State 'must stay away from religious debate'<\/p>\n
The government has been pressed by religious leaders and
\nscholars to take a clear stance on religious fanaticism. The
\nJakarta Post's Hera Diani talked with Abdul Kader Tayob, a
\nprofessor of Islamic studies from the University of Nijmegen's
\nInternational Institute for the Study of Islam in the
\nNetherlands. The following are excerpts from the interview.<\/p>\n
Question: What are your observations of the contemporary
\nMuslim movement in Indonesia?<\/p>\n
Answer: What is remarkable about Indonesia is the extent to
\nwhich Nurcholish Madjid -- and more recently the Liberal Islam
\nNetwork (JIL) -- have thought through modern Islam, so both
\nnon-Muslims and Muslims who have different perspectives (are
\naccommodated).<\/p>\n
It is striking for me to see debates and discussions taking
\nplace among academics and the members of non-governmental
\norganizations (NGOs) -- and how Indonesians can step back and
\nactually look at Islamic ideas, the history of Islamic thought.<\/p>\n
I know Indonesians are worried about radicalization and I do
\nnot blame them. You can look at them (radicals) as
\nopportunists or a social phenomena. In a way, they are coming
\nback from the institutions, they don't have a place in modern
\nsociety, so they make a place for themselves.<\/p>\n
In a way they are also forcing the limits and challenges of
\nthe democratization process. And I think that kind of challenge
\nhas to be looked at from a different point of view.<\/p>\n
From the state's point of view, it usually wants to control
\nradical groups -- the state tend to support the moderate.
\nHowever, the state needs to keep its distance from the religious
\ndebate as its (involvement) would only cause more trouble. The
\nstate cannot make a decision about what is correct or incorrect
\nin Islam.<\/p>\n
But the state can and should establish limits. You can say
\nwhatever you like, but you cannot attack somebody for what they
\nare saying. That is the basic liberty that a state can define.<\/p>\n
From an intellectual point of view, one has to historicize
\nintellectual tradition. You need to look at all Islamic ideas as
\ncoming from a particular historical context.<\/p>\n
From the little bit I know -- I'm not an expert -- some say
\nthat Nurcholish is followed by JIL, but they are actually
\ndifferent. When speaking about secularization, for example, he
\nwas speaking about values, issues that brought human values
\nsupported by Islam. Therefore, we can take a secular approach to
\npolitics, economics, as long as we have (Islamic) values.<\/p>\n
But the JIL that I've seen so far seems to have a
\nhermeunetical approach.<\/p>\n
I have my own sympathy with the liberal, but their approach is
\nhermeunetical, which means you cannot choose between one
\ninterpretation and another. So, they really will have to accept
\nthat there are going to be conservatives, other Muslims who want
\nsharia and those who say that sharia is impossible. That is where
\nthe state comes in. The state has to allow for all of that, as
\nlong as there are some basic values. And that is basically the
\nchallenge.<\/p>\n
What is the role of the ulema council and its fatwa in the
\nstate?<\/p>\n
Twenty to 30 years ago, people said that the ulema
\norganization was going to disappear. But in fact it has survived.<\/p>\n
I think mullahs are playing a role in the public morality
\nissue.<\/p>\n
In many cases the mullahs agree with the state, so they are
\nnot going to play a critical role in the state. But they are also
\nresponding to what maybe called a narrow sense of individuals'
\nreligious needs. Like, for example, whether Muslims could attend
\nChristian celebrations in the early 1980s -- they took a stance.<\/p>\n
In that sense, the disbandment of the Indonesian Ulema Council
\n(MUI) has been suggested. What do you think?<\/p>\n
On the one hand I can see the value of criticism. But on the
\nother hand, while the council is not to have the final say, its
\nvalue is to bring a consensus and to assure people they are not
\nalone.<\/p>\n
You cannot reach a consensus in Islam, but you can, maybe,
\nreach a basic agreement on something that is essential. And I can
\nsee how it might work here, like, for instance, how to decide
\nwhen Ramadhan starts.<\/p>\n
What about the adoption of sharia law, the caning of gamblers?
\nShould the state interfere in that?<\/p>\n
When somebody introduces sharia, it should be clear how it
\nrelates to other laws. You cannot have sharia without recognition
\nof the Constitution. If it was going to be state law, the legal
\nimplications for non-Muslims would need to be considered.<\/p>\n
Sharia itself is not as comprehensive as people think it is.
\nIt doesn't detail legal procedures, nor rehabilitation.<\/p>\n
Sharia does not necessarily solve problems, and can cause more
\nproblems. It often targets women and is more about punishments
\nand restrictions.<\/p>\n
People who are applying sharia think they can determine public
\nmorality. I think what they do not take into consideration is
\nindividual morality, they are not thinking about how to address
\nand respond to the various influences in society.<\/p>\n
I think the state should interfere in the caning of gamblers
\n(in Aceh).<\/p>\n
If people want to solve the problems of crimes, lawlessness,
\nmorality, I think the approach should be that sharia should add
\nvalue to the legal system. Only then would people support it.<\/p>\n
Everyone talks about the purification of Islam, both radical
\nand liberal groups. How would you bridge the gap between those
\ngroups? Is that the state's job?<\/p>\n
I don't know whether it's going to be possible to bridge it. I
\nthink the diversity of Muslims is an inherent part of Islam.
\nDiversity, pluralism these are unavoidable in Islam.<\/p>\n
The basic principle in Islamic thought is that when one holds
\nan opinion, it is possible that the opinion is wrong.
\nUnfortunately, somebody always want to be an authority. But the
\nreality is nobody can claim authority. So, right in the heart of
\nIslamic thought you will find pluralism.<\/p>\n
When people say that Koran says no to pluralism, actually they
\nhave not even read the Koran. Because there are verses that are
\nnot very clear and verses that appear to be contradictory, but
\nMuslim scholars say you have to look at the historical context.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/state-must-stay-away-from-religious-debate-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}