Abdul Kadir Riyadi
There is increasing tension within the Muslim community in this country as a result of the growing number of people embracing what might be called "new religions".
The most recent of these is al-Qiyadah al-Islamiyyah, whose leader Ahmad Moshaddeq proclaims himself to be a prophet.<>
Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world, has witnessed no less than 250 "new religions" since 2001. Prominent among these are Ahmadiyyah, Inkarussunnah and the Eden Community, apart from al-Qiyadah. The Attorney General's Office has declared al-Qiyadah an outlawed sect, which sets a precedent for bans on other sects.
The phenomenon has sparked a serious debate among Muslims over the nature of these so-called new religions. Central to their debate is the question of whether these religions are legitimate and lawful, or violate the true tenets of Islam. The Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI) has had no hesitation in branding these religions unlawful simply because they run counter to the true faith of Islam. Among the teachings that the MUI regards as antithetical to Islam is the claim that their leaders are the promised prophets and their disregard for the mandatory five prayers a day.
MUI has issued at least nine fatwas in the last five years declaring these religions illegitimate. This has led many fanatics to conduct attacks and intimidation against the followers of the new religions.
Interestingly, despite the ban, intimidations and attacks, new religions keep emerging. It appears that we, represented by the MUI, have failed to deal with the new religions in an effective way.
The MUI fails to realize that, although these new religions may represent a kind of religious kitsch and are criticized even by the moderate Muslim community for their lack of systematic and comprehensive tenets, they nonetheless represent a basic psycho-cultural need for people marginalized by the mainstream religious community.
The followers of the new religions are fringe minorities that emerge as a protest against the majority who fail to protect, understand and accommodate their religious, psychological and cultural needs. Hence, the new religions will never disappear as long as mainstream religion fails to embrace them within its fold.
The country's two largest Muslim organizations, Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, have joined forces in denouncing the Islamic sects as heretical for offending the basic teachings of the religion.
However, issuing a fatwa declaring the new religions blasphemous is not an appropriate way of dealing with them. On the contrary, the new religions should prompt reflection so as to see why there are movements that want to separate from the mainstream.
Fatwas will not work. Rather, they will do a lot of harm both to the heretical minority and the faithful majority. The majority -- because of the fatwas -- will intimidate the minority, and the minority will, in turn, expose the weakness of the majority through their silence.
The most basic question as far as the issuance of fatwas is concerned is who really has the right to issue one? Shouldn't specific intellectual and academic qualifications be required for those who issue fatwas? Do our ulema meet these standards?
After all, the MUI should first analyze the sociological and cultural complexity of the new religions before issuing a fatwa. The root problem is why do these new religions emerge, and not what these new religions are. To better cope with this problem, we have to focus on healing the causes of the disease instead of putting the blame on the sects.
The ulema, in other words, should appreciate the complexity of issuing fatwas. Given the serious nature and implications of fatwas, the ulema should be thoroughly acquainted with religious texts, social and cultural conditions, theories, languages and traditions if they are to come up with a sophisticated, insightful and well-grounded fatwa. Without such broad knowledge, fatwas will be issued solely on subjective grounds.
Equally, in the modern world the ulema need to be aware of the development of knowledge that can offer valuable insights into the process of issuing fatwas. Theories of social science, for example -- of which the ulema are often ignorant -- should be consulted in order to analyze the nature of certain new religions and the implications that may follow should a fatwa be issued. In doing this, I believe, errors may be avoided.
The ulema badly need to study the problem from all angles. Only then will they be able to reach an informed and appropriate decision. It is simply impossible, in my view, for an individual or group of people specializing in one field of knowledge to issue appropriate rulings on problems of this magnitude.
When embarking on an issue in the light of religious strictures, a person must not rely solely on one field of knowledge, let alone on the literal interpretation of individual Koranic passages that he regards as relevant. He must also take into consideration how these passages relate to the entire Koranic text as a structural and coherent unity on the one hand, and to the social context on the other. In other words, one must adopt a holistic approach as opposed to a personal approach, and avoid arriving at a particular decision that reflects personal prejudice.
The writer is a lecturer on Islamic philosophy at the State Institute of Islamic Studies (IAIN) in Surabaya. He can be reached at q4dir@yahoo.com. Adopted from The Jakarta Post.
There is increasing tension within the Muslim community in this country as a result of the growing number of people embracing what might be called "new religions".
The most recent of these is al-Qiyadah al-Islamiyyah, whose leader Ahmad Moshaddeq proclaims himself to be a prophet.<>
Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world, has witnessed no less than 250 "new religions" since 2001. Prominent among these are Ahmadiyyah, Inkarussunnah and the Eden Community, apart from al-Qiyadah. The Attorney General's Office has declared al-Qiyadah an outlawed sect, which sets a precedent for bans on other sects.
The phenomenon has sparked a serious debate among Muslims over the nature of these so-called new religions. Central to their debate is the question of whether these religions are legitimate and lawful, or violate the true tenets of Islam. The Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI) has had no hesitation in branding these religions unlawful simply because they run counter to the true faith of Islam. Among the teachings that the MUI regards as antithetical to Islam is the claim that their leaders are the promised prophets and their disregard for the mandatory five prayers a day.
MUI has issued at least nine fatwas in the last five years declaring these religions illegitimate. This has led many fanatics to conduct attacks and intimidation against the followers of the new religions.
Interestingly, despite the ban, intimidations and attacks, new religions keep emerging. It appears that we, represented by the MUI, have failed to deal with the new religions in an effective way.
The MUI fails to realize that, although these new religions may represent a kind of religious kitsch and are criticized even by the moderate Muslim community for their lack of systematic and comprehensive tenets, they nonetheless represent a basic psycho-cultural need for people marginalized by the mainstream religious community.
The followers of the new religions are fringe minorities that emerge as a protest against the majority who fail to protect, understand and accommodate their religious, psychological and cultural needs. Hence, the new religions will never disappear as long as mainstream religion fails to embrace them within its fold.
The country's two largest Muslim organizations, Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, have joined forces in denouncing the Islamic sects as heretical for offending the basic teachings of the religion.
However, issuing a fatwa declaring the new religions blasphemous is not an appropriate way of dealing with them. On the contrary, the new religions should prompt reflection so as to see why there are movements that want to separate from the mainstream.
Fatwas will not work. Rather, they will do a lot of harm both to the heretical minority and the faithful majority. The majority -- because of the fatwas -- will intimidate the minority, and the minority will, in turn, expose the weakness of the majority through their silence.
The most basic question as far as the issuance of fatwas is concerned is who really has the right to issue one? Shouldn't specific intellectual and academic qualifications be required for those who issue fatwas? Do our ulema meet these standards?
After all, the MUI should first analyze the sociological and cultural complexity of the new religions before issuing a fatwa. The root problem is why do these new religions emerge, and not what these new religions are. To better cope with this problem, we have to focus on healing the causes of the disease instead of putting the blame on the sects.
The ulema, in other words, should appreciate the complexity of issuing fatwas. Given the serious nature and implications of fatwas, the ulema should be thoroughly acquainted with religious texts, social and cultural conditions, theories, languages and traditions if they are to come up with a sophisticated, insightful and well-grounded fatwa. Without such broad knowledge, fatwas will be issued solely on subjective grounds.
Equally, in the modern world the ulema need to be aware of the development of knowledge that can offer valuable insights into the process of issuing fatwas. Theories of social science, for example -- of which the ulema are often ignorant -- should be consulted in order to analyze the nature of certain new religions and the implications that may follow should a fatwa be issued. In doing this, I believe, errors may be avoided.
The ulema badly need to study the problem from all angles. Only then will they be able to reach an informed and appropriate decision. It is simply impossible, in my view, for an individual or group of people specializing in one field of knowledge to issue appropriate rulings on problems of this magnitude.
When embarking on an issue in the light of religious strictures, a person must not rely solely on one field of knowledge, let alone on the literal interpretation of individual Koranic passages that he regards as relevant. He must also take into consideration how these passages relate to the entire Koranic text as a structural and coherent unity on the one hand, and to the social context on the other. In other words, one must adopt a holistic approach as opposed to a personal approach, and avoid arriving at a particular decision that reflects personal prejudice.
The writer is a lecturer on Islamic philosophy at the State Institute of Islamic Studies (IAIN) in Surabaya. He can be reached at q4dir@yahoo.com. Adopted from The Jakarta Post.
