Islamic discourses on interreligious issues in Indonesia

Mujiburrahman Paris

Over the past two decades, debates and controversies have abounded among Indonesian Muslims on the interpretations of Islamic theological and legal doctrines on interreligious relations. The variety of Muslim opinion stems from their different methods of interpretation, socio-political developments in the country and transnational interactions.

To simplify the complexities of the various opinions and discourses on this issue, it would be helpful to put them into two opposite groups: The first group is those who try to find similarities, parallels and common ground with other religions; and the second is those who attempt to assert differences, borders and clear-cut religious identities. The first group can be called "inclusive"; and the second, "exclusive".

Those who have tried to find a theological common ground between Islam and other religions have attempted to develop at least three lines of discourse.

First, those who argue that Islam does not only mean a religion revealed to Muhammad, but also a religion revealed to other prophets, including Jesus. In this regard, the term Islam is understood in its generic meaning, that is, a total submission to God.

According to this interpretation, although the form of Islam revealed to Muhammad is the perfect one, it does not abrogate the other "Islams". Those who believe in other "Islams", therefore, can attain salvation. Who are they?

To answer this question, this group refers to the Koranic term ahl al-kitab, which means "people of the book". According to the classical Koran exegesis, the term refers exclusively to Jews and Christians, but inclusive Muslims argue that the term also includes Buddhists, Hindus and Confucians.

Secondly, there is another group going further than the first. This group believes in what is called the perennial philosophy, al-hikma al-khalida. According to this philosophy, every authentic religious tradition has two levels of truth: the esoteric and the exoteric.

The third is the group trying to avoid the metaphysical speculation of theology and find a more "down-to-earth" formulation. This group usually emphasizes the ethical dimensions of religion as the common ground for interreligious cooperation.

Inspired by the Catholic liberation theology and its parallels in Islamic discourses developed by Hassan Hanafi and Asghar Ali, this group promotes the idea of "social justice for all."

What are the responses of the opposite group? This group will say that, while it is true that all religions revealed to the prophets are essentially Islam, when the Prophet Muhammad came, he was the unifier of all prophets. Thus, everybody should believe in his message, including the ahl al-kitab -- which only comprises Jews and Christians for exclusive Muslims -- and if they did not, they would go to hell.

With regards the perennial philosophy, this group argues that it is a heretical doctrine that was rejected by the ulema. They further argue that, theologically speaking, no good reason exists to claim that Islam is the same as other religions. How can we say, for instance, that the Christian doctrine of trinity is equal to tawhid, the strict monotheism of Islam?

As for the idea of social justice for all, this group can accept it, but it should be put under an Islamic framework because only an "Islamic system" can lead people to real social justice.

What about Islamic legal issues? Among those issues discussed by Indonesian Muslims are apostasy, attending Christmas celebrations, interreligious marriages and inheritance.

According to classical Islamic jurisprudence fiqh, a male apostate will be given capital punishment, while a female apostate will be jailed until she repents.

For the inclusive group, fiqh is no longer feasible. First of all, it goes against religious freedom guaranteed by Islam -- that is, religion is not compulsive.

Second, the law of apostasy -- hukm al-ridda -- was applied in classical Islam in a very specific context, when all male Muslims were also soldiers. Thus, within this context, apostasy means high treason against the state.

On the other hand, there are at least two positions among the exclusivists. One, they believe that the law of apostasy is still relevant today, but because Indonesia is not an Islamic state, the law cannot be applied in the country. Two, there is a more radical opinion saying that the law of apostasy should be developed further.

Based on the perceived aggressive Christianization in the country, the exclusive group suggests Muslims use the law of apostasy against missionaries. The rationale is that, if the Muslim apostate is punished by capital punishment, then the missionary who caused the apostasy also deserves the same.

With regards the issue of Christmas celebrations, the inclusive group says Muslims are allowed to say "Merry Christmas" to Christians and attend the celebration, as long as they do not engage in Christian rites. For the exclusivists, it is unlawful -- haram -- for a Muslim to attend any Christmas celebrations, because participating in the celebration implies that the attendee also believes in Jesus the same way as Christians. Similar argument is also used to discourage Muslims from wishing a "Merry Christmas" to their Christian neighbors.

Moreover, the inclusive group has tried to reinterpret the Islamic rule on interreligious marriages. They argued that as no explicit statement existed in the Koran forbidding a female Muslim to marry a male ahl al-kitab, the prohibition was just a matter of human efforts to interpret the divine message. Thus, in line with socio-political developments in the modern world, this group proposes another line of reasoning to permit interreligious marriages, regardless of the sexes.

In contrast, the exclusivists take at least two positions: One is based on the classical point of view, that only a male Muslim is allowed to marry a female non-Muslim, not vice-versa. The other position is to close the door to interreligious marriages, completely, regardless of the sexes.

The argument is, although a male Muslim is allowed to marry a female non-Muslim, due to the situation in Indonesia where interreligious marriage is allegedly used for religious proselytization -- especially by Christians -- it is safer to prohibit it as a preventive action.

As for the inheritance law, the exclusive group is still attached to the classical idea that non-Muslims cannot inherit from Muslims, regardless of their blood relationships.

In contrast, the inclusive group believes non-Muslims have the right to inherit from their Muslim families. They argue that it was the prophet's saying, not the Koran, that prohibited non- Muslims to inherit from their Muslim family.

For the time being, the inclusive discourses seem to be attracting more and more of the Muslim middle class in the country.

Certainly, this will also depend on the mode of interaction between the inclusive and the exclusive proponents' discourse and how the other non-Islamic religious groups, especially Christians -- who are considered the "most significant other" to Muslims, develop their discourse on similar issues.

The writer is a Ph.D. Candidate at ISIM/ Utrecht University in the Netherlands.