coordinator)

After the Fall of Baghdad

2007-06-30T01:08:00.000+07:00

Learning from the bitter defeat of the Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan and Syria) in the Six Day War of June 1967, I worry that Baghdad’s fall will open an old wound and foster a defeatist attitude amongst Muslims. This feeling could spread to all the Muslim nations around the world and create a “melancholic mood” of defeat within Muslim’s minds everywhere.
The fall of Baghdad is a loss of dignity for the whole Muslim community. The US and British attack will generate feelings of hatred towards both countries, a potentially endless generalized hatred for the “West” however blurred the meaning of the West may be in Muslim minds.

Defeatism is an internalized feeling of defeat, mournfulness and melancholia which eventually imprisons one in a dark everlasting corridor. It is like a labyrinth or a path that splits without end. Once one is trapped in that space, it is hard to get out of there. Defeatism drains the energy needed in order to revive. From this defeatism a collective frustration comes into being and one result of this frustration is to “blame others” without any desire for critical self-introspection.

As discussed by Fouad Ajami in The Arab Predicament published in 1981 (14 years after that bitter defeat), the defeatism which has haunted the Arab nations since 1967 has stimulated Arab fundamentalism. Since then the slogan “Islam is the solution” (Al Islam huwal hall) has become popular. The liberal notions supported by Arab intellectuals of the 20th century (as recorded by Albert Hourani in Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age) have been discredited and this defeat has raised fundamentalist Islam’s popularity as “an ideological alternative” as well as a dramatic decline in the popularity of secular ideologies.

In attempting to return to "tradition," a search for authenticity became a major theme in the Arabic nation’s consciousness. Islam has herein come to be seen as a “vehicle” which will redeem that defeat. But as noted by Ajami, Islamic tradition is in itself "fractured." On one hand, the Arab nations seek a return to the past, to the perceived bright and pure period of the Prophet, but on the other hand, the facts of the 20th century are that they are dependant upon non-Arab countries. Moreover, Israel's existence constantly reminds embittered Arabs of their defeat and the fact that Arab nations are ruled by despots only makes things worse. As a Palestinian poet, Mahmoud Darwish, resentfully writes, “I saw nothing but a scaffold/With one single rope for two million necks/I see armed cities of paper that bristle/With kings and khaki". The desire to return to "tradition" and the search the authenticity (which used to be called as Ashalah in Arab intellectual circles), has only caused more bitterness and increased the defeatist attitude in “the psyche” of Arab nations.

That’s why the rhetoric of anger has dominated the Arab nation’s discourse over the last three decades. The rhetoric has become an Islamic “genre” full of curses and anger directed outwards such that there is no space for critical introspection. This Islamic anger has been “exported" globally.

After the 11 September 2001 tragedy, a mood emerged in the Muslim community for soul searching, self criticism, and the development of a mental willingness to accept the fact that there is something wrong with the Muslim community’s “consciousness,” indeed, that a reformation should be executed. Everywhere people are talking about the hazard of narrow parochial religious understanding which depends upon literal interpretations and which neglects Islam’s larger vision. I think this is a positive development which has also occurred in Indonesia as a consequence of the Bali blast.

However, that mood seemed to vaporize, substituted by a new rage toward the West particularly toward the US. As a result the urgency of an Islamic reformation is loosing its relevancy. Yet again, people prefer to look to the outside as an enemy rather than to look inwards and transform themselves. The negative impact of the Iraq War and the fall of Baghdad is a sense of defeat which has turned into a renewed rage towards the West. This has deflated the critical awareness which was appearing after the WTC tragedy. In short, I worry that after Iraq is conquered, the Muslim community will become entrapped by defeatism and then “captured” by fundamentalist religious notions.

In the developing rhetoric within the Muslim society, people who support the Islamic reformation process are frequently observed as agents of foreign nations interests' or puppet (i.e., the US and Jews). That rhetoric is intentionally blown up to revive the negative sentiment of the Muslim community towards reformation. After the Iraq war, I am concerned that these sort of claims will become increasingly prevalent. For example, Yusuf Qardlawi, an Egyptian religious scholar, has written a book, Al Hulul Al Mustaurodah about imported solutions. As a critic of progressive-liberal Islamic notions, he considers them to be imported and thus necessarily bound to fail. Moreover the progressive-liberal Muslims could become targets for the Muslim community’s rage target.

It must be admitted that the modern Muslim community’s consciousness is also influenced by words of rage taken from the West. Karen Armstrong, in the battle for God, illustrates this well in her description of how the Muslim community’s fury is a product of “modernity” divorced from the rewards of liberty and prosperity. Modernity, to the Muslim community’s collective memory, is represented by the military hardware which kills innocent women and children in Iraq and Palestine. Hence it is not surprising that the Muslim community are looking back to a bright and glittering tradition in the past and full of anger towards the West and the people who are considered as their “agents” and “puppets”.

The question then is this: Should this defeatism be understood as the logical consequence of Western misconduct? For myself there is no other option but for the Muslim community to look for a way out of this defeatism. It will undermine the Muslim community and corner Muslims within a defensive mentality which is hazardous at everyone.

Even though they are hurtful and embittering, Bernard Lewis’s ideas in What Went Wrong should be considered when he wrote that Arab nations and Muslims should discard their rage and feelings of victimhood, solve their differences and re-unite their talent, energy and resources in a creative effort to become a new center of civilization in the modern age as was the case in the classic period. I have never been fond of that book’s spirit, but Lewis’s suggestion is significant enough to be given attention. Angry rhetoric will never solve the Muslim community’s problems. Defeatism could be overcome if the Muslim community stopped cursing and looking back to the past history, (the Prophet, sahabat, and classic dynasties history) as something “sacred” which should not be observed critically. The Muslim community should ask as well: Is it true that the jargon of “Islam as the alternative solution” is a legitimate discourse or is it merely a rhetorical strategy to obscure defeat? Will the jargon merely isolate the Muslim community from the creative resources which come from the outside and simply lead the Muslim community deeper into a defeatist mentality? (Ulil Abshar-Abdalla - taken from www.islamlib.com)