MENUSANTARAKAN ISLAM
A NEW PARADIGM IN RELIGIOUS DISCOURSE:
Liberating Religion from the Shadow of Institutions,
Organisations, and Religious Streams
By: Aksin Wijaya*
Abstrak
Akhir-akhir ini, Indonesia diramaikan dengan tindakan kekerasan atas nama
agama. Anehnya, pihak-pihak yang melakukan tindakan kekerasan berasal dari
lembaga, organisasi, dan aliran keagamaan yang menuduh penganut aliran
keagamaan lain sebagai sesat. Lebih aneh lagi, MUI yang selama ini menjadi
eksekutor Tuhan, sama sekali tidak menfatwa sesat tindakan kekerasan yang
dilakukan mereka yang mengatasnamakan agama. Peristiwa itu nampaknya tidak
lepas dari klaim kepemilikan dan kebenaran atas nama agama yang dilakukan oleh
sebagian mereka. Akibatnya, agama dijadikan justifikasi atau pembenaran
tindakan kekerasan itu sendiri. Agama akhirnya berwajah kekerasan, bukan
membawa kedamaian sebagaimana missi awal. Untuk melepaskan agama dari
manipulasi mereka, dan dalam rangka melepaskan agama dari bayang-bayang dan
klaim organisasi, aliran, dan lembaga keagamaan itulah, tulisan ini dibuat.
الخلاصة
توافرت القسوة الدینیة على الأخبار الإندونیسیة في الأیام الحدیثة. ومع الأسف، إن ھذه القسوة أقامت بھا
مؤسسة، أو منظمة، أو طائفة من الطوائف الدینیة التي اتھمت على طائفة أخرى كطائفة منحرفة. إضافة إلى
ذلك، فإن مجلس العلماء الإندونیسي، الذي قام سابقا بتنفیذ الأمور الدینیة أو الإلھیة، یصمت ولم یفتي شیئا
على انحرافیة ھذه الطوائف التي قامت بالقسوة باسم المصلحة الدینیة. كأن ھذه الظاھرة لا تخلو من ادّعاء
أحقیة بعض الطوائف لاتھام على طائفة أخرى. وفي ھذا المجال، تستدل ھذه الطائفة شرائع الدین لتحلیل
قسوتھم الدینیة. فیصبح ھذا الدین على شكل القسوة والشدة، لا على السلام والأمن حیث یشرع لھ. فتھدف
ھذه الدراسة إلى انحلال الدین من ظلال وادّعاء ھذه الطوائف والمؤسسات الدینیة.
Keywords: Teosentris-Eskatologis; Antroposentris-Transformatif; dan
Religiosentris.
A. Introduction
Current religious life of Indonesia is witnessing a number of interesting
events including the issuance of fatwas by Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI) to
condemn “deviated” groups such as Islam Liberal, Ahmadiyah, Al-Qur’an Suci
(The Holy Quran), Al-Qiyadah al-Islamiyah, etc. It is ironic enough, however,
* The writer is a doctoral student at UIN Sunan Kalijaga, Yogyakarta; and lecturer at
Ushuluddin STAIN Ponorogo, East Java.
2
that no fatwas issued are related to terrors waged in the name of religion against
the religious sects and followers of other religions, Jews and Christianity.
Modes of religious ideologies wrapped in fatwa and violence movements
have caused religions, particularly Islam, to have no relative autonomy seen from
spatial-temporal and dominant institutions and religious streams as well. Islam
cannot be separated from the shadow of the past and Arab society. Neither can it
be divorced from that of institutions, organisations and religious streams. Religion
then becomes ossified, cannot communicate with local cultures and loses its
liberating force. In its early emergence, Islam was living reality which was able to
respond to problems its adherents were facing. It was able to free God1 and
human2 from hegemonic authority of pre-Islamic Arab culture and tribal
mentality.3 In addition, Islam communicated with local cultures in which it was
practised.4
In contrast to the past, Islam of today has become powerless and its
authority has been seized by the authority of Arab culture and dominant religious
institutions. At the same time, non-Arab cultures, including Indonesian culture
and individuals who are not affiliated to a certain dominant religious institution,
have no authority in making dialogues with religion. The authorities of Arab
culture and dominant institutions often feel obligated to defend religion from the
influence of foreign cultures. Every understanding which is derived from non-
Arab traditions and is not from formal institutions would be considered wrong and
deviated. Seen paradigmatically, religion often has a dialogical relationship with
local cultures where Islam is practised.
1 Pre-Islamic Arab society was polytheist, worshipping idols. In contrary, Islam offered
monotheism as formulated in “There is no god but Allah”.
2 Humanism developed in pre-Islamic Arab was tribal humanism, not human humanism.
See Montgomery Watt, Pengantar Studi Al-Qur’an, (Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada,
Rajawali Press, 1995), p. 12.
3 This opinion does not go unchallenged. Khalil Abdul Karim, for instance. Puts forward
that pre-Islamic Arabs had known civilisation so that the Quran took it and gave it new
significance. See Khalil Abdul karim, Syari’ah: Sejarah Perkelahian Pemaknaan, trans. Kamran
As’ad (Yogyakarta: LKiS, 2003); the negative image on pre-Islamic Arabs will disappear if it is
seen from the Quranic perspective. See Thaha Husein, Fi al-Syî’ri al-Jâhili: al-Kitâb wa al-
Qadiyah, (al-Qahirah: Ru’ya li al-Nasr wa Tawzi’, 2007), pp. 78-86.
4 Aksin Wijaya, Relasi Al-Qur'an dan Budaya Lokal: Sebuah Tatapan Epistemologis, Jurnal
Pascasarjana UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta: HERMENEIA, Vol. 4, No. 2, July-December 2005,
pp. 235-254.
3
B. Paradigm of Understanding Islam
Paradigmatic awareness above can be perceived from scientific paradigm
as Thomas Kuhn has formulated. To Kuhn, the development of science does not
run in a cumulative way as many thinkers believe, but in a revolutionary way. In
the eyes of Kuhn, it is revolution that engenders changes and developments in
science. Paradigmatic thinking
Logic of paradigmatic thinking offered byKuhn is as follows:
Paradigm I → Normal science → Anomalies → Crisis → Paradigm II
According to Kuhn, at certain times science will become dominated by a
certain paradigm. At the times, science runs normally. That is a period of
accumulation of knowledge when scientists work and develop the influential
paradigm. However, eventually scientists could not avoid contradictions and
anomalies in the former old paradigm and, consequently, crisis could not be
avoided as well. When the validity of the old paradigm is questioned, revolution
could not cease to run. Thinkers are looking for a new paradigm they consider to
be able to overcome problems which could not be solved by the old paradigm.
And a big change takes place in science in that revolutionary period.5
In spite of various definitions on paradigm, the most common definition is
the way to approach an object of investigation or a starting point to determine a
point of view, formulating a theory, arranging questions and making a simple
reflection of them. For Kuhn, paradigm is all systems of belief, values and
techniques used altogether by a group of a certain scientists’ community.6 While
the paradigm concept as Kuhn offers is not definitive, Ritzer formulates it as a
basic view concerning the subject matter of a science branch. Paradigm is useful
to formulate what to learn, questions to answer, how to answer, and the rules to
follow in interpreting gathered information so as to answer the problems in
question.7
5 George Ritzer, Sosiologi Pengetahuan Berparadigma Ganda, terj. Alimandan, (Jakarta:
Rajawali Press, cet ke V, 2004), p. 5. For further details, see Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions: Peran Paradigma Dalam Revolusi Sains, terj. Cet. Ke 4 (Bandung: Rosda,
2002).
6 George Ritzer, Sosiologi, p. 5.
7 Ibid, p. 7.
4
The technical formulation of Kuhn’s paradigm model, according to Ritzer,
includes four interrelated elements: exemplar,8 subject matter, theory and method.
These elements play a significant role in determining scholars’ scientific points of
views concerning problems they are facing at certain periods. Therefore, change
of periods will cause changes in paradigm.
One of the paradigms relevant for an argument is critical paradigm which
combines plural and conflict paradigms. Critical paradigm is concerned about
establishment and is always suspicious of common awareness and rationality
hidden behind objective science. In the external reality of critical paradigm such a
suspicion becomes common given that authorities often try to create and establish
their hegemony. By contrast, it is uncommon if such an auto-critic is posed to the
internal reality of the discourse structure of their thought as experienced by
pioneers of critical paradigm in that they criticise each other.
From the above discussion, we can understand the role of certain
discourses in enhancing their authority to control academic and Islamic discourses
over times. Through critical paradigm, we learn to be suspicious of every
uncommon control of scientific and Islamic dynamism. By doing so, we can also
escape from that control and can freely read any scientific and Islamic
phenomenon.
C. Paradigmatic Modes of Understanding of Islam
Seen from this paradigm, Islam serves to respond to problems facing
certain cultures in which Islam is practiced. Thus, religious understanding at
certain places and times depends on problems the umma are facing. The problem
facing Muslim community in early times was related to who was the real God.
After the long interaction and debates among thinkers, there had emerged theocentric
and eschatological modes of thought. As soon as the reality changes, the
problem Muslim community changes as well, viz. the problem of humanity such
as human rights. Based on this problem, there had emerged an anthropocentric
and transformative thought.
8 Exemplar is the result of scientific finding which is publicly accepted. Ibid, p. 5.
5
1. Theo-centric-Eschatological Islam
Pre-Islamic Arab community lived in their tribal tradition. Tribe became
everything. Tribal forces had compelled individuals to obey the rules set up as
sacred rules. One of the tribal regulations which were considered sacred is the
worshipping of their conceived God. According to history, various existing tribes
had their respective different gods. The number of gods reached 356 idols. With
so many gods, pre-Islamic Arabs were polytheists. Taking this into consideration,
the term God in its very general sense was applied. Each tribe had the names for
their gods such as Lata, Uzza, Manat and so forth. It is said that at that time the
word “Allah” was already known.9 This was the main problem Muhammad
should cope with in his early mission.
Such dominant were the tribes in determining their members that
Muhammad felt necessary to offer a new concept of God clandestinely so as to
avoid the resistance from their chieftains. First of all, Muhammad called his
family such as his wife, Khadijah, Ali b. Abu Talib and so on to recognize God.
Not all of them accepted Muhammad’s call. Abu Talib, his uncle, and Abu Jahal
did not follow Muhammad’s religion.10
Conceptually, God as offered byMuhammad is formulated in the sentence
“there is no god but Allah”. This formula supposes two things: negation and
affirmation. Negation is declared to refute the general concept of God, for such a
concept implies myriad gods. After the negation is declared, an affirmation is
made by declaring that Allah is the only God. This is the concept of God’s
oneness accepted by Arab society. Eventually, Allah was accepted as the only
God whom Muslims should worship. This is what was then called monotheism
which was different from the pre-Islamic concept of Arab tribes.
After the death of Muhammad, Muslims of later generations still take
theological issues as their central attention, in spite of their different emphases. In
the time of Muhammad, attempts were made to declare the divinity of Allah and
9 The term Allah was already familiar before the era of Muhammad. See Philip K. Hitti,
History of the Arabs, terj. R. Cecep Lukman Yasir, (Jakarta: Serambi, 2005), pp. 126-127.
10 Muhammad Abed al-Jabiri, al-Aql al-Assiyâsî al-Arâbî: Muhaddadât wa Tajalliyât
(Beirut: al-Markas al-Tsaqafi al-Arabi, cet. II, 1991), pp. 57-67.
6
to refute other gods. However, after Muhammad died, the concept of “essence and
oneness” of Allah was a conspicuous important theme. What do Allah and the
One mean? Do they mean essence, attributes, or names? It is said that these
questions were stirred up by the spread of the concept of God’s dualism brought
into Muslim community from non-Muslim traditions.
In response to this question, a number of schools of Islamic theology were
established. The Ash‘ariya and the Mu‘tazila were among the most influential
schools in the history of Islamic theology. Regardless of their different paradigms,
both schools shared in their method of thinking, i.e. dialectical method.11 Through
this method, they stood up for their respective teachings against foreign attacks
either from Christian tradition or philosophy. They shared in their aim, i.e. to
defend the glory of Allah, either his essence or attributes and names. In short, they
defended Allah as the One in every sense. Allah is the only God whose existence
is not caused by others. He is necessary being by himself (wajib al-wujud bi
dhatih), while the others are possible being by others (mumkin al-wujud bi
gayrihi). Allah is the centre of existence under which other existences exist. Thus,
Islamic understanding prevailing at that time was theo-centric.
In addition to being theo-centric, classical Islam was more eschatological
in orientation, prioritizing the hereafter life more that this mundane world. This
ideology is based on the Quranic prescription that this “perishable world” is but a
medium to go to the hereafter world. It is this hereafter world that is the real life.
Such a theo-centric and eschatological understanding of Islam does not
contribute to solving the problems of the human existence in this world. It
prioritizes the hereafter over the present world. This in turn affirms the slogan that
the backwardness of Muslims is caused by their adherence to Islam, while other
religious adherents gain progress since they leave their religions.12 This slogan
11 Ibnu Rusyd, Fasl al-Maqâl, Fima Baina al-Hikmah wa al-Syarî’ah Min al-Ittisâl,
Dirasah wa tahkik: Muhammad Imarah, (Mesir: Dar al-Ma’arif, 1972), hal. 46; Yusuf Musa, Baina
al-Dina wa al-Falsafah, Fi Ra’yi Ibnu Rusyd wa Falasifah al-‘Asri al-Wasîth, (Mesir: Dar al-
Ma’ârif, Cet. Ke II, 1968), hal. 93.
12 Muhammad Abed al-Jabiri, Isykaliyât al-Fikr al-Arâbî al-Muasyir (Beiru: Markaz
Dirasat al-Wahdah al-Arabiyyah, 1989), pp.129-140.
7
implies a call and a hope that Muslims would be able to reach progress as the
West do.
The West have reached the peak of their progress, since their religious and
worldly views are separated. Tolerance, freedom and democracy have become a
consuming slogan. By contrast, this slogan is less significant for Muslims for they
regard it secular. This is the conspicuous difference between the West and
Muslims which should be taken into consideration. Why do not Muslims call for
progress? Isn’t it that progress will make our life free from oppression and give us
our dignity?
In order for Muslims to get progress as the West do, the way to progress
has to be opened. In this article I do not offer how to develop technology as the
West did. Instead, I propose how to change our world view which is still theocentric
and eschatological. This world-view would never change reality of
Muslims’ life, since it disregards the importance of the present world. This does
not mean that Muslims should look down the importance of eschatological aspects
of Islamic teachings. By contrast, it has to be emphasized that this world is one of
the necessary prerequisites of obtaining the happiness in the hereafter life. Our
belief in the hereafter should not make us ignore the importance of this world. Our
achievements in this world would impact on our hereafter life.
Thus, the future meant in this conception is not the hereafter life, but it is
our future and the future of the next generation in this world. The Quran has
warned us that we should not leave our children in starvation. To realise this,
however, Indonesian Muslims do not necessarily have to do KB (Keluarga
Berencana or Family Planning). Instead, it can be realised by improving skills and
creativity. Belief in the hereafter life should motivate us to do the best in this
world.
2. Anthropocentric-Transformative Islam
This understanding of Islam will be a sustainable paradigm of Islamic
thought. Even it will be relevant forever. Since their defeat by Israel in 1976, Arab
society, often regarded to have the authoritative understanding of Islam was aware
8
of their failure to deal with tradition and modernity.13 Arab thinkers started to
question the validity of the dominant theo-centric and eschatological paradigm of
Islamic thought. They looked for a new paradigm which would be able to solve
contemporary problems they were facing.
One of the compelling problems we are facing is that of humanity. “God in
the present time needs no defence”.14 In contrast, “it is human who needs
defence”, so that Muslim societies will not be underdeveloped. According to
them, the failure of Muslim societies is because they still stick to the old paradigm
so that they look for the ideal Islam in the past which ever reached the golden
victory.15 In face of modernity, they feel it unnecessary to refer to the old
paradigm which is outdated and even its validity in solving contemporary
problems starts to be questioned.
At the same time, they prefer to use a new paradigm in replace of the old
one.16 Hassan Hanafi clearly uses new terms which he regards more
deconstructive. For instance, he offers the terms like from text to reality, from
God to human, and so forth. From this counter-discourse, Hanafi tries to establish
an anthropo-centric paradigm which underlines the importance of human as the
centre of existence. In this paradigm, human is regarded as the real goal of Islamic
teaching. An interpretation of Islam should be aimed at the liberation of human
from the dominant old paradigm which undermines human for the sake of God’
absolute authority.
The anthropocentric paradigm of Islam has created various Islamic
discourses centring on human such as theology of liberation, progressive Islam,
13 Ibid., p. 55
14 In Indonesia this was stated by Gus Dur. See, Abdurrahman Wahid, Tuhan Tidak Perlu
Dibela (Yogyakarta: LKiS, 2000).
15 Issa J. Boullota, Dekonstruksi Tradisi, Gelegar Pemikiran Arab Islam (Yogyakarta:
LKiS, 2002), pp, 4-10.
16 Boulatta puts forward three three discourses in Contemporary Arab world in response to
the problem of tradition and modernity: transformative discourse, reformative discourse, and
ideal-totalistic discourse. See further Issa J. Boullota, Dekonstruksi Tradisi, Gelegar Pemikiran
Arab Islam (Yogyakarta: LkiS, 2002), p. 4. Also Hassan Hanafi, Turas dan Tajdid: Sikap Kita
terhadap Tuiras Klasik (Yogyakarta: Titian Ilahi Press dan Pesantren Pasca sarjana Press, 2001),
p. 32.
9
transformative Islam, actual Islam, and so forth. In this paradigm, human becomes
a real targeted aim of Islamic teaching.
By describing the development of religious discourse in the Arab world, I
intend to take an analogous lesson (i‘tibari) for a mode of Islamic understanding
in Indonesia. This is because Islamic understanding developed in Indonesia
reflects the Islamic model as developed in Arab.17
Anthropocentric Islam is a basis for the understanding of Indonesian
Islam, that is, an understanding which is accepted by Indonesian people and can
move their live, as Protestantism moved its community to develop a rational
thinking in observing the command of God. Such an Islamic understanding can be
termed as transformative Islam, an understanding which emphasizes the need to
transform Islamic teachings into the real life.
This mode of Islamic understanding includes three interrelated aspects:
God, nature and human. God is placed in the highest level of existence, nature as
God’s creation and human as the actors of the messages of God’s moral and
legalislation as stated in the Quran. Different from theo-centric and eschatologic
paradigm, the transformative Islam places God as the prime mover of human to
implement God’s messages on moral and legislation in this world, not as the
executor of God’s messages as claimed by the advocates of theo-centric and
eschatological Islam. The anthropo-centric and transformative Islam lets God be
the only executor in the hereafter. Human only implements the messages of God’s
moral and legislation to keep nature balanced as His creation and to realise the
harmony and prosperity among humankind.
In anthropocentric and transformative Islam, the prophet is understood not
as the holder of all authority over human, but as uswatun hasanah (exemplary
model) for humankind in their life. As human should keep nature balanced. They
should work for their lives and do not oppress the other religious adherents. Did
Muhammad say: “[the real] Muslim is one who saves the others by his hands and
tongue”?
17 Details on this can be found in Aksin Wijaya, Menggugat Otentisitas Wahyu Tuhan:
Kritik Atas Nalar Tafsir Gender (Yogyakarta: Safiria Insania Press, 2004), pp. 94-106.
10
This hadith teaches Muslims to be the first to keep balance of nature and to
liberate human from oppression and backwardness. How could we save the others
while we do nothing to illegal logging, poverty, and social conflicts? In this
regard, all of us should participate in keeping that balance.
3. Religio-centric Islam: authonomizing religion and developing Individual Based
Religious Discourses.
In line with the complexity of the problems of humanity, the other
compelling problem drawing our high attention comes to the fore concerning
religion itself. So far, religion has been regarded as a place to solve theological as
well as human problems. However, the religion itself creates its own problems.
The religion will never be able to solve the theological and human problems as far
as it cannot liberate itself from the problems it faces. This is important to be
emphasized since MUI, NU and Muhammadiyyah, have controlled and dominated
religious authority and autonomy as an objective reality open to every one.
What I call “religio-centric Islam” is that religion becomes an autonomic
objective reality and a centre of existence under which other existences could
establish. Religion should not be controlled by any power except of itself. Every
one has the right to understand it.
The problem is how religion could be an independent objective reality so
that it can present itself to its umma at all places and times. They become
individually free to understand and practise their religion without being fear of
any control imposed by institutions such as MUI, NU and Muhammadiyah. By
doing so, individual-based Islamic discourse will emerge.
a) Religion: Absolute God’s authority versus the authority of Institutions,
Organisation and Religious streams
To make religion as an objective independent and autonomic reality, we
should understand the essence of religion itself. By doing so, we can place its
objective and autonomic existence properly. Religion is God’s legislation sent
down to the world as His creation. It is meant to guide humankind to the straight
11
path to the happiness in the hereafter. Religion is under the absolute authority of
God.
However, God gives no direct guide, but he has chosenMuhammad as His
‘deputy’ in this world. As God’s deputy, Muhammad has the ‘semi-absolute’
authority over the Quran as the basic source of Islam. His main task is just to
“deliver” and “explain” God’s messages to Muslims, not to create a new thing or
even to limit religious messages to his own understanding.
Placed in the real social context, God’s messages interacted with tribes,
states, and social religious institutions and organisations which infrequently
caused. Muhammad made use of state and tribes as a medium of spreading Islam
over various regions. The establishment of the Medinan state, for instance, was
part of his strategies to do his religious mission. This was the case of
Muhammad’s demand for trusting Islamic leadership to the Quraish tribe. It is
said that he said: “A leader should be [chosen] from the Quraish tribe”.18
It should be underlined however that although under the power of a state
like Madinah, Islam was actually still under the authority and control of
Muhammad as an individual to the point that Islam could have easily spread all
over the world. Under the leadership of Muhammad, religion was free to
communicate its individual followers, and they had a free responsible access to
understand it. Religious dependence on states, religious institutions and
organisation occurred after the death of Muhammad. Religion then was interfered
with political affairs.
Religion had become an effective tool for those who desire to get a
political legitimacy from a certain religious community. This can be seen in the
case of the leadership of Muawiyyah which used the concept and ideology of
“Jabariyyah” and, in most cases, in the fatwas issued by MUI in the Indonesian
context. In addition, religion is often arbitrarily controlled by an ideology and a
culture hidden behind institutions, organisations and religious streams. Violence is
18 Jamal al-Banna, Runtuhnya Negara Madinah: Islam Kemasyarakatan versus
Kenegaraan, trans. Jumadi Sunardi (Yogyakarta: Pilar Media, 2003), pp. 114-116; Ameer Ali, Api
Islam: sejarah Revolusi dan Cira-cita Islam dengan Riwayat Hidup Nabi Muhammad SAW, trans.
HB. Yasin (Jakarta: Pustaka Firdaus, 1978), pp. 92-103.
12
done in the name of religion, and God is pictured as the violent. This phenomenon
can be seen in violence occurred in many parts of the Muslim world and spread by
a number of Muslim organizations such as Hizbullah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda and
Jamaah Islamiyah (JI). In Indonesia, we can find mass organisations such as FPI
(Fron Pembela Islam, Front for Defenders of Islam) and Laskar Ahlussunnah.
They are indifferent with God’s message that Muhammad should use wise ways
of delivering the message. The Quran says: “Call unto the way of thy Lord with
wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way.” (Q. Al-
Nahl [16]: 125).19 They neglect the fact that Muhammad emphasized the
importance of knowledge in solving problems they face. A saying attributed to
him tells us: “seek knowledge even to China”. Muhammad once criticised a
farmer of following him in matters of farm. He said, “You know better than me
about worldly affairs”. Thus, Muhammad regarded religion only as “one of the
alternatives” to solve various problems, without neglecting the other possible
alternatives. Poverty problem can only be solved by economic science, political
problem by political science, legal problem by law science, theological and moral
problems by religion.
Islam’s acceptance of other alternatives can be seen from the Quranic
statement that religion does not force its adherents to follow its messages without
any free choice. The Quran says: “there is no compulsion in religion. The right
direction is henceforth distinct from error” (Q. al-Baqarah [2]: 256). It also says:
“unto you your religion, and unto me my religion” (Q. al-Kafirun [109]: 6).
In addition to the necessary understanding of the essence of religion, the
need to liberate religion from the shadow of the authority and control of
institutions, organisations and religious streams stems from the assumption that
these institutions, organisations and religious streams have latent ideologies
hidden behind the objectivity of reason and discourse which will control
individuals. In the end, people’s mode of thought cannot be divorced from any
19 Translator’s note: All Quranic translation in this article follow Marmaduke Pickthall’s
The Meaning of The Glorious Koran: An Explanatory Translation (New York: Alfred ‘A’ Knopf,
1930).
13
ideology or culture of a certain social community in which it emerges.20
Individuals are under the control of organized institutions, organisations and
groups, since a society, according to Durkheim,21 is an independent objective
entity which has its own conscience different from that of individuals involved
within it. When both consciences are conflicting, society’s conscience will win
and get rid of individuals.
Indonesian society, for instance, cannot escape from rules and systems set
up by the government in the form of Pancasila ideology. Members of the Nahlatul
Ulama (NU) cannot avoid norms and systems of thought constructed within its
doctrine of Ahlussunnah wal Jamaah (Aswaja). Neither can members of
Muhammadiyah escape from the system of thought constructed by Majlis Tarjih.
Nor can members of Hizbut Tahrir be free from its ideology of khilafat. As a
consequence, social communication only occurs in a certain social organisation
where they live. This is what is called in the sociological term as a “group
reference”.22 Social discourses are also limited to discourses selected by
institutions, organisations, and groups. This is what is called “normative
reference”. Group reference is a social communication which binds its members
and becomes reference by individuals involved within it to understand situations
and conditions surrounding it or actual problems prevailing in a wider scale such
as national problems.
In other words, an individual’s opinion is product of his participation in
social life which becomes reference for his group. One’s individual opinion
concerning a certain situation or a scholarly discourse depends on how his group
reference understands it; and how he is influenced by his perception of how his
group reference looks at a certain problem.
20 According to Popper, analyzing sociology of knowledge, every thinking never comes
from vacuum, since every one cannot escape from what is called total ideology, yang berada
dilingkungan habitat sosialnya.Karl Poper, Masyarakat Terbuka dan Musuh-musuhnya,
(Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2001), hal. 59; Karl Mannheim, Ideologi dan Utopia: Menyingkap
Kaitan Pikiran dan Politik, terj. F. Budi Hardiman, (Yogyakarta: Kanisius, cet. 2, 1993), hal. 287.
21 David Berry, Pokok-pokok Pikiran dalam Sosiologi, trans. Paulus Wirutomo, 3rd
impression (Jakarta: PT. Rajawali, 1974), p. 83.
22 Ibid. p. 83.
14
b) Objectification of religion: Freeing religion from the shadow of institutions,
organisations and religious streams.
How to liberate religion from the shadow of the authority and control of
institutions, organisations and religious streams? An attempt should be stated by
the reconstruction of reason and discourse23. The way of reasoning determines the
essence of a discourse.
Seen from claims and implications prevailing so far, method of religious
reason seems to romantic-objective. This method aims at the objective search for
meaning intended by its author.24 Such a method of reading presupposes that a
reader can equate his position with the author.25 As if he were the shadow of the
author. As a consequence, the reader tends to regard his understanding as true and
representative of the intention of the author.
In religious discourses, many claim that they have understood the real and
objective God’s messages, and, therefore, they claim to have the authority over
the interpretation of religion. A certain religious discourse produced by a certain
organisation, institution and religious streams is often regarded as purely
epistemological. That discourse is believed to objectively originate from the
Quran, completed with the method set up also by the Quran.
It should be noted that such a scientific objectivity has made the hegemony
of ideology and culture of a certain community fortify. This is because an
objective expression often sounds compelling, especially if backed up by a
number of intellectual authorities as gathered within the fatwa commission of
MUI, Bahtsul Masail of NU and Majelis Tarjih of the Muhammadiyah.
23 I deliberately distinguish mind from discourse by following al-Jabiri. Al-Jabiri divides
thought into two: content and device. As content, thought is a set of opinions and thinking
produced by thought as tool, for example, thought about ethics, doctrines of Islamic schools of
law, or thought on human world view concerning nature. As device, it is a thinking method of
producing knowledges. See Muhmmad Abed al-Jabiri, Iskaliyat., pp. 51-52. Also, Muhmmad
Abed al-Jabiri, Takwîn al-Aqli al-Arabi (Beirut: Al-Markaz Al-Tsaqafi al-Arabi Li-Al-Thaba’ah
wa al-Nasr wa al-Tauzi’, Cet; ke IV, 1991), p. 11-12; see also Cliffort Geertz, Pengetahuan Lokal
(Yogyakarta: Rumah Penerbitan, 2003), p. 221.
24 See Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid, Al-Qur’an, Hermeneutika dan Kekuasaan, Bandung: RQiS,
2003, hal. 42-46. Also, Paul Ricoeur, Hermeneutika Ilmu Sosial, terj. Muhammad Syukri,
Yogyakarta: Kreasi Wacana, 2006, pp. 60-63.
25 This reading method will de-legitimize the authority of language as a determinant of
meaning. Muhammad ‘Ata Al-sid, Sejarah Kalam Tuhan, trans. Ilham B. Saenong (Jakarta:
Teraju, 2004), p.14.
15
From the romantic-objective hermeneutic26 perspective, an objective
understanding as claimed by religious institutions such as MUI, NU and
Muhammadiyah will be established if the intellectual community is involved in
attempts to read into the world of its writer.
In the eyes of Gadamer, 27 this aim will never be reached because it is
impossible to go into the world of the writer. Even the writer himself cannot do so
with what he have written and told. This is because the situation when he was
writing and telling passed and it is likely that he have forgot. Reading and
understanding something cannot be divorced from subjectivity, for the reader
lives in circumstances and contexts which are often different from the writer. The
reader is always related to a certain historical situation.28 Every one is influenced
by situations where he lives. Situations and conditions are normative as
presumptions Gadamer calls “historical conditionality” of the reader. From this
perspective, each individual has the authority to determine his understanding of
concepts, including the concept of God.
In line with this, a distinction should be made between religion and
religious discourse. Religion is God’s legislation, while religious discourse is its
interpretation either by Muhammad, his Companions or mujtahid as reflected in
various Islamic disciplines such as fiqh, kalam, and tasawwuf. As a God’s
legislation, religion is not bound by times and places. It is free to be understood
by its followers at all places and times. By contrast, religious discourse is always
tied by places and times, for it is the result of human interpretation which is
relative.
Religious discourse is produced by a certain mujtahid at a certain place
and time. Thus, it is only relevant for spatio-temporal conditions in which it is
produced or for the similar conditions. The Shafi‘i fiqh, for instance, was applied
26 On hermeneutics, see Komaruddin Hidayat, Memahami Bahasa Agama: Sebuah Kajian
Hermeneutika, (Jakarta: Paramadina, 1996), p. 126.
27 Richart King, Agama, Orientalisme Dan Postkolonialisme, Sebuah Kajian Tentang
Pertelingkuhanantara Rasionalitas dan Mistik, Yogjakarta: Qalam, 2001, hal. 140; Stephen
Palmquis, Pohon Filsafat, (Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2002), hal. 229.
28 Quoting Heidegger, Gadamer states that every understanding procees is always related to
pre-structures. See Poesporadjo, Interpretasi, (Bandung: Remaja Karya CV, 1987), hal. 96.
16
specifically to the time and place in which al-Shafi‘i lived or to the similar time
and place. The case is also of the Hanafi, Maliki, and Hanbali.
Religious institutions, organisations and streams have misunderstood
about this difference. They do not differentiate between religion and religious
discourse.29 They hold only one religion which is under the absolute authority of
God. As a consequence, they consider the fiqh of the Shafi‘i, Hanafi, Maliki and
Hanbali, the theology of the Ash‘ari, Maturidi, Mu‘tazilah, and the Islamic
mysticism of al-Ghazali, al-Junaydi, ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, and so forth as
religion itself. Just like religion, religious discourses produced by mujtahids are
claimed to be religion which is not tied by times and places.
In addition to liberating religion from the shadow of religious institutions,
organisations and streams, religion itself stimulates the emergence of myriad
religious discourses which are relevant for the spatio-temporal context of its
individual as well as collective readers. But nevertheless, it could not be neglected
that religious discourse is frequently separated from what religion is meant by its
author. According to Paul Riceour, when a discourse is put into a writing, what
happens is actually a maintenance of “meaning of discourse”, not “event of
discourse” itself.30 Here, a text becomes autonomous of threefold: of the intent of
its author; of its original socio-historical context; and of its first targeted
audiences. Thus, the text becomes an objective thing.
Any interpreter has to be aware of this textual autonomy, including
religious texts. Due to this textual autonomy, which according to Ricoeur is a
constitutive character of the textuality of a text, the text becomes open to any
reading and is not subjected to any attempts to fix and monopolize its meaning.
As soon as it is written, any text constitutes its own meaning which is not always
29 On the difference between religion and religious discourse, see Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid,
Naqd al-Khitâb al-Dîni, 2nd edition (Mesir: Sina Li-al-Nasr).
30 Paul Ricouer, Hermeneutics and The Human Sciences, John B. Thompson, ed. & trans.
(London-New York: Cambridge of University Press, 1982), p. 145; Ignas Kleden,
“Pemberontakan terhadap “Narasi Besar”: membaca teks Putu Wijaya dengan pendekatan
tekstual” in Bahasa dan Kekuasaan: Politik Wacana Di Panggung Orde Baru (Bandung: Mizan,
2rd edition, 1996), p. 327.
17
equal to the original intention of its author.31 Therefore, a text can be
decontextualized from its historical situation on the one hand, and at the same
time it can be recontextualized within its new situation and new audiences on the
other.32 Its new meanings thus can be reproduced according to its new targeted
groups.33
Thus, in fact there is no compulsion for everyone to individually follow
religious discourses produced by certain religious institutions, organisations and
religious streams. Everyone has the change to approach religion and formulate
religious discourses relevant to his spatio-temporal context. By doing so, religion
becomes an object from which everyone can get solutions to his/her problems. In
this regard it is significant to consider five moral principles that Khaled Abou
Fadl offers, including trustfulness, comprehensiveness, rigorousness, and selfcontrol.
34 In addition, we might consider the concept of epistemological
presupposition35 and exclusionary reasons.36 These three principles can be norms
upon which one bases his following a particular opinion. It can be determined if
he will follow other’s opinion who has “epistemological presupposition” or not. If
so, does he/she follow by free choices through “exclusionary reasons”. If by free
choices, it means that he refutes coercion on him/her. Otherwise, it means he/she
serves as the follower of the followed.
If religion can be freed from the shadow of religious institutions,
organisations and streams, each individual can freely formulate individual-based
religious discourses. And that means that religious discourses are produced by
individuals as mujtahid.
31 Paul Ricouer, as quoted by Kleden, makes a clear-cut distinction between the intention of
speakers and the meaning of speech. The former is intentional and understanding upon it depends
on what readers understand about speakers’ subjectivity. The latter is propositional and
understanding upon it depends on the relation between subjects and predicates within it. Ignas
Kleden, “Pemberontakan terhadap “Narasi Besar”, p. 327.
32 Ibid., p. 328.
33 Paul Ricouer Hermeneutics., p. 91.
34 Khaled Abou El Fadl, Speaking in God’s Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women
(England: Oneworld Oxford, 2003), pp. 53-56.
35 Ibid., p. 19.
36 Ibid., p. 22.
18
Each individual is given the authority to independently produce religious
discourses through a particular preferred approach without being tied with
institutions to which the majority are affiliated. It is this religion produced by
individuals that Muslims should develop so that they will be able to solve their
own problems. And Islam is the main source through which they improve their
spirituality.
D. Conclusion
Institutions, organisations and religious sects have subdued the
independence and autonomy of religion. In the above discussion, I have attempted
to free religion from the shadow of that authority. I believe that only by doing so
that Muslims have free access to the understanding of Islam from many
perspectives and points of view.
The aim of this article is to let religion speak about itself to its umma. In
addition, it is hoped that every individual is able to make a dialogic relationship
with religion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
________. 2003. Al-Qur’an, Hermeneutika dan Kekuasaan, Bandung: RQiS.
Ali, Syed Ameer. 1978. Api Islam: Sejarah Revolusi dan Cira-cita Islam dengan
riwayat Hidup Nabi Muhammad SAW, translated by HB. Yasin, Jakarta:
Pustaka Firdaus.
Al-Banna, Jamal. 2003. Runtuhnya Negara Madinah: Islam Kemasyarakatan
versus Kenegaraan, translated by Jumadi Sunardi, Yogyakarta: Pilar
Media.
Berry, David. 1974. Pokok-pokok Pikiran dalam Sosiologi, translated by Paulus
Wirutomo, 3rd edition, Jakarta: PT. Rajawali.
Bleicher, Yoseph. 1980. Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as Method,
Philosophy and Critique, London: Raoutledge & Kegan Paul.
Boullota, Issa J. 2002. Dekonstruksi Tradisi, Gelegar Pemikiran Arab Islam,
Yogyakarta: LkiS.
El Fadl, Khaled Abou. 2003. Speaking In God’s Name: Islamic Law, Authority
and Women, England: Oneworld Oxford.
19
Geertz, Cliffort. 2003. Pengetahuan Lokal, Yogyakarta: Rumah Penerbitan.
Hidayat, Komaruddin. 1996. Memahami Bahasa Agama: Sebuah Kajian
Hermeneutika, Jakarta: Paramadina.
Hitti, Philip K. 2005. History of the Arabs, translated by R. Cecep Lukman Yasur,
Jakarta: Serambi.
Hanafi, Hassan. 2001. Turas dan Tajdid: Sikap Kita terhadap Turas Klasik,
Yogyakarta: Titian Ilahi Press dan Pesantren Pascasarjana Press.
Husein, Thaha. 2007. Fi al-Syî’ri al-Jâhili: al-Kitâb wa al-Qadiyah, Cairo: Ru’ya
li al-Nasr wa Tawzi’.
Izutsu, Toshihiko. 1997. Relasi Tuhan dan Manusia, translated by Agus Fari
Husein, Yogyakarta: Tiara Wacana.
al-Jabiri, Muhammad Abed. 1991. al-Aql al-Assiyasi al-Arâbi: Muhaddadât wa
Tajâlliyât, 2nd edition, Beirut: al-Markas al-Tsaqafi al-Arabi.
______. 1989. Isykâliyat al-Fikr al-Arâbi al-Muâsyir, Beirut: Markaz Dirasat al-
Wahdah al-Arabiyyah.
______. 1991. Takwîn al-Aqli al-Arabi, 4th edition, Beirut: Al-Markaz Al-Tsaqafi
al-Arabi Li-Al-Thaba’ah wa al-Nasr wa al-Tawzi’.
Karim, Khalil Abdul. 2003. Syari’ah: Sejarah Perkelahian Pemaknaan, translated
by Kamran As’ad, Yogyakarta: LkiS.
King, Richart. 2001. Agama, Orientalisme Dan Postkolonialisme, Sebuah Kajian
Tentang Pertelingkuhan antara Rasionalitas dan Mistik, Yogjakarta:
Qalam.
Kleden, Ignas. 1996. “Pemberontakan terhadap “Narasi Besar”: Membaca teks
Putu Wijaya dengan Pendekatan Tekstual” in Bahasa dan Kekuasaan:
Politik Wacana Di Panggung Orde Baru. Bandung, Mizan.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 2002. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Peran Paradigma
Dalam Revolusi Sains, 4th edition, Bandung: Rosda.
Mannheim, Karl. 1993. Ideologi dan Utopia: Menyingkap Kaitan Pikiran dan
Politik, translated by F. Budi Hardiman, Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Montgomery Watt. 1995. Pengantar Studi Al-Qur’an, Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo
Persada, Rajawali Press.
Musa, Muhammad Yusuf. 1968. Baina al-Dîn wa al-Falsafah, Fi Ra’yi Ibnu
Rusyd wa Falâsifah al-Asri al-Wasîth, Egypt: Dar al-Ma’arif.
Palmquis, Stephen. 2002. Pohon Filsafat, Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Poesporadjo. 1987. Interpretasi, Bandung: Remaja Karya.
Popper, Karl. 2001. Masyarakat Terbuka dan Musuh-musuhnya, Yogyakarta:
Pustaka Pelajar.
20
Ricouer, Paul. 1982. Hermeneutics and The Human Sciences, John B. Thompson,
ed. & terj., London-New York: Cambridge of University Press.
________.2002. Filsafat Wacana: Membelah Makna dalam Anatomi Bahasa,
Yogyakarta: IRCISOD.
Ritzer, George. 2004. Sosiologi Pengetahuan Berparadigma Ganda, translated by
Alimandan, Jakarta: Rajawali Press.
Rusyd, Ibnu. 1972. Fasl al-Maqâl, Fîma Baina al-Hikmah wa al-Syari’ah Min al-
Ittishâl, Dirasah wa tahkik: Muhammad Imarah, Egypt: Dar al-Ma’arif.
Al-Sid, Muhammad ‘Ata. 2004. Sejarah Kalam Tuhan, translated by Ilham B.
Saenong, Jakarta: Teraju.
Wahid, Abdurrahman. 2000. Tuhan Tidak Perlu Dibela, Yogyakarta: LkiS.
Wijaya, Aksin. 2004. Menggugat Otentisitas Wahyu Tuhan: Kritik Atas Nalar
Tafsir Gender, Yogyakarta: Safiria Insania Press.
________, 2005. Relasi Al-Qur'an dan Budaya Lokal: Sebuah Tatapan
Epistemologis, Hermeneia (Journal of Postgrduate Program of UIN
Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta), Vol. 4, No. 2, July-December.
Zaid, Nasr Hamid Abu. 1993. Naqd al-Khitâb al-Dîni, 2nd edition, Egypt: Sina Lial-
Nasr.
Diambil dari; Aksin wijaya posting.
