'Death fatwa': Death of religious tolerance?

'Death fatwa': Death of religious tolerance?

Azyumardi Azra, Professor of History Rector, Syarif Hidayatullah
State Islamic University, Jakarta

Reason and intellectualism, for sure, cannot be condemned to
death, by a religious ruling (fatwa), conveniently called "death
fatwa". Even though the verdict is based on certain religious
understanding and justification, the death fatwa in many respects
is counterproductive to solving differences of opinions and
interpretations among Muslims, let alone to put the last nail to
the coffin of reason and intellectualism.

The death fatwa, issued by persons or bodies without authority
regarding the methodology of Islamic law (usul al-fiqh), is not
only invalid, but is contrary to the Islamic teachings of the
freedom of thought and belief. This freedom is repeatedly
emphasized in the Koran (Al-Baqarah:256; Yunus:99; Hud:28; Al-
Gashiya:21-22; An-Nahl:25).

No doubt freedom of expression is a basic human right. A
speech, writing, work of art, or any other human expression
cannot by any means persuade a deviation from Islamic values or a
perpetration of what is prohibited.

By the same token, in any expression of thoughts or feelings
by words, drawing, music, performance or otherwise, a Muslim
should observe the values and ethics of Islam. Therefore, should
any writing or statement contains controversy, the best way to
respond to it is not by issuing a death fatwa, but rather by
proposing counter argument.

This is the best way to maintain the human rights of
expression and wisdom. Exchange of arguments is essential for a
healthy and constructive dialog, which must be conducted within
methodological and ethical guidelines on all sides involving in a
disputation.

Recent reports revealed that a religious ruling (fatwa) was
issued by the Indonesian People's Ulema Forum (Forum Ulama Ummat
Indonesia). Led by Athian Ali Dai in Bandung, West Java, FUUI
declared that Ulil Abshar Abdalla of Islamic Liberal Network
(JIL) has blasphemed Islam and the Prophet Muhammad and,
therefore, is liable to that capital punishment.

However FUUI denied the reports: Athian said the FUUI did not
issue a fatwa, but only said, among a number of things, that
anybody who insults Islam and the Prophet Muhammad is liable to
such punishment.

Nevertheless the reports have not only created furor; damage
has also been done on the image of Islam in this country.
Furthermore, for many the view that anyone deserves to die for
airing a certain opinion has undoubtedly added evidence of
increased intolerance and radicalism among Indonesian Muslims.

Although certain circles of Indonesian Muslims, like the group
of Ali Dai, have for sometime resented the Islamic Liberal
Network for their "liberal views" on Islam, it was Ulil's article
in Kompas on Nov. 18, that triggered the view on the capital
punishment.

His article appeals for the "rejuvenation" of the
understanding of Islamic doctrines through certain ways. First,
there should be a critical examination of the understanding of
Islam as whole.

For Muslim to achieve progress, there should be a substantive,
contextual, and non-literal interpretation of Islam. Second, a
correct understanding and interpretation of Islam should
distinguish between the original Islamic teachings and those
originated from Arab culture and tradition. Third, Muslims must
not view themselves as separated and exclusive community vis-a-
vis other (non-Muslim) communities. Fourth, Muslims should
establish social structures that separate religion and politics.

All of these issues are not new in the history of intellectual
discourse of Islam in Indonesia in particular. Most of the issues
outlined in a rather brief way by Ulil Abshar have been put
forward by such prominent scholars as Nurcholish Madjid,
Abdurrahman Wahid, Munawir Sjadzali and others in the last three
decades at least.

Nurcholish in the early 1970s appealed for "secularization" of
Muslim society and separation of Islam and politics (Islam yes,
Islamic party no); Abdurrahman urged for "pribumisasi"
(indigenization) of Islam; and Munawir appealed for
"reactualization" of Islam especially through reforms of Islamic
law by proposing equal distribution of inheritance among sons and
daughters of deceased parents. But none of these Muslim thinkers
have been condemned by a death fatwa.

So why did Ulil's writing spark bitterness and anger among
those involved in the FUUI? I believe this is for two main
reasons. First, the tone of writing is full of strong language
and anger reflecting that the writing as an obsession rather than
a reasonable proposal.

Second, certain details of Ulil's arguments were considered
inappropriate, if not blasphemous. These include his argument
that such practices as the use of jilbab (headscarf), amputation
of parts of body and stoning to death are Arab social practices
rather than Islamic teachings. Or, that the life of the Prophet
Muhammad should be examined in a critical manner, so that Muslims
would not view him as a mythical figure. As a result, the writing
as a whole was considered by the FUUI as a blasphemy against the
Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

The differences in the religious opinions (ijtihad) and
religious rulings are not new among the ulema; in fact the
exixtence of various schools of legal thoughts in Islamic
jusrisprudence since early history of Islam is a living proof of
differing opinion among the ulema. Therefore what is needed among
Muslims is tolerance and respect for each other's opinion.

However, to avoid confusion among the Muslim masses, an
independent ulema or an unauthoritative Muslim group is not
encouraged to issue a fatwa. Therefore, it is a "convention"
among Indonesian Muslims, that the fatwas are valid only if they
are issued by an "official" fatwa body, either belongs to any
recognized Muslim organization or to government, in this case
MORA.

In conclusion, any ulema or Muslim group or organization
should take a very careful consideration before issuing any
fatwa. As `Ala al-Din al-Kharufah, a leading fiqh scholar at
Muhammad Ibn Sa`ud University of Medina and at International
Islamic University at Kuala Lumpur maintains, the fatwa should be
for the benefit of Islam and Muslims as whole, and not create
further confusion and conflicts among Muslims.

Not least important, he states, a fatwa should present a good
image of Islam and Muslims (di`ayah tayyibah li al-Islam wa al-
Muslimin), that Islam is a religion of tolerance, magnanimity,
and breadth.