Challenging Liberal Islam

Title: Islam Liberal dan Fundamental; Sebuah Pertarungan Wacana (Liberal and Fundamental Islam; a Battle of Discourse) 
Author: Ulil Abshar Abdalla Dkk.
Publisher: ElsaQ. Jogyakarta
Edition: I February 2003. II April 2003
Pages: I-x + 290 Hal.

The second edition of the anthology written in response to the controversy over Ulil Abshar Abdalla’s article published in the Kompas daily (18/11/2002) has been published within two months of the release of the first edition. It is an extraordinary achievement. The main idea of that controversial article is that Islamic teaching, as given in the Alquran, should always be interpreted in the context of particular society’s progress in different times and places. This compulsion is not because Islamic teachings should be opportunistically synchronized for every contemporary situation, but now because of the epoch’s demands and because the characteristics of the Indonesian context makes it a necessity.

Abdalla suggested firstly, the broad argument, that a non-literal and substantial interpretation is needed which suits the rhythm of the constant transformation of human civilization.

Secondly, he proposed an Islamic interpretation which separates the local cultural elements from the fundamental values of Islam. Thirdly, he suggested that the Muslim community should not consider themselves as an isolated “society” or “ummah” any longer. In his view humans are tied together as a universal family. Humanity is a value which is in line with Islamic values and not the opposite.

Moreover as humans are all equal, the prohibition of inter-religious marriage is irrelevant and must be amended, since it is not compatible to the spirit of Islam’s presence (moreover, Alquran has not explicitly condemned it). Fourthly, he suggested that there is an urgent need to distinguish political authority and religious authority. His conclusion is that the Muslim community should resolutely distinguish between Islam and Islamic understanding.

The public response to these propositions was diverse. Accordingly there are at least three groups of respondents in the book. Firstly, there are those who support Abdala’s notions. Their contributions endorse his suggestions. To them, his argument is an urgent demand to wed contemporary religion with contemporary social reality. Yet for Ratno Lukito (35) that writing is only examples of the voice of the brilliant youngster who get bored of the current situation where society cannot seize the Islamic vital élan. It means, how can Islamic doctrine accepted in the very much different life to the period when Islam is firstly revealed.

The second group is they who give constructive critic. It is represented by Musthafa Bisri, Haidar Bagir dan A. Gaus AF. The different is that Gus Mus (Musthafa Bisri) tried to criticize the delivery method which is “furious” and provoke them who were considered as the source of Islamic inhospitality in Indonesia. Due to this “enthusiasm”, the thinking lucidity which has to be the guide is barely visible. Instead of fighting the “enthusiastic” religious community without sufficient understanding which often damages the religion, Ulil is even taking the same attitude; due to his enthusiasm fighting “Islamic enemy” has blurred up the thinking lucidity he wanted to convey. While Gaus criticized the notion as well as the campaign target which he considered as “old”. To him it is not the time for society but for institution and authority which constrained the people’s freedom to perform their belief and not repeating “the must or the must not” since it is the area of fiqh ijtihadi (individual interpretation and judgment). So that what has been obsessed by Ulil would be more meaningful.

Meanwhile, Haidar Bagir questioned his thinking methodology.

To him, Ulil’s article is buds of thinking, whereas how would that buds produced are not discussed, hence many things require methodological explanations. Haidar give an example in the case of hijab/veil, beard, stoning and robe, Ulil mixed the issues based on Alqur’an guidance which is considered as validly transmitted (qath’iy wurud) and almost valid in the meaning (qathi al dilalah), like veil and hand amputation, with the controversial textual supported cases like maintaining beard, shortening pants, and even the stoning (the stoning case is not mentioned in Alqur’an).

In fact, the obligation of wearing hijab, in the meaning of outfit covering the whole body except face and both hands is explicitly mentioned in Alqur’an. So if it is interpreted in a different way, an affirmative argumentation is needed. And addressing the imperfectness “Medina Islam” toward the Prophet needs more explanation, since the Messenger is guided directly by Allah, except it would later distinguish the authority of Muhammad as the Messenger and as the ordinary man.

The third party is people who made a demarcation line with Liberal Islam since the first time. Hence they denied and tended to judge Ulil’s idea and notion resolutely and little bit emotionally. Furthermore they responded it by using different method and base. It is hard to meet both of them up. Both are opposites. For example when responding Ulil’s statement “there is no God’s law” they sporadically face him with the verse “whoso judges not by that which Allah hath revealed; such are evil-livers (Al Maidah 47) and “That is the judgment of Allah. He judges between you. Allah is knower, Wise.” (Qs. Almumtahanah: 10) (p. 356)

However, the presence of this book should be positively appreciated, since besides bringing together several articles from diverse sources, it also contains several reports and interviews including one posting between Abdalla and one of the Muslim figures in Makassar. This posting is interesting since it concerns some of the keywords inciting this larger controversy in contemporary Indonesia. 

This collection is akin to a public viewing of the building of liberal Islam and the roots of the controversy. People have not had sufficient opportunity for an explanation, because the controversy has been dispersed across various media, and in space and time, and this has made the possibility of distortions of the issues at hand larger. This book acts as a bridge which people should cross before making decisions about whether to defend, deny or choose simplistically between the two paradigms of thinking known as “Liberal” and “Fundamental”. Happy reading!