'Bottle' and 'oil': Islam's classical difficulties<\/p>\n
Ulil Abshar-Abdalla, Researcher, Freedom Institute, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The modern history of Islam is a history of bottle and oil, of
\n"form" and "substance". Let me be more clear and elaborate.<\/p>\n
The battle over the inclusion of seven words in the amended
\nIndonesian Constitution sparked widespread fear as this move may
\nlead to the disintegration of Indonesia. To others, the fear is
\nobviously baseless as the turnout at the 1999 election shows that
\nalmost 30 percent of the populace voted for the supposedly
\nnationalist-secular Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI
\nPerjuangan). A survey undertaken by Jakarta-based Center for the
\nStudy of Islam and Society (PPIM) last year indicated that almost
\n62 percent of PDI Perjuangan constituents were more or less
\ndevout Muslims, a fact that runs contrary to the commonly held
\nperception that all Muslims support Islamic parties.<\/p>\n
The battle is merely a part of a more serious and bigger
\nconcern shared by the Muslim community to see their religious
\ntenets being reflected in their daily life. Every Muslim
\nindividual is eager to build a hospitable environment in which
\nIslamic teaching helps to shape public virtues. A popular Muslim
\nview is that our public life is so permissive and "secular" that
\nit brings about a hostile environment for the devout Muslim.<\/p>\n
Public life is seen as rife with "social sins" such as
\nprostitution, adultery, gambling, corruption and the like.
\nReligion matters because it eradicates social sins and builds a
\nmuch more decent life according to one's religious point of view.<\/p>\n
What ensues from this line of thinking is a seemingly tempting
\nconclusion that, as long as Islamic principles and doctrines
\ndon't materialize in public life, the Muslim community in
\nparticular, and the whole of society in general, will be
\nincessantly haunted by disorder, chaos and disharmony.<\/p>\n
The implementation of Islamic principles and law is inevitable
\nin this regard. However, the implementation of Islamic law is not
\na matter that the Muslim community, with its variety of views and
\ncultural inclinations, would have seemed to agree on easily.
\nMuslims, themselves, differ on how Islamic law should materialize
\nin their life. What is at stake here is the question of whether
\nIslamic law should be implemented through state authority.<\/p>\n
Many Muslims believe in the inseparability between religion
\nand politics, Islam and the state. The belief is epitomized in
\nthe classical doctrine of the unity of "otherworldly-and-this
\nworldly matters". State authority is presumed a necessary
\ninstrument through which Islamic law is enforced.<\/p>\n
Others claim that the enforcement of Islamic law through the
\nstate apparatus runs contrary to the basic principle of
\npluralism. The state is public property and is not allowed to be
\n"privatized" for the benefit of a particular group, such as the
\nMuslim community. If Muslims are willing to see their religious
\ntenets enforced by the government apparatus, they should press
\nfor that through the democratic process in the legislature.<\/p>\n
To Muslims, Islamic law, as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith
\n(prophetic tradition), is an absolute truth, but not to others.
\nBelief in "absolutism" is allowed only within the border of a
\nparticular group. Once the group meets others in "public
\ndeliberation", all truths melt into relative truth.<\/p>\n
Different people subscribe to different laws that are
\nsupposedly revealed by God. What people need in a democracy is to
\norganize their life according to the agreement they can reach.
\nIt's undeniable that every individual in society will aspire to
\nmold public life according to his or her particular religious
\nvalues. But he or she needs public consent to transform that
\nparticular set of values into universal values that bind all
\nmembers of society. I am personally of this kind of opinion.<\/p>\n
Muslims differ either on the question of the content of
\nsyariah (Islamic law). They are divided into two different
\ngroups, the first of which says that Islamic law in its literal
\nmeaning is binding to all Muslims all of the time, both during
\nthe prophet's life and now. The second group who consider
\nthemselves "Liberal Muslims" say: What matters is not the form
\nbut the substance. Just to pick an example: Wearing a veil or
\nhead scarf for women.<\/p>\n
Two groups differ as to whether the question here is the head
\nscarf or the idea behind it, namely that women be decently
\ndressed. Millions of Muslim women around the world shed their
\nveil and yet are still committed to their religion and lead a
\ndecent life. Are they any less Muslim?<\/p>\n
Concerns were raised again and again over the issue of civil
\nliberties, and the question is whether or not Islamic law, as
\nproposed by those who take it literally, pays full respect to
\ncivil liberties. In other parts of the Islamic world, Muslim
\nintellectuals often complain that women's issues are always at
\nthe forefront of the Muslim reformists' agenda, ignoring the real
\nproblems that plague Muslims' lives such as poverty, ignorance,
\nlack of freedom, lack of good governance, corruption, and so
\nforth.<\/p>\n
Civil liberties are seemingly always on the margin of the
\nMuslim agenda. Experiences from other Muslim countries strongly
\nindicates that enforcing Islamic law presumes the existence of a
\nclergy-like body accorded the task of overseeing the
\ncompatibility of the law being enforced with the basic teaching
\nof Islam. What ensues from here is a monopoly of interpretation
\nof religion by a particular group at the cost of banishing other
\ndivergent and dissident views. Islam always ends up with
\ndifferent interpretations.<\/p>\n
But the most important thing to consider here is that Islam is
\na matter of personal belief. What kind of state do Muslims aspire
\nto then? Here, Muslims come up with different answers. On the one
\nhand, one group of Muslims will say every Muslim should stand
\nsteadfastly for an Islamic state in its formal meaning; others
\nwill say that it is a modern and democratic state that matters, a
\nstate where Muslims' right to preserve their identity is fully
\nrespected and where public affairs is run through open and fair
\ndeliberation. For the former, the name "Islam" matters very much,
\nwhile for the latter "substance" is more incumbent.<\/p>\n
Modern Islam has witnessed a heated debate between "literal"
\nand "liberal" intellectuals, the first of whom heavily emphasized
\nthe importance of form and "bottle", while the other stood for
\nthe substance and "oil". Abduh, of course, epitomized those who
\npreside over the oil than bottle. For others, oil is not enough,
\nas you need a bottle to pour it. Why not both? Learning from past
\nexperience, it's not an easy job to combine "bottle" and "oil" at
\nthe same time.<\/p>\n
Nowadays, Muslims regard the question of identity as the most
\nimportant enterprise. Wearing a veil for them is not merely a
\nmatter of fashion, a matter of "bottle". It is instead a hint of
\nidentity that distinguishes "the believers" from "un-believers".
\nIt is a matter of faith.<\/p>\n
In my personal view, it is only a democracy that serves for
\nthe best interests of both literal and liberal Muslims, for the
\npeople of "bottle" and "oil" as well. Oppression and
\nauthoritarianism only brings desperation both to literal and
\nliberal Muslims.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/bottle-and-oil-islams-classical-difficulties-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}