This
great Sharia teachings will be blurred were we trapped into
wrong interpretation. For example, understanding Islam in the
contemporary context and democracy (Mashudi on Aceh Institute
website) was a contradictive understanding. It was misleading
and might lead to distort understanding. Aren’t sharia (Islamic
law) and democracy in ‘contemporary context’ two different
words?
Democracy is governance system which covers division of
authority to executives, legislatives, and judicative.
Connecting sharia and democracy is misleading even distorting,
because democracy is a system of authority and sharia is
religious teaching which does not only focus on authority, but
also goes to current and life after death matters.
Contemporary context is term often used to define text.
Context is the opposite of text. Text is a
written or explicit construct which consist of words. Context
or an inferred meaning is thought(s) and background that create
text. To combine text with current situation can then
mean as trying to change the text of the Holy Koran sent during
the era of The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Defining current context may lead into changing all the teaching
or sharia and creating a new meaning even new teachings asserted
as Islamic Protestant (the idea was suggested by Fuad
Mardhatillah in Aceh Institute mailing list, yet no further
explanation was given regarding the subject). Subjectivisms are
often caught up in diminishing the words which later lead into
misleading interpretation or epistemology. This is dangerous
because it creates soulless or transcendental words (Immanuel
Kant) and Idea (Plato).
This phenomenon started since the era of Sophia where Socrates
and Aristotle had to clarify all the confusion for Gorgias. In
term of sharia, it was caused by poor methodological analyses,
looking at religion as an absolute difference from Christianity
or church power.
Islam is a flexible religion that embraces the past, present,
and the future. The idea of Maqashid (plural form of
‘will’), for example, helps us view the religion in time
and space scheme. Sharia is divided into two Maqshud
(will). First is called “God’s will” and second is called
“human’s will”. God’s will is all sharia or Islamic teachings
and they are absolute or tsawabit (an Arabic word for
absolute). People chose either to accept the absolute nature of
the law or decline it. To accept is called to be a Muslim and to
decline is to be a non-Muslim. This is aqidah (basic
teachings of Islamic faith), fixed and absolute rules (qad’I
dilalah and tsubut). For example, believing in oneness of
Allah (the God), believing in the responsibility to observe
shalat (prayers) five times a day, the two-raka’at
(set of prayer ritual) dawn prayer, four-raka’at mid day prayer,
and so on.
We might question why should absolutism exist in Islam? Human
are not to interpret these principles to avoid principle
differences in Islam as it has happened in fiqh (Law
retrieved from Koran and hadith by Islamic scholars) resulting
in the foundation of mazhab (interpretation of Islamic
rules) Hanafy, Maliky, Syafi’y, and Hambaly as been noted by
Muhammad Dayan, S.Ag in his journal in Serambi Indonesia: “Syari’a:
way of truth” (02/16/07). Had we done so, as if we had allowed
Moslem to have ten Gods, do not observe prayer, can convert to
any faith and finally they will lose their Islamic identities.
Absolutism does not only appear in Islam. In fact, it is true
for all religions and sciences as well. Let see mathematics
truth analogy (Axioma). Axioma is an absolute truth and without
logical reasoning to receive or refuse it. Why do we claim 1 + 1
= 2 is true? Why not 10, 20 or else? Using logic and experiment,
this mathematics problem is evident. A scientist will lose his
credibility once he does not believe in logical reasoning and
analogy.
Refusing the absolute truth of aqidah (Islamic tenet) is
refusing oneself from Islam. Taking it in, on the other hand can
be a foundation for Muslim to believe in ijtihad (effort
done by Islamic scholars to draw law from Koran and hadith),
create the law, develop one’s religious understanding, and so
forth. Recognizing absolutism in religion does not necessarily
mean that our religion is rigid or out dated. In fact, only 20%
of Islamic law, including about God, is absolute, meanwhile
another 80% is open for ijtihad and interpretation.
This huge portion, 80%, accommodates social and worldly affairs.
It is relative, subjective, and can change depend on time and
context. This part is also known as maqashid ibad.
Understanding text without considering transcendental
portion may lead into misleading comprehension resulting in
distorted epistemology. The use of words ‘syari’a and
democracy’ in contemporary context as written by Mashudi SR
(Syari’a in contemporary context (Wednesday, 02/07/07)
does, therefore, concern me.
Should we look deeper into the matter, there is no reason to
take democracy in, while putting religious absolutism away,
because democracy is recognized in Islam and, in reality, part
of ijtihad. What it is good for Muslim to run the country
is also good for religion; in contemporary context, also, Islam
provides its followers huge opportunities for worldly gain which
is called in maqashid syari’at as: “jalbu mashalih
wa dar’ul mafashid” –obtaining the good and leaving the bad.
Probably, the primary problem in Islam is how to deal with some
people’s assumption that western civilization is standard of
development and modernism is always translated into contemporary
context and westernized-democracy. The fact that Islam is very
moderate and open its door for the Western civilization, does
not have to mean that Islam will have to adjust to anything from
the western world.
Throughout the history, Islam has three views towards the West.
The first: completely against everything from the West,
especially with westerners; thus resulting in series of
terrorism actions to accommodate their point of view. However,
this point of view does not root from Koran and hadith; rather
from accumulation of desperation to accept the fact that we are
far left behind and authoritative exercises against the grass
root.
The second: taking everything from the West. The writer assumes
that some of us are trapped in the scheme of idolizing western
culture. The third is the middle party; selective and critical
in their interaction with western culture as the later has also
been very critical toward “the oriental”. This attitude is
promoted and used in Islamic law application. The first attitude
is mainly drawn by resentment or over defensive action. The
second is by inferior-complex. It was shocking when a secular
Young Turkish Movement stated “There is only one civilization,
which is European civilization. That is why we have to borrow
western civilization, its roses and thorns”.
As part of Islamic law implementation, dialogue and interaction
with the West, there are at least five steps we can do:
First:
maintaining Muslim identity by learning more about both
religious and other disciplines founded after the Prophet until
the end of Islamic glory time. To get true and original source,
Muslim intellectuals and scholars need to read from the first
hand sources in their original language. It is hard to keep
originality learning from non-Muslim Orientalist in English,
France, German, or Italian.
That’s why Islam should be learned from books written by Muslim
scholars in Arabic, not Indonesian, Persian, Urdu especially
English, France, and other western languages. Once Islam is
learned not from its original language and source,
epistemological distortion will occur which resulting in
self-truth claim as pointed by Snouckian (Snouck Hurgronje, a
Dutch scholar studying Aceh and its people for the colonial
power during the Aceh-Dutch war).
Second:
learning western culture and the knowledge thoroughly. Muslims
are supposed to learn western culture to increase their
knowledge, unity, and prosperity, because a culture will not
exist without a heritage from other culture. For example, caliph
Umar bin Khattab learned from Rome’s and Persian development.
Similarly, same practice was done by some of kings in Muawwids
dynasty like Makmun and Muktasim 661 M – 749 M and in Abbasids
like Al Manshur, Harun Al Rayid 750 M – 1258 M who transferred
huge knowledge from Rome, Greek, India and Persia.
Should we agree that early Islamic civilization was inherited
from Greece, Persia, Rome, India, and China as part historical
fact, we should also consider learning and translating all
western knowledge to create the civilization. Meaning that
running away or concealing from the west is wrong, choosing all
without a proper selection is even worse, however, being
selective of the benefits and the disadvantages of their nature
are strongly advised.
Third:
As when transferring the Islamic knowledge to the west, the
Europeans were very selective, then, why should not we? The
Europeans transferred practical knowledge only like medical,
cosmology, mathematics, astrology, chemistry, veterinary,
historiography, and botany. In addition, they also brought
religious scholars and transfer Islamic studies into
Christianity, as was done by Gerbert from Aucrillac. For his
effort, later, he was promoted to Pope (999-1003).
Ironically, with Muslims today, instead of transferring
practical knowledge, we incline to transform mind and soul of
the West and impose culture, religion and our behavior to be
like them to create Islam pluralistic. We supposed to have taken
western practical technology and civilization and used it in the
context of Islam preventing heartbreaking fraction experience to
reoccur.
Fourth: after all the previous processes, then
we can start creating or recreating a real Islamic civilization.
One thing for sure, the civilization will come and it belongs to
Muslims, but either we start creating or, worse, ruining it?
Muslim intellectuals should stand fast from the
current. Roger Garudy in his book Islam promises (Bulan
Bintang, 1984) described that Islam civilization is the third
heritage for modern civilization after Greek and
Judeo-Christian. Thoughtful mastery and understanding towards
natural and social sciences are root for great civilization
development.
Again, the question is, why did we force our selves towards one
understanding?
(Translated by TA)
