Column

To have a different interpretation about certain doctrines in Islam cannot be seen as blasphemy. The orthodox mullahs or ulama who see themselves as the guardian of “truth” always think that their interpretation embodies the truth of Islam itself. They deliberately efface the line demarcating between “religion” and “the discourse on religion”, between din and al-khithab al-dini, as Egpytian thinker Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd once aptly put.

In the midst of this miserable condition, determination to achieve Islamic independence in the intellectual, social, political and economical field has blown the wave of reformation in the Muslim world. However, the independence must not be understood as reclusion and rejection upon other civilizations. Islamic reformation is the result of incessant dialectic interaction between the Islamic normative doctrines and the surrounding contemporary symptoms.

Both Muslims and concerned Western intellectuals should start to de-sacralize the role of texts in the debate, so that we can arrive at a truly constructive dialogue. It is about time that we recognize and encourage different colors in religion. This also requires a less forced attitude towards religion in public spaces.

It is important to note that the shining Islamic civilization in the past did not stand alone. It was the result of dynamic interaction with other civilizations such as Greek, Egypt, Persia, and India. Muslim scientists used to hold dialog with and learn from other civilizations. The image of open minded, tolerant and pluralist dominated the character of Muslim scientists in that time.

Almost every Islamic studies textbook in Saudi schools –and I think in any other Muslim countries as well- taught about the universality of Islam and that it is the only true religion. This doctrine is not the creation of ulema, but it is derived directly from Quran that says: “And who seek as religion other than Islam it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.” (Sura 3:85)

People will realize the benefit of liberalism and secularism when they were minority. Because both systems arose in the West among others in order to protect minorities. Indonesian Muslims, being majority, were totally unaware about the benefit of secularism and liberalism.

Mr. Watt affirmed that the modern challenge is holding a harmonious relationship between Muslims and Christians, which can be done by tracing the history of both religions from their original sources. An “objective” review is important, since most of the leaders and adherents of both religions used to prioritize their theological apology.

A textualist Muslim will perceive the permission of beating wives and children rather than the deeper essence behind the sacred text, which is to educate them. Textual religious understanding may endorse violence, although religion should not be misunderstood as the source of violence.

Israel’s brutal attack to Lebanon (according to Israel military officials, the attack was very well calibrated), would make most of Arabs skeptical upon the democratization process in the Middle East.

Tragically, our problem becomes even more complicated due to the systemic and mutually-reinforcing “unholy alliance” between civil government and cleric. Civil government has adopted, without critical consideration, the fatwa of ulema that is intolerant toward religious freedom.