Indonesian Muslims should stay on alert
Opinion and Editorial, The Jakarta Post (January 26, 2007)
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20070126.F04&irec=3
Al Makin
Recent praise from charismatic Egyptian Muslim figure Yusuf Qardawi during his visit to Indonesia is reason enough to make us proud. The celebrated scholar is quite optimistic that the democracy in place in the country can set other Muslim countries a good example. This also proves that Islam does not contradict the values of democracy.
Qardawi is not alone in commenting on the unique nature and the tolerant culture of Indonesian Muslims. Modern Pakistani Muslim scholar Fazlur Rahman, a professor from Chicago University and McGill Canada University, has long shared this optimism. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz, who died just last year, was also of this opinion, saying Islam in Indonesia was marked with tolerance, harmony and even eclecticism. Another modern scholar like Bassam Tibi of Gvttingen University in Germany, also hails Indonesia's characteristic tolerant culture.
However, observing the recent developments involving Indonesian Muslims in politics, Qardawi's praise should not be taken for granted. Instead, it should be considered an alert, especially since Islamic radicalism is currently at a high, at least as far as the media coverage is concerned.
There are several reasons why Indonesian Muslims should not be complacent.
The most salient feature is the process of narrowing the interpretation of sharia. The term, which is generally accepted as meaning ethics or Muslim piety, has been recently hijacked by many local politicians. They have gone so far as to formalize sharia into a blatantly political tool. This rigid interpretation of sharia can be seen in the 23 regional ordinances recently passed by local authorities. How come the rich tradition of sharia as it is written in many works of literature is now understood as political regulations that restrict the role of women and enforce the wearing of the jilbab or veil. Indonesian Muslim scholars should remind the politicians that fiqh, or the guidelines for daily Islamic ritual, is only a small branch of sharia. It is imperative that communication is built between politicians and scholars, who were likely absent in the drafting process of the regulations.
The formalization of sharia will encourage the use of religion in the 2009 general election. Some political parties will compete with each other to offer more sharia-based regulations to voters, claiming to be more Islamic than the others. Indeed, the use of religion as political bargaining chip is cheaper and easier than formulating sophisticated ideas on how to fight poverty, corruption and injustice.
One of Indonesia's great Muslim thinkers, the late Nurcholish Madjid, coined a popular expression against the politicization of Islam: "Islam yes, Islamic party no!" Unfortunately, his moral lessons are now falling on deaf ears. Several politicians and ideologists believe Nurcholish's call is no longer valid in the reform era. Some of them even suspect Nurcholish of colluding with Soeharto's New Order regime. It seems that the clear-cut division of the world into "Muslims and infidels" has gradually overshadowed the progressive thoughts of Nurcholish. Second, the practice of polygamy by politicians and public figures is also big news. It is true that in most democratic countries sex scandals often accompany politics. However, the recent practice in Indonesia is being justified by certain interpretations of religious teachings.
Third, there are some internal problems facing moderate Islamic political parties. The National Awakening Party (PKB), whose voters are mainly NU members, is being riven by internal conflict between Muhaimin Iskandar's faction and that of Alwi Shihab. Although the dispute was settled in court, the two camps are unreconciled and this will weaken the party and endanger its preparations for the next general election.
Likewise, the National Mandate Party (PAN), which is associated with Muhammadiyah, has seen the departure of discontented young members, who have now established their own party that will also rely on support from Muhammadiyah.
If the PKB and PAN's potential voters are confused, where will they go? It stands to reason they will choose either the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) or the United Development Party (PPP), which both share an Islamist ideology.
Fourth, the political and educational campaigns of NU and Muhammadiyah are not as intensive as that of the tarbiyah, or educational, wing of the PKS. This is evident in the frequent activities the PKS has held involving public lectures and training programs. It would also be a mistake to blame President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's policy for this situation. His commitment to countering radicalism is quite clear. However, there is also the opinion that problem rests in his administration. Former president Abdurrahman Wahid, unlike SBY, used to promote more cultural interpretations of Islam. Perhaps because of his respect for Javanese culture and harmony, SBY seems indecisive when it comes to the formalization of sharia and is opting for a wait-and-see approach.
It is true the reform movement has brought in openness and freedom. These days, everyone can express their political and ideological choices. However, it should be kept in mind that we should not exercise freedom to threaten freedom. The country's history is proof enough that extremism -- from either the left or right -- creates nothing but more trouble and disorder.
The writer is a lecturer of at the Sunan Kalijaga Islamic University of Yogyakarta and doctoral candidate at the Seminar fur Sprachen und Kulturen des Vorderen Orients at the Heidelberg University in Germany. He can be reached at makin@stud.uni-heidelberg.de.
Al Makin
Recent praise from charismatic Egyptian Muslim figure Yusuf Qardawi during his visit to Indonesia is reason enough to make us proud. The celebrated scholar is quite optimistic that the democracy in place in the country can set other Muslim countries a good example. This also proves that Islam does not contradict the values of democracy.
Qardawi is not alone in commenting on the unique nature and the tolerant culture of Indonesian Muslims. Modern Pakistani Muslim scholar Fazlur Rahman, a professor from Chicago University and McGill Canada University, has long shared this optimism. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz, who died just last year, was also of this opinion, saying Islam in Indonesia was marked with tolerance, harmony and even eclecticism. Another modern scholar like Bassam Tibi of Gvttingen University in Germany, also hails Indonesia's characteristic tolerant culture.
However, observing the recent developments involving Indonesian Muslims in politics, Qardawi's praise should not be taken for granted. Instead, it should be considered an alert, especially since Islamic radicalism is currently at a high, at least as far as the media coverage is concerned.
There are several reasons why Indonesian Muslims should not be complacent.
The most salient feature is the process of narrowing the interpretation of sharia. The term, which is generally accepted as meaning ethics or Muslim piety, has been recently hijacked by many local politicians. They have gone so far as to formalize sharia into a blatantly political tool. This rigid interpretation of sharia can be seen in the 23 regional ordinances recently passed by local authorities. How come the rich tradition of sharia as it is written in many works of literature is now understood as political regulations that restrict the role of women and enforce the wearing of the jilbab or veil. Indonesian Muslim scholars should remind the politicians that fiqh, or the guidelines for daily Islamic ritual, is only a small branch of sharia. It is imperative that communication is built between politicians and scholars, who were likely absent in the drafting process of the regulations.
The formalization of sharia will encourage the use of religion in the 2009 general election. Some political parties will compete with each other to offer more sharia-based regulations to voters, claiming to be more Islamic than the others. Indeed, the use of religion as political bargaining chip is cheaper and easier than formulating sophisticated ideas on how to fight poverty, corruption and injustice.
One of Indonesia's great Muslim thinkers, the late Nurcholish Madjid, coined a popular expression against the politicization of Islam: "Islam yes, Islamic party no!" Unfortunately, his moral lessons are now falling on deaf ears. Several politicians and ideologists believe Nurcholish's call is no longer valid in the reform era. Some of them even suspect Nurcholish of colluding with Soeharto's New Order regime. It seems that the clear-cut division of the world into "Muslims and infidels" has gradually overshadowed the progressive thoughts of Nurcholish. Second, the practice of polygamy by politicians and public figures is also big news. It is true that in most democratic countries sex scandals often accompany politics. However, the recent practice in Indonesia is being justified by certain interpretations of religious teachings.
Third, there are some internal problems facing moderate Islamic political parties. The National Awakening Party (PKB), whose voters are mainly NU members, is being riven by internal conflict between Muhaimin Iskandar's faction and that of Alwi Shihab. Although the dispute was settled in court, the two camps are unreconciled and this will weaken the party and endanger its preparations for the next general election.
Likewise, the National Mandate Party (PAN), which is associated with Muhammadiyah, has seen the departure of discontented young members, who have now established their own party that will also rely on support from Muhammadiyah.
If the PKB and PAN's potential voters are confused, where will they go? It stands to reason they will choose either the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) or the United Development Party (PPP), which both share an Islamist ideology.
Fourth, the political and educational campaigns of NU and Muhammadiyah are not as intensive as that of the tarbiyah, or educational, wing of the PKS. This is evident in the frequent activities the PKS has held involving public lectures and training programs. It would also be a mistake to blame President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's policy for this situation. His commitment to countering radicalism is quite clear. However, there is also the opinion that problem rests in his administration. Former president Abdurrahman Wahid, unlike SBY, used to promote more cultural interpretations of Islam. Perhaps because of his respect for Javanese culture and harmony, SBY seems indecisive when it comes to the formalization of sharia and is opting for a wait-and-see approach.
It is true the reform movement has brought in openness and freedom. These days, everyone can express their political and ideological choices. However, it should be kept in mind that we should not exercise freedom to threaten freedom. The country's history is proof enough that extremism -- from either the left or right -- creates nothing but more trouble and disorder.
The writer is a lecturer of at the Sunan Kalijaga Islamic University of Yogyakarta and doctoral candidate at the Seminar fur Sprachen und Kulturen des Vorderen Orients at the Heidelberg University in Germany. He can be reached at makin@stud.uni-heidelberg.de.
posted by Al Makin at 4:45 AM
2 Comments:
Salam kenal Bapak Al Makin saya mahasiswi ushuludin semester akhir ISID Gontor Putri, saya coba untuk merespon apa yang sudah antum utarakan, namun sebelumnya maaf apabila sangat lancang, keberanian saya berkomentar tidak saya niatkan untuk apa-apa hanya karena saya anggap ini semua merupakan proses belajar bagi saya. Dan meskipun saya dari Gontor bukan berarti mewakili Gontor namun tulisan ini mewakili saya pribadi.
(1) Defensive
Tulis antum untuk kritik pertama adalah Devensif :Jika tidak Muslim tentu kafir, antum juga menyebutkan bahwa Ustadz Hamid terlalu mensimplifikasikan permasalahan dan hal ini mengarah pada sakralisasi diri sendiri. Pola pikir ini juga memicu pada lahirnya radikalisme dan fundamentalisme. Sikap simplifikasi juga berarti mengingkari seluruh kompleksitas sejarah pemikiran peradaban dalam dunia Islam yang kosmopolit.
Komentar : rasa-rasanya kalau yang dimaksud defensive itu adalah self protective semua orang dan termasuk saya dan antum sendiri juga mempunyai rasa itu, tipologi kritik antum juga merupakan rasa self protectife antum. Karena tentu saja semuanya punya pendirian. Dan semuanya ingin melindungi diri dari segala serangan.baik itu serangan fisik maupun pemikiran namun permasalahannya adalah definisi musuh atau teman bagi masing-masing orang berbeda begitupula cara menyikapinya.
(2) Penolakan Westernisasi
Pengembangan mitos dengan mencurigai bahwa segala pembaruan yang ditawarkan pasti berkutat pada persoalan sekularisasi, westernisasi, dan liberalisasi. Pelabelan semacam ini berakibat pada sikap berprasangka dan tidak jernih dalam memahami pemikiran seseorang.
Komentar : Bukankah antum juga sedang membangun mitos kalau apa-apa yang dari barat adalah baik dan sebuah inovasi. Namun apakah itu berarti kita tidak punya pendirian sendiri dan kemudian mengabaikan dan tidak memikirkan bagaimana memfilternya?
(4)epistemologi
Untuk sementara, kritik epistemologi yang didasarkan pada pencarian sumber sang pemikir terasa sudah usang.
Komentar : : lantas bagaimana seharusnya ?
Apakah dengan merekontruksi psikologi penggagas konsep (Schleirmacher), (sejauh mana kita mengetahui psikologi pengagas ?)
Apakah dengan merujuk pada historitas pengarang (dilthey)?
Apakah dengan kembali langsung kepada pengarang (betti)? Kalau ini bisa dilakukan why not? Dan ini yang sedang saya lakukan dengan mengomentari anda, dan berharap ada respon balik, itupun kalau anda berkenan mengingat saya yang baru bau kencur tapi paling tidak saya punya keberanian dengan mengirimkan komentar saya.
Apakah menginterpretasi dengan menguak kepentingan dibalik konsep ( jurgen habermas)
Apakah dengan interpretasi subjektif tapa dilektika dan secara bebas.......orisinilnya dimana? (Paul Ricoeur),
Antum juga mengatakan bahwa Foucault dan Derrida berkali-kali menegaskan bahwa klaim keaslian itu semu,
Komentar :
Dalam pandanganan Prof Alparslam ilmu tidak dapat timbul dan berkembang pada suatu masyarakat dari hasil impor. Artinya suatu ilmu tidak dapat muncul dengan secara tiba-tiba dalam suatu masyarakat atau kebudayaan yang tidak memiliki latar belakang tradisi ilmiah. Ilmu asing “diadapsi” bukan “diadopsi” oleh suatu masyarakat melalui peminjaman konsep-konsepnya atau istilah-istilah tertentu . istilah-istilah atau konsep-konsep yang berasal dari kebudayaan asing ini disebut sebagai konsep pinjaman atau borrowing element. Karena proses pinjam meminjam antara satu kebudayaan dengan kebudayaan lain adalah suatu yang alami, dalam kaitan dengan adanya pengaruh pemikiran dalam Islam MM Sharif dengan tepat sekali menggambarkan pemikiran muslim sebagai kain dan pemikiran asing sebagai jahitan,
” (although it was a golden thread we should not take thread for the fabric”. “meskipun jahitan itu adalah benang emas kita hendaknya tidak menganggap jahitan itu sebagai kain Ini berarti jika pemikiran asing masuk kedalam pemikiran Islam, ia akan di ISlamkan oleh mekanisme yang terdapat dalam pandangan hidup Islam. Oleh sebab itu, kita tidak bisa menganggap elemen-elemen pinjaman itu dominana dalam suatu kebudayaan, ia hanyalah berperan secara marginal, malah sebenarnya ketika elemen-elemen asing itu ditranmisikan ke dalam panadangan hidup islam, pada saat yang sama terjadi proses islamisasi ( dikutip dari Hamid Fahmi Zarkasyi MA, Adnin Armas, Adian Husaini, Tantangan Sekulerisasi dan Liberasisasi Di Dunia Islam p.26-27)
dan sekarang ini kami pribadi sedang mengurai jahitan pada konsep Frithjof Schuon, dengan judul Frithjof Schoun`s concept of religion. Yah.... sekedar membuktikan apakah jahitan itu cocok untuk kain tersebut atau malah merusak.
Dan terakhir terimakasih kami haturkan atas perhatian antum dan kami mohon maaf apabila dengan membaca komentar ini, menyita waktu antum.
Salam ta`dhim....
Ana al faqir
Heni kusuma N.
Salam dan terima kasih banyak Sdri. Heni Kusuma R
Uraian panjang lebar Sdri menunjukkan ia benar2 mengikuti permasalahan yg sedang diperbincangkan. Semoga dialog bermanfaat.
Saya tidak hendak mengurai panjang lebar bagaimana sesungguhnya berkaitan dg pendapat Sdri Heni. Tetapi mungkin satu poin pokok saja.
Yaitu: Soal Epistimologi dan tradisi non Muslim.
Tentu saja kita tidak mungkin mengambil secara utuh2 segala ilmu pengetahuan yg ada di luar tradisi kita tanpa memahami sejarah bagaimana pengetahuan itu dilahirkan dalam sejarah dan berikut konteksnya. Di sinilah pentingnya sebuah tradisi kecendikiawanan (scholarship). Dimana setiap cendikiawan saling mengomentari antara satu dan lainnya plus tambal sulam. Dengan begitu, jika seorang cendikiawan itu baik dan benar cara memahami orang lain, dengan sendirinya proses adaptasi (atau apalah kita menamainya) akan dengan sendirinya berproses.
Kita hidup tidak sendiri, dan kita tak mungkin menemukan sesuatu dg mandiri. Tanpa tergantung pada sejarah (ruang dan waktu) yg sudah mendahuli kita. Maka kita tentu saja mengambil dengan otomatis semua yg datang sebelum kita atau yg ada disekitar kita.
Maka, bagi saya pribadi, cita2 epistimologi Islam murni (tanpa campuran) itu utopia.
Dengan begitu epistimologi yg seharunsya kita kembangkan di Indonesia, secara khusus, tidak mungkin kita kembalikan pada Islam dan sejarah Islam saja. Tetapi harus diluaskan ke seluruh sejarah manusia yg lebih luas cakupannya.
Kenapa?
Karena para pendahulu kita abad awal2 Islam telah berbuat demikian. Kita lihat literatur Sirah, Tafsir, Hadits, Sastra, Tarikh dan lain-lain, abad awal2 Islam, tampak sekali, bercampur dengan berbagai macam tradisi: Persia, Roma, Mesir, Syria, Kristen, Yahudi, Mazdak, dan masih banyak lagi. Para Ulama awal, spt Ibn Qutaybah, al-Mas'udi, Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, sangat menguasai tradisi non-Muslim.
Mereka dengan fleksibel menggunakan argumen dg dasar pengetahuan dari luar tradisi Muslim.
Permasalahannya adalah batas2 mana yg diambil dan mana yg tidak diambil. Sudah bergeser sekarang. Setiap sejarah dan setiap ruang dan waktu mempunyai ukuran sendiri2. Sangat sulit untuk membuat aturan umum yg sekaligus berlaku, krn pengathuan humaniora dan sosial itu sangat cepat berkembang. Jika kita teliti lebih dlm lagi, setiap scholar pasti mempunyai ukuran dan standard sendiri2. Jika kita menganggap diri sbg scholar, tentu kita punya ukuran dan pertimbangan juga, begitu juga org lain.
Terlepas dari semuanya, sangat disayangkan, dalam tradisi kita kecendikiawanan yg sesungguhnya belum tampak lahir. Spt tradisi masa awal2 Islam atau masa Barat kini. Para penulis, dari dua tradisi tersebut, adalah sekaligus "pembaca" yg baik dari para penulis lain. Sehingga pendapat selalu ditumpukan dan dikembangkan dan terasa tidak mengulangi.
Di Barat dan di Muslim awal, tentu mereka online: kitab2, jurnal2, dan pertemuan ilmiah. Kita terasa kurang. Hampir tulisan di buku2 kita kurang menghargai para penulis sejawat atau teman sendiri. Seakan menulis itu mandiri dan tak terkait dengan temannya.
Dlm arti luas, epistimologi saat ini itu menyatu dg seluruh manusia. Tidak ada eksklusif milik kelompok tertentu.
Saya kira itu satu poin saja. Terima kasih tanggapannya.
Post a Comment
<< Home