Forbidding pluralism and tolerance

Forbidding pluralism and tolerance

Edwin Arifin, Jakarta

Pluralism has been formally forbidden, according to one of the
Indonesian Ulema Council's (MUI) most recent fatwa.

Let us, however, take the MUI genie out of the bottle: What
form of pluralism, exactly, is meant by the edict? Pluralism
isn't simply an appreciation of diversity but rather an active
engagement between different religions. Neither is pluralism
merely about tolerance, it is more an active rational
communication aimed at producing an understanding.

Most importantly, pluralism is different from and does not
necessarily lead to relativism. Pluralism generally does not
claim that all religions are absolutely true. Pluralism does not
say all truth is relative, but it does accept different responses
to truth that are conditioned by history and culture. Truth in
pluralism is different from the specific truth claims of the
world's religions.

No truth, subjected to human understanding, is perfectly
interpreted. The different abilities of people and the labyrinth-
like structure of truth are some of the reasons for the many
religions in the world. It is through acknowledging these
differences that the recognition of religions and their ethical
responsibilities to each other can be realized.

MUI's fatwa also seems to contradict the idea that pluralism
has consistently been an integral part of Islam and Indonesia.
Nothing can be more unambiguous about the persisting pluralism in
Islam than the history of the religion's legal experience. In the
early centuries of Islam, there were a burgeoning number of legal
schools of thought, each one named after its symbolic founder.

Though they later decreased in number, there still prevail an
astounding heterogeneity of legal opinions and trends even within
each of the surviving Muslim schools worldwide, including in
Indonesia. This diversity prevents a particular view becoming a
hegemony by stressing the multiple signs of God and a refusal of
the institutionalization of truth. No one Muslim should have the
right to monopolize an interpretation of a text or the truth when
there are so many interpretations.

Further, in socially and culturally diverse Indonesia,
plurality -- the reality -- has almost always been connected to
pluralism -- the idea. Differences in adat (custom) and
religions, as well as their relations to the state, allow a kind
of internalized pluralism to take place.

At the core of a society's self-definition is a consciousness
of another, different, society. Without this "other", a society
would lack its identity. Such plurality is Indonesia's very
essence. It is right to say that to deny plurality leads to a
shattering of the very core of the country's self-definition as
an imagined community. Putting it more simply, this country was
formed on the idea of unity in diversity -- even if this concept
was often made a mockery of by an authoritarian state.

Of course, pluralism is endangered when power intervenes. Most
often, opponents of pluralism are motivated not by the sacred but
by more mundane ideas.

If MUI's fatwa is meant to show a determination to win the
"war of ideas against liberal Islam", the first casualty in the
war has already fallen: Rational communication.

When communication is unilaterally impeded, what hope there is
to solve other social problems.

A war of ideas can't be won simply by banning those ideas we
don't like. "Creative attitudes among a handful of worshipers"
won't be reduced by a prohibition. And the tactlessness of MUI's
"firm stance" could well backfire, eroding the council's
traditional authority.

In times when Indonesia remains a battleground for ideas, the
fight between cultural heterogeny and homogeneity heating up, we
are in dire need of more dialog.

Epistemic communities born in an age where liberal and
conservative values compete can find themselves part of a global
religious resurgence; a movement toward conservatism or
fundamentalism; or an extreme God-denying liberalism. It is,
however, rather difficult to envisage Indonesia being either
completely Islamic or totally secular.

The country will unlikely be taken over by extremists because
of its defense mechanisms. Any attempt to dominate ideas in
Indonesia will have to transform existing power structures in
order to do so. Every expression of domination, however, will
likely invite a counteraction. Extreme views, therefore, may gain
some currency but are unlikely to become paramount.

Out the dialectics of the two opposing extremes, in which none
will emerge as absolute winner or loser, different cultural
traditions will likely continue to diffuse and produce even more
hybrids. Therefore, Indonesia's religious-political universe will
continue along the middle path; the way of moderation.

Simultaneously, fed up to the teeth by religious dialectics,
both in the form of conservatism and liberalism, indifference
toward religious matters and controversies may consequently
become more entrenched among the general public.

Here, in a society where religion derives its chief importance
from its function as a symbol of group identity and self esteem,
the Indonesian political arena; a mirror of the politics of
meaning, will continue to need pluralism.

The writer is a researcher at the Reform Institute, and can be
contacted at edwinarifin@yahoo.com. The views expressed here are
personal ones.