The Muslims who do not look like Muslims

Ulil Abshar-Abdalla, Head, Research and Human Resource, Development Institute, Nahdlatul Ulama, Jakarta

In The Washington Post on March 9, Mona El Tahawy eloquently discussed the stereotypes that have painted Muslims into the rather ridiculous picture of women being wrapped in burqa, and men in beards and turbans. When El Tahawy, a U.S.-based writer originating from Egypt, appeared on television, her friend remarked that she "doesn't look like a Muslim" -- she had not worn a headscarf. To look like a Muslim, you must let yourself be pulled into "boxes" of decades-old stereotypes.

This is the dilemma facing the world's liberal Muslims In western countries, Islam is a reminder of a "medieval religion", the modern version of which might be found in "Talibanism".

In Muslim countries, the more you stick to a strict doctrine of Islam, the better Muslim you are.

What is the definition of "good Muslims", and who defines it? A person is regarded as Muslim as long as he professes the creed of the shahadat (acknowledging that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His prophet). This is a "minimalist definition" of Islam. In a Javanese environment, the performance of the daily prayer and fasting during Ramadhan are the tokens of a devout Muslim (santri). Minimalist Muslims are regarded as abangan, or "red people", who profess the creed without implementing the rituals; they are thus "less Islamic."

With the surge of Islamic identity over the last 10 years in Indonesia, the abangan have been subject to re-Islamization. A scholar has indicated the blurring of the demarcation line between devout and less-devout Muslims. Here, the phenomenon is more likely the wave of Islamization swallowing up the "red people".

Defining "Muslimness" has entered a new stage as the politics of identity has recently become the center of Islamic discourse, in which identity has been more related to symbolic appearances.

The game of identity is also marked by a strong inclination among Muslims to return to the scripture. Such a discourse has been called upon by Muslim reformers since the turning of 20th century.

Muhammadiyah, one of the country's two largest Muslims organizations, was the first group here which echoed the call for a return to the scripture, which was pioneered by the icons of Islamic reformism, Jamaluddin Al Afghani and Muhammad Abduh.

However, the discourse evolves into a new stage when it denotes the literal understanding of scripture. To Al Afghani and Abduh, the call means a return to the original spirit of Islam, not -- to borrow the words of the late president Sukarno -- "the ashes of Islam" that results from the ossified interpretation of the religion.

Among "newly reborn Muslims", the call means a literal return to the scripture with a total dismissal of the thoughtful tradition of interpretation in Islamic intellectual history. This new wave of scripturalism is shaping the core identity of Muslimness in the modern world.

Ironically the scriptural inclination among Muslims confirms the commonly upheld image in the western media of Islam as a conservative religion, a religion that mistreats women, as demonstrated abhorrently by Talibanism. Scripturalism captures the mind of outsiders as the sole determination of Muslimness.

The scripturalist Muslims say that the indulgence in liberal interpretation of Islam defies the original and pristine doctrine of the Prophet. The Prophet is quoted as saying that any innovation in the doctrine of Islam is strongly prohibited. Liberal interpretation of Islam is seen as tantamount to the innovation (bid'ah) prohibited by the Prophet.

The liberal standpoint looks "un-Islamic" as it contradicts the image of Islam as a misogynist religion. If you don't cover your head you are on low moral ground to speak about Islam. If you cover your head, you must speak in the language of conservatives. A middle way is hardly found.

The conservatives seem to have an upper hand in defining "good Muslims". A London-based Pakistani writer, Ziauddin Sardar, recently coined the term "the talibanization of Islam". Islam is apparently defined according to the "talibanistic" point of view. Muslims and non-Muslims unfortunately share the definition.

The definition contradicts the very fact that Islam has different faces due to different cultural influences and social changes. There is no such thing as a single "Muslim community". Since the passing of the Prophet, Islam has been subject to doctrinal and political divide.

The ensuing encounter between Islam and different localities has created a variety of interpretations, constituting a rich intellectual tradition of Islamic thought. As the Paris-based professor Muhammad Arkoun said, it is impossible to talk about Islam in a singular manner; it is always "Islam" in the plural form.

The liberal standpoint has been part of that tradition of Islamic intellectual endeavor. Numerous Muslim scholars courageously pursue an appropriate interpretation of Islamic doctrines in resonance with changing social and political contexts. Ibn Rushd (1126-1198), a Cordovan Muslim philosopher and jurist, is among the most prominent icons of the liberal strand in Islamic intellectual history.

In a short treatise to defend the liberal standpoint, Ibn Rushd said that an apparent contradiction that conservatives point to between reason and revelation is absolutely unacceptable. A well-reasoned argument (sharihul ma'qul) should match a validly transmitted injunction of religion (shahihul manqul). There is no contradiction whatsoever between scripture and human rational endeavor.

The basic principle of Islamic liberalism is a conviction that Islamic revelation is a progressive revelation, not a static one. The orthodox interpretation of Islam says that the Koran is verbally revealed to Muhammad, culminating the long revelation began in Abraham's period. The Koran is final and complete.

The doctrine of finality and completeness has been used by some conservatives to justify a scriptural interpretation of Islam. Muslims must abide by Islamic injunctions as verbally provisioned in the Koran, and avoid venturing into unwarranted liberal interpretation. The doctrine of finality implies a notion of the Koran as a static, not progressive revelation.

To Islamic liberalism, the Koran must remain an open book that allows as many interpretations as possible. While verbal revelation is finished, the Koran is a silent script that needs humans to make it speak to the people. As a verbal script, the Koran would not speak directly to Muslims without the help of interpreters. The role of humans is thus pivotal in the interpretation of the Koran.

The authority of interpretation cannot rest only with certain groups of clerics. As the Koran spoke to all Muslims, all have the right to interpretation. Revelation is thus continuous and progressive. It is continuous because the verbal script of the Koran is always subject to different interpretation. It is progressive because the way a Muslim understands and interprets the scripture is also progressing in such a way that resonates with social and political changes.

Islam is the property of all, not just the conservatives. Liberal Muslims need not fear of being said to be "not looking like Muslims".