JIL English Edition

Defending certain group based on their religious identity is also very dangerous for the justice. No matter how noble the religious teaching is, it will never guarantee the noble behavior of its adherents.

The experience of al-Hallaj on hulul and ittihad brought him to reflection of unification of religions (wahdatul adyan). For him, unification of religions is a result of his spiritual journey of hulul and ittihad. Having done rihlah ruhaniyyah (spiritual journey) to such high level, he arrived to reflection on unification of religions which he described in the following paragraph: 

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.

The violence against Ahmadiyya Muslim community has never done spontaneously. There is a mass gathering processes and provocations. State officials should be able to prevent violence from early times by for instance dispersing the mass gathering that aims to provoke violence. The PNPS Act of 1965 explicitly states that the campaign of hatred and hostility against one group of people is banned; the perpetrators must be arrested and punishable by a maximum of 5 years sentence in jail according to Penal Code Section 156 A.

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.

I admit that there are numerous positive aspects to a religion which teaches humanity, peace and justice (even when a significant portion of believers fail to practice them). We must adopt universal humanitarian values wherever the source may come from. For me, all religions are true according to their own ways. A religion will always be true and be the only truthful religion when examined from the standpoint of the said religion. But I refuse to tolerate circumstances when religion becomes a tyranny that pushes aside humanitarian values. Humans can be civilized even without religion, yet many who profess to be religious have ignored humanitarian values. May I never return to the confinement of religious fundamentalism and fanaticism which I had once experienced.

The emergence of renewal thought of Islamic ideas with new concepts such as secularism, liberalism, and pluralism in Indonesia is often controversial. Even, if these words are spoken without chain to other words, they will give negative connotation, what is more after the release of MUI fatwa in 2005, which forbids the three ideologies. Currently there are so many concepts of secularism, liberalism, and pluralism in the thoughts of Moslem scholars.

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.

Religion as such is good. The highest ethical formulations can be found in religious teachings. Religion will remain good as long as it stays in the ethical domain. What makes religion often look bad is its determination to enter the unholy domain such as politics. History has given us a lot of lessons. The politicization of religion is not only bad for politics, but it is also bad for religion.