Column

“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.”

According to Mohammad Omar Farooq, since the classic Islam until now there is not any consensus among ulemas that the apostate has to be punished. The common interpretation among prominent ulemas about the war for Musailamah group was not merely that they leave or convert their religion, but only because their actions had implication to political rebellion.

That’s why if some one is unable to say that al-Qur’an is the words of God because of her/his historical approach, there is no problem with it. It is rational to understand that as a tool, history cannot provide material data about God; where he said? When he revealed? Which language he talked? And so on. The furthest contribution of history to the doctrine of al-Quran as the words of God is not by providing chronological evidences, but meanings and significances by which believers can relate them

This however, does not imply that freedom of religion should not be restricted through regulations. According to Nicola Colbran (2010), a Norwegian human rights expert, the right to freedom of religion encompasses two forms of liberties: internal and external. Internal freedom refers to the right of every individual to embrace a religion based on his or her own choice. This is a constitutional right that is both non-derogable and indivisible.

External freedom on the other hand, relates to the liberty to observe religious beliefs and bowing to limitations. Based on the International Covenant concerning Civil and Political Rights, the freedom to practice religion shall only be subject to limitations prescribed by law in order to protect (1) public safety, (2) public order, (3) public health, (4) public morals, and (5) the fundamental rights of others. As such, riding on the pretext of “causing public anxiety” does not constitute as justification to inhibit freedom of religion, as meant by the Covenant which essentially refers to the safety and order of individuals or society.

Islam improved the status of a woman with regards to inheritance by giving her the right to inherit properties from her family. In light of this situation, we could see clearly how Islam through the divine revelation of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) managed to overcome the problem of unfair treatment of the early societies. One thing we realize that Islam has produced the system that considers women as legal heirs long before some modern societies can create the unbiased law of inheritance that will benefit both men and women alike.

Obama’s readiness and ability to use the momentum will deliver double outcomes: the positive image of the US will restore and the seeds of radicalism and terrorism will lose its justification. Quoting Irshad Manji, Obama have to prove that the US is rather a non-fulfilled expectation than the main villain in the Middle Eastern turmoil.

If Islam were superior, why isn’t there any Muslim country which is progressive and leading in terms of education, technology, culture or economy? Many of Muslim countries were even black-listed because of their poor appreciation upon women and human fundamental rights, the fragility of government bureaucracy and corruption. In the academic level, none of the Islamic universities were listed as the international highest standard. Definitely, these complex social matters cannot be solved by yelling “Allahu akbar” and scapegoating the west.

I think that the tension between interfaith communities in Indonesia will reduce if the liberating verses were becoming priority within the substance of any missionary endeavors in Indonesia. Since the muballigh (Muslim preacher) and the evangelist will no longer focus on the accumulation of their respective religion’s membership, but on the collaboration to advocate and liberate the oppressed society. On the contrary, if the paradigm shift does not happen within the Islamic and Christian missionary endeavor, the turmoil which involves both religious disciples will be hard to end.

The whole furor and controversy over Ahmadiyah sect is just a parcel of a larger dynamic in the Indonesian politics. Over the last ten years after the unleashing of democratic movement in Indonesia, one development stands out to be worthy of our analysis, namely the radicalizing trend among Muslim society. This trends manifested in various form, including the vigorous campaign launched by Islamists to adopt and implement sharia or Islamic law. The entire campaign to dissolve Ahmadiyah, to me, cannot be analyzed separately from this larger trend.

Many observers argued that almost every militant Islamic movement today is part of, or at least influenced by, Wahhabism. Where trouble is found, Wahhabism may thrive. Taliban in Afghanistan and al-Qaida, which have been launching several terrors across the world for years, have officially adopted this ideology. Wahhabi extremism and terrorism continue to plague Indonesia, although its real supporters in this country are few in number.