“Islams” and Internal Tolerance

Like a tree that grows out from a single tiny grain, blooming into a full-fledged tree, religion starts off from a simple doctrine, and then, overtime, evolves into a full-blown sophisticated faith system, branching off into sects, denominations, and schools of thought.

This is apparently the trajectory of almost all religions we know of in human history. They began as simple faith, simply because only simple faith resonates with ordinary people. It is they, not the elite or the upper class, who seem to be quick to embrace the message of the prophets. Theology in the sense of articulating religion in an intellectual discourse always comes much later in the history of religion. It is interesting that when theology enters into religion, “schism” began, triggering polarization, divide, and, at times, conflict within religious community.

This is true of Islamic history. Islamic faith began in a simple creed (syahada), and a modicum of rituals that are not so new to the Arabs since most of them (prayers, fasting, alms giving or charity, and pilgrimage) were rituals they had already been familiar with, as shown by Khalil Abd al-Karim, an Egyptian scholar, in his work The Historical Roots of Islamic Shari’a (Al-Judzur al-Tarikhiyya li al-Shari’a al-Islamiyya).

It was around a century later after the passage of the Prophet that signs of intellectualization of Islamic discourse loomed on the air, giving rise to scholarly studies on Islamic doctrines and law. The first divide started to emerge by then, causing polarization between people of reason (ahl al-ra’y) on one camp, and people of tradition (ahl al-hadith) on the other. It is followed then by the birth of Islamic sects or firqa such as Shi’a, Mu’tazila, Khawarij, Murji’ah, etc.

As Greek philosophy made its way into Islamic lands through translation movement since 9th century, the hellenization of Islamic intellectual tradition began, reshaping to certain extent the way the existing theological debate among emerging sects was conducted, making the sectarian divide within Islamic society even more acute.

To all of that was added another concomitant process where Islamic practice underwent a pluralisation resulting from the encounter between Islam and people who adhere to it and belong to diverse cultural backgrounds. Albeit sounding too exaggerating, it is not far from truth to say that Islam as practiced outside Arab land is of different “flavour” from that practiced in the Arab peninsula.

Take for instance the role and movement of women in the public sphere in Malay world, including Indonesia. Women enjoy more freedom in public sphere in Malaya society than in Arab lands. The social norms that govern women conduct in the public sphere are also more relaxed and flexible among Malay people. Men in Malay household remains acting as the leader, but women are also given share in the economic activity to support the family. A practice called harta gono-gini exists among Javanese society which means an estate or property in which both husband and wife have a shared ownership due to collaborative work they have in its accumulation.
The tendency among the orthodox ulama is to overlook such plurality that emanates from the diversity of cultural contexts into which Islam has been moulded. To them, cultural diversity in the way Islam is practiced by its adherents who belong to diverse cultural background is always seen with suspicion by the orthodoxy. They try to impose a single model of Islam on people who belong to different cultural milieus. But they never succeeded to do so.

Irrespective of strong desire of orthodox ulama to homogenize Islam, it is a fact that Islam as a historical category is always prone to the process of pluralisation and diversification; it has never been a monolithic entity. In other words, Islam is one on normative and doctrinal level, but many as a historical category. As a social phenomenon lived by people of various backgrounds, Islam has never been Islam in singular form; it is rather Islams in plural form.

It is worth noting that even the Prophet himself had prophesied such tendency toward schism and polarization within his adherents. In a tradition narrated by Abu Dawud (d. 888), Tirmizi (d. 892), and Hakim (d. 1012), the Prophet is reported to have said that the nation of Islam (umma) will be divided among themselves into 73 sects or groups in the same manner as Jews and Christian who split into 71 and 72 sects respectively. In the same tradition, the Prophet is also quoted as saying that only one sect is given salvation which comes to be called in the Islamic sectarian literatures as “the saved sect” (al-firqa al-najiya). The Prophet seemingly did not specify as to what that saved sect might be, commenting only in general tone that those who follow the path he and his companions have chosen are the saved ones, without naming any. This general characterization led to the race among various sects in Islamic history to making an exclusive claim of salvation for themselves to the exclusion of others. What follows is the “war” of claims whose tone remains so forceful even today.

It goes undoubted that diversity in any religion can be seen as sign of vitality and intellectual richness as testified to by denominational history of Islam. It gave birth to great works, creative minds and fine ideas. One of the best intellectual debates in classical Islamic history was a sectarian debate occurring in the periods between 9th-12th centuries. Fakhruddin al-Razi (d. 1209), a Muslim theologian known for his marvellous skill of debate, is a good example. He recorded his debates with various Islamic sects in areas around Central Asia and Afghanistan in his Al-Munazarat (The Disputations).

However, diversity that triggered sectarian polarization within Islamic society could result in religious intolerance and conflict too. What is peculiar to the history of sectarianism within any religion is that each sect tends to claim an absolute truth for itself to the exclusion of others. The language of sectarianism is always framed within the discourse of salvation as shown by the above Prophetic tradition. Each sect prides itself on being the sole guarantor of salvation for its followers, deeming others as following a path of gross error.

This is what made sectarian debate so emotional and, at times, end in “a war of excommunication” (or takfir, a terminology used commonly by Muslim sects). Each sect is often involved in the race toward out-Islamizing others. Terms such as “kafir” (unbeliever) or “murtad” (apostate) are often used to label other sects that belong to different school of interpretation. This happened in the history of Islamic sects: certain groups in Sunni sect, for instance, label other groups (such as Rafida) belonging to Shi’a as kafir.

The history of enmity between Islamic sects, particularly Sunni and Shi’a, still persists in modern times as evidenced by current events unfolding in Pakistan, Iraq,Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Signs of such conflict are visible also in Indonesia recently as shown by recent attack on Shi’it followers in the district of Sampang, Madura. Before that, series of violence have been suffered by minority sect called Ahmadiya whose main “sin” in the eye of the Sunni majority is its denial of final prophethood to Muhammad.

Unless kept in check, such sectarian conflict might plunge the entire society and political stability into dangerous state. The threat posed by sectarian conflicts cannot be underestimated. In a society where religion is the most effective language to articulate people’s concerns, sectarian divide could turn inflammable. The situation could worsen when the state’s law enforcement apparatus is taking side with the dominant sect, fearing to be seen as protecting the “deviant” sect, or taking no measures whatsoever to stop violence against minority sects for the same reason.

As long as the language of salvation so closely tied to the sectarian divide is still characterizing the kind of conversation and debate within Islamic society, the prospect of sectarian conflict and violence is still persisting.
There is a need to develop a new language of dialogue between Islamic sects. They need to get rid of emotional language of salvation and absolutist truth claims that often triggered violence and conflict. Internal dialogue between Muslim sects is even more urgent than dialogue with other religion. Many Muslim groups tend to have no issue to engage in a dialogue with Christian, Jews and other faiths, and deny instead the very notion of engaging in conversation with other Islamic sects they think “deviate” from the Sunni orthodoxy.

Education is crucial to the success of such internal dialogue. The prolonged suspicion between Islamic sects has been made possible through cultivating prejudices and hostilities among new generation in schools. There is a need to develop religious education with the vision to cultivating ethics of dialogue and mutual respects between sects in Islam. New Muslim generation need to learn the language of respect instead of treating other Islamic sect as “deviant” or even “apostate”.

It seems that even the very notions of “deviation”, “going astray” (sesat), “apostasy” that certain sects in Islam hastily attach to others really need re-evaluation. Do we really need those terms now? Is it in the interest of Islam and Muslim society to exchange accusation of apostasy and kafir? Such accusative language will land Muslims of various sects and schools of thought in the state of eternal suspicion which is definitely not conducive to the unity and brotherhood of Muslim people.

Instead of seeing other sects as “deviant” or sesat, it is much healthier for the purpose of forging social cohesiveness to treat them simply as “different sects” without applying judgemental terms upon them. The Sunni Muslim needs to see the Shi’ite, for instance, not as a deviant group but rather different sect which comes with different interpretation to some doctrinal issues.

The same treatment is true also of the Ahmadiyya. The fact that the later has different interpretation of the doctrine of prophecy doesn’t mean that they deserve to be called apostate as some would think. The funny thing is when certain Muslim group proposes that the only reasonable solution to the sectarian conflict is for the allegedly deviant sects to leave Islam and establish new religion as is the case with Ahmadiya in Pakistan. This is entirely unprecedented in Islamic history. Despite the fact that some classical Sunni ulama accuseed other Shi’ite sub-sects such as rafida of being “leaving Islam” or committing apostasy, they never forced them to establish new religion outside of Islam.

The recent development in post-reform Indonesia concerning inter-sectarian relation between Islamic groups is alarming and of great concern to any peace-loving people. Violent acts have been committed against minority sects which seems to be triggered by the language of hatred and the salvific discourse characteristic of sectarian polemics in the past. Only language of dialogue and mutual respect could end this cycle of sectarian conflict, particularly internal dialogue.[]