Islamic discourses on interreligious issues in Indonesia<\/p>\n
Mujiburrahman
\nParis<\/p>\n
Over the past two decades, debates and controversies have
\nabounded among Indonesian Muslims on the interpretations of
\nIslamic theological and legal doctrines on interreligious
\nrelations. The variety of Muslim opinion stems from their
\ndifferent methods of interpretation, socio-political developments
\nin the country and transnational interactions.<\/p>\n
To simplify the complexities of the various opinions and
\ndiscourses on this issue, it would be helpful to put them into
\ntwo opposite groups: The first group is those who try to find
\nsimilarities, parallels and common ground with other religions;
\nand the second is those who attempt to assert differences,
\nborders and clear-cut religious identities. The first group can
\nbe called \"inclusive\"; and the second, \"exclusive\".<\/p>\n
Those who have tried to find a theological common ground
\nbetween Islam and other religions have attempted to develop at
\nleast three lines of discourse.<\/p>\n
First, those who argue that Islam does not only mean a
\nreligion revealed to Muhammad, but also a religion revealed to
\nother prophets, including Jesus. In this regard, the term Islam
\nis understood in its generic meaning, that is, a total submission
\nto God.<\/p>\n
According to this interpretation, although the form of Islam
\nrevealed to Muhammad is the perfect one, it does not abrogate the
\nother \"Islams\". Those who believe in other \"Islams\", therefore,
\ncan attain salvation. Who are they?<\/p>\n
To answer this question, this group refers to the Koranic term
\nahl al-kitab, which means \"people of the book\". According to the
\nclassical Koran exegesis, the term refers exclusively to Jews and
\nChristians, but inclusive Muslims argue that the term also
\nincludes Buddhists, Hindus and Confucians.<\/p>\n
Secondly, there is another group going further than the first.
\nThis group believes in what is called the perennial philosophy,
\nal-hikma al-khalida. According to this philosophy, every
\nauthentic religious tradition has two levels of truth: the
\nesoteric and the exoteric.<\/p>\n
The third is the group trying to avoid the metaphysical
\nspeculation of theology and find a more \"down-to-earth\"
\nformulation. This group usually emphasizes the ethical dimensions
\nof religion as the common ground for interreligious cooperation.<\/p>\n
Inspired by the Catholic liberation theology and its parallels
\nin Islamic discourses developed by Hassan Hanafi and Asghar Ali,
\nthis group promotes the idea of \"social justice for all.\"<\/p>\n
What are the responses of the opposite group? This group will
\nsay that, while it is true that all religions revealed to the
\nprophets are essentially Islam, when the Prophet Muhammad came,
\nhe was the unifier of all prophets. Thus, everybody should
\nbelieve in his message, including the ahl al-kitab -- which only
\ncomprises Jews and Christians for exclusive Muslims -- and if
\nthey did not, they would go to hell.<\/p>\n
With regards the perennial philosophy, this group argues that
\nit is a heretical doctrine that was rejected by the ulema. They
\nfurther argue that, theologically speaking, no good reason exists
\nto claim that Islam is the same as other religions. How can we
\nsay, for instance, that the Christian doctrine of trinity is
\nequal to tawhid, the strict monotheism of Islam?<\/p>\n
As for the idea of social justice for all, this group can
\naccept it, but it should be put under an Islamic framework
\nbecause only an \"Islamic system\" can lead people to real social
\njustice.<\/p>\n
What about Islamic legal issues? Among those issues discussed
\nby Indonesian Muslims are apostasy, attending Christmas
\ncelebrations, interreligious marriages and inheritance.<\/p>\n
According to classical Islamic jurisprudence fiqh, a male
\napostate will be given capital punishment, while a female
\napostate will be jailed until she repents.<\/p>\n
For the inclusive group, fiqh is no longer feasible. First of
\nall, it goes against religious freedom guaranteed by Islam --
\nthat is, religion is not compulsive.<\/p>\n
Second, the law of apostasy -- hukm al-ridda -- was applied in
\nclassical Islam in a very specific context, when all male Muslims
\nwere also soldiers. Thus, within this context, apostasy means
\nhigh treason against the state.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, there are at least two positions among the
\nexclusivists. One, they believe that the law of apostasy is still
\nrelevant today, but because Indonesia is not an Islamic state,
\nthe law cannot be applied in the country. Two, there is a more
\nradical opinion saying that the law of apostasy should be
\ndeveloped further.<\/p>\n
Based on the perceived aggressive Christianization in the
\ncountry, the exclusive group suggests Muslims use the law of
\napostasy against missionaries. The rationale is that, if the
\nMuslim apostate is punished by capital punishment, then the
\nmissionary who caused the apostasy also deserves the same.<\/p>\n
With regards the issue of Christmas celebrations, the
\ninclusive group says Muslims are allowed to say \"Merry Christmas\"
\nto Christians and attend the celebration, as long as they do not
\nengage in Christian rites. For the exclusivists, it is unlawful
\n-- haram -- for a Muslim to attend any Christmas celebrations,
\nbecause participating in the celebration implies that the
\nattendee also believes in Jesus the same way as Christians.
\nSimilar argument is also used to discourage Muslims from wishing
\na \"Merry Christmas\" to their Christian neighbors.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the inclusive group has tried to reinterpret the
\nIslamic rule on interreligious marriages. They argued that as no
\nexplicit statement existed in the Koran forbidding a female
\nMuslim to marry a male ahl al-kitab, the prohibition was just a
\nmatter of human efforts to interpret the divine message. Thus, in
\nline with socio-political developments in the modern world, this
\ngroup proposes another line of reasoning to permit interreligious
\nmarriages, regardless of the sexes.<\/p>\n
In contrast, the exclusivists take at least two positions: One
\nis based on the classical point of view, that only a male Muslim
\nis allowed to marry a female non-Muslim, not vice-versa. The
\nother position is to close the door to interreligious marriages,
\ncompletely, regardless of the sexes.<\/p>\n
The argument is, although a male Muslim is allowed to marry a
\nfemale non-Muslim, due to the situation in Indonesia where
\ninterreligious marriage is allegedly used for religious
\nproselytization -- especially by Christians -- it is safer to
\nprohibit it as a preventive action.<\/p>\n
As for the inheritance law, the exclusive group is still
\nattached to the classical idea that non-Muslims cannot inherit
\nfrom Muslims, regardless of their blood relationships.<\/p>\n
In contrast, the inclusive group believes non-Muslims have the
\nright to inherit from their Muslim families. They argue that it
\nwas the prophet's saying, not the Koran, that prohibited non-
\nMuslims to inherit from their Muslim family.<\/p>\n
For the time being, the inclusive discourses seem to be
\nattracting more and more of the Muslim middle class in the
\ncountry.<\/p>\n
Certainly, this will also depend on the mode of interaction
\nbetween the inclusive and the exclusive proponents' discourse and
\nhow the other non-Islamic religious groups, especially Christians
\n-- who are considered the \"most significant other\" to Muslims,
\ndevelop their discourse on similar issues.<\/p>\n
The writer is a Ph.D. Candidate at ISIM\/ Utrecht University in
\nthe Netherlands.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/islamic-discourses-on-interreligious-issues-in-indonesia-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}