Pseudo-Tolerance and the Future of Pluralism

“…..if it is said that the meaning of religious pluralism (al-ta’addudiyyah al-diniyyah) is that all religions are true (haq), and we disagree with this opinion, then religious pluralism essentially asserts that my religion is true and the religion of others is false (bathil). Nevertheless, they are entitled to lead a life and we can interact with them for the sake of goodness. And it is also our right to be at peace with those who solicit peace, and be at war with those who incite war. And because we believe that the religion of others is false, then it becomes our right to proselytize, inviting them to enter into our religion…”.

The foregoing excerpt refers to a statement delivered by prominent scholar (ulama) Syeikh Yusuf al-Qardlawi, as circulated online in an Islamic website (see http://www.alwihdah.com/news/news/2010-04-26-741.htm). Yusuf al-Qardlawi is known to be a controversial jurist not only among the religious conservatives but also the liberals. From a conservative standpoint, al-Qardlawi is branded as an expert in Islamic jurisprudence who denies the sunnah (sayings and deed of Prophet Muhammad). The liberals on the other hand, see al-Qardlawi as nothing more than a conservative “pretending” to be modern. According to Luthfi Assaukanie (2007: 180), al-Qardlawi’s thoughts in Indonesia are represented by scholars professing to be moderates but at the same time embrace conservative views, such as scholars within the ranks of MUI (Indonesian Ulama Council). MUI scholars and other like-minded people indeed proselytize on inter-faith, open-mindedness and respect for diversity. Yet at the same time they forbid pluralism and declare the Ahmadiyah sect as being deviant.

In reference to the recent escalation in religious-driven violence, KH. Hasyim Muzadi, former Chairperson of NU (a socio-religious organization) on several dialogue opportunities aired by private TV stations delivered a poorly worded statement. According to him, terrorism can only be deradicalized through social pluralism and not theological pluralism. This clearly shows that Hasyim Muzadi’s standpoint is no better than the statements made by MUI scholars who accept plurality but eschew pluralism.

If examined further, the form of tolerance propagated by al-Qardlawi, Hasyim Muzadi and MUI scholars are in truth nothing short of a response towards the pressing fact that the sociological condition of religious followers is increasingly radicalized. Due to this urgency, tolerance appears to be compromised. Al-Qardlawi and other like-minded scholars felt the need to maintain the monopoly over the truth claim in their version of tolerance. I would prefer to call their rendering of tolerance as “pseudo-tolerance”.  This manner of tolerance refers to a half-baked concept of tolerance, full of compromises and not grounded on undivided purpose. On one hand, they are compelled to acknowledge and embrace diversity, yet on the other hand, they refuse to shed their exclusive religious views.

This approach to tolerance merely skims the surface, without well-entrenched roots as the foundation for global social interaction of multicultural societies. Such tolerance involuntarily holds the potential for violence manifested in claims over religious truths. Within the context of this pseudo-tolerance paradigm, the key issue on the single religious truth becomes the central and absolute theme. Those who endorse this model of tolerance are normally keen on or target followers of other faiths to convert into their religion.

Adherents of pseudo-tolerance find it extremely hard to liberate themselves from religious exclusivism. They generally recognize Islam as the one and only true religion. According to them, the validity of other religions, if indeed the respective Prophets have received God’s revelation, has been abrogated with the advent of Islam. Hence, whoever follows a religion other than Islam after having knowledge of the truthfulness of Islam, then the person’s religious conviction is rejected and there shall be no salvation in the hereafter. They in fact acknowledge a God-ordained condition that human beings shall never be followers of a single religion. They also recognize that every effort aimed at religious homogenization shall be futile. They however, remain adamant that Islam has nullified the truthfulness of previous religions based on the Quranic verse from al-Baqarah (2: 106): “Whatever We abrogate of a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We bring the better or the like of it.”

The views of Muhammad al-Ghazali – an eminent Egyptian Ikhwan scholar – in his book al-Ta’asshub wa al-Tasâmuh bain al-Masîhiyyah wa al-Islâm (Fanatism and Tolerance between Islam and Christianity [2005: 70]) represent this paradigm on pseudo-tolerance. He draws an analogy with a physician who recommends breastmilk for the early part of a newborn’s life which will later be replaced with soft baby food and as the child matures into an adult, the dietary intake shall be perfected and complete. This is comparable to religion which is continually revised until its final revision which shall be the best version.

Under such concept of quasi-tolerance, forget the propagation of an inclusive religion, avoiding religious exclusivism will indeed prove to be exceedingly near impossible. How can a person who believes that Islam is the only path to salvation allow followers of other faiths to co-exist in peace with their chosen beliefs. People who adhere to the doctrine of pseudo-tolerance shall never be able to be genuinely tolerant. They can only feign tolerance as they will persistently seize on the opportunity to convert others to Islam.

For adherents of pseudo-tolerance, proselytizing to non-Muslims means to “invite the human race to enter into Islam, and upon accepting the religion they will be asked to do good and avoid evil.” This is taken from Hidâyat al Mursyidin (1979: 17) authored by Syeikh Ali Mahfuz, a renowned proselytizer from al-Azhar. Due to its tenuous foundation, instead of providing a solution to social plurality, this model of tolerance shall sow the seeds of religious radicalism and fundamentalism. Religious exclusivism shall never be able to foster tolerance. On the contrary, it will legitimize religious radicalism and all forms of religious-fueled violence.

Accepting reality necessitates that reality itself be recognized as truthful. In other words, recognizing plurality shall entail the acknowledgement of pluralism. The difference between plurality and pluralism is similar to das sein and das solen, between what is real and what is desired. A person shall not be capable of genuinely accepting the reality of plurality as long as the person resolutely rejects pluralism. Hence, KH. Hasyim Muzadi’s notion that accepts social pluralism but categorically denies theological pluralism as mentioned earlier, becomes irrelevant. If his definition of social pluralism is accepting social plurality with tolerance and peaceful interactions, then such proselytizing purpose shall undoubtedly lead to failure without due recognition of theological pluralism which asserts that every religion is true. The propagation of genuine tolerance shall never be attained providing truth claims or exclusivism remain entrenched. On the other hand, spreading tolerance that still allows room for truth claims and exclusivism will not only engender short-lived tolerance which gains popularity in times of conflict and intensified violence but vanishes during relatively stable conditions. In other words, pseudo-tolerance shall never truly be whole and adequate enough to resolve conflict and violence but shall simply be practiced in a makeshift way.

As the frontliners of the Muslim community, it is now time for religious scholars to shift their paradigm on tolerance. It is indeed the opportune time to move away from pseudo-tolerance to authentic tolerance. Genuine tolerance (al tasamuh al-haqîqiy) germinates from a way of thinking that embraces pluralism; a form of tolerance that has the courage to declare that my religion is not the only truthful religion, but other religions are equally true. If every person truly practices his or her religion, then peace, tranquility and healthy social cooperation shall be fostered.

Tolerance and pluralism need not be treated as a threat to religious belief as every person has their own preferences. Comparable to the outfit that I am wearing, it may not be comfortable for others. Proselytizing to non-Muslims by using this formula should no longer be intended to convert their faith but should simply be to foster healthy social collaborative ties. This is what constitutes as genuine and healthy tolerance which should be embraced by proselytizers and scholars in propagating faith in the country. 

Wallahu a’lam bi al-shawab (Allah knowest the truth)

 

*Post-graduate student of Assyafi’iyah University, Jatiwaringin, East Jakarta