Abdul Kadir Riyadi*
There is an 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- claims that he is a prophet sent by God to earth.
Indonesia –the most populous Muslim country in the world- has witnessed a phenomenal emergence of new religions since 2001 where -it is recorded- that up till now there are no less than 250 new religions having flourished in this country. Prominent among these are -apart from al-Qiyadah al-Islamiyyah- Islam Jama’ah, Ahmadiyyah, Inkarussunnah, and Eden Community.
This has raised a serious debate among the Muslims of Indonesia on the nature of these new religions. Central to their debate is the question whether these religions are legitimate and lawful or not judged from the true tenets of Islam. The Muslim Council of ‘Ulama (MUI) has no hesitation in alleging that these religions are indeed unlawful simply because they run against the true faith of Islam. Among their teachings that the MUI regarded as antithetical to Islam is the claim that their leaders are the promised prophets, and that such obligation as five-stated prayers are no longer obligatory. The MUI has also no hesitation in decreeing that these religions should be banned. 9 fatwas have been issued by the MUI in the last 5 years or so to the effect that these religions are illegitimate. This however, has led many fanatics to anarchically attack and intimidate the followers of these new religions.
Interestingly, although new religions have been banned over time, intimidated and attacked, they keep on occurring and recurring. It appears that we –represented by the MUI- have failed in dealing with new religions in an effective way.
Learning from past experience, the MUI’s fatwas have failed to stop the emergence of new religions. What MUI has not realized is that, although these new religions may represent a kind of religious kitsch and is criticized even by the moderate academic community for their lack of systematic and comprehensive tenet, they nonetheless serve as a basic psycho-cultural need for people marginalized by the mainstream religious community. They are fringe minorities that emerge as a kind of protest against the majority who fail to protect, understand and accommodate their religious, psychological and cultural need. Hence, new religions such as these will never disappear as long as the mainstream religion fails to embrace them within its fold.
It is then, not by alleging them for being heretical that we should deal with new religions. It is on the contrary by internal critics, as to why there remain heretical movements within the fold of certain religion.
Fatwa will not do. It will rather do a lot of harm for the heretical minority as well as for the faithful majority. The majority –because of that fatwa- will intimidate the minority, and the minority in its turn will -through the implicit silence- show the weakness of the majority.
The most basic question as far as issuing fatwa is concerned is, who really has the right to issue a fatwa? Shouldn’t there be necessary intellectual and academic qualifications for those who issues fatwa? Have our proclaimed ‘Ulama met those qualifications?
After all, the MUI should first analyze the sociological and cultural complexity of certain new religions before issuing any fatwa. The root of the matter is why these new religions occur, and not what these new religions are. The technique of dealing with them should then concentrate on curing the causes of these malaises –as it were- and not on putting blame on them.
The ‘Ulama in other words, should appreciate the difficulty involved in issuing fatwa. Given its serious nature and implication, the ‘Ulama should be thoroughly acquainted with religious texts, social and cultural conditions, theories, languages, traditions and mechanisms of their specialization if they are to offer a sophisticated, insightful and well-grounded fatwa. Without such knowledge, we will see what we have seen, where fatwa has been issued in a very subjective manner.
Equally, in the modern world the ‘Ulama should be cognizant of the development of diversity of knowledge that can indeed offer a valuable insight in the process of issuing fatwa. Theories of social sciences for example –of which the ‘Ulama are certainly ignorant- may 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. Hence. the ‘Ulama must first study the problem from all angles, only then they can reach an informed and appropriate decision. It is just impossible in my view, that one individual or one group of people specializing in one field of knowledge can give a proper decree on problem of that magnitude.
When embarking on an issue in light of religious strictures, one must not rely solely on one field of knowledge, let alone on the literal interpretation of the individual Quranic passages he regards as relevant. He must also take into consideration how these passages relate to the entirety of the Quranic text as a structural and coherent whole, on the one hand, and to the social context on the other. In other words, one must adopt a holistic approach –as opposed to personal one- and avoid upholding a particular decision that reflects his personal prejudices.
*The writer is a lecturer of Islamic Philosophy, State Institute of Islamic Studies (IAIN) Surabaya.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment