INTERVIEW Liberal Indonesian Islamic scholar Ulil Abshar Abdalla believes there is no contradiction between Islamic core values and liberal values.

Ulil, who was recently banned from entering the country, said this is because at the core of liberalism is the idea of freedom and liberty.

And individual freedom, in particular, is about freedom to adhere to a certain belief system, Ulil explained in an email interview with Malaysiakini .

“Is there anything in Islam that contradicts this idea of religious freedom? I don’t think so.

“In Islam, as in modern liberal philosophy, religious freedom stands paramount as the most basic right that each individual should be enjoying,” said Ulil, who heads Indonesia’s Jaringan Islam Liberal (JIL, or Liberal Islamic Movement).

Ulil was slated to speak at a roundtable on fundamentalism organised by the Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) in Kuala Lumpur on Oct 18.

Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamid ( left ) said the ban on Ulil from entering Malaysia would be enforced until he is found to be “no longer a danger” to Islam.

Here, we publish the first of a two-part interview with the Islamic scholar, which was conducted online.

Malaysiakini: What's your immediate impression when you heard the news that you're not allowed to enter Malaysia?

Ulil Abshar: Of course, I was deeply sad and disappointed. Indonesia and Malaysia share the same challenge of increasing conservatism within the Islamic community, which may stifle free exercise of thought. We need more of dialogue that allows differences in opinion and views on the plethora of issues that concern the Muslim ummah.

When I was barred from entering Malaysia, I said to myself: This is a refrain that repeats itself from time to time. Suppression of different views for the sake of protecting the so-called “kemaslahatan ummat”.

This is a cliché that I am so familiar with. The ban on free speech is typical of a conservative society that tends to trample on diversity, and valorises homogeneity instead.

Malaysiakini: You were scheduled to talk on 'Threats of religious fundamentalism', but Malaysian authorities thought you will be spreading a "liberal" brand of Islam. Your comments?

Ulil Abshar: I know that terminology plays its role here. The term “liberal” and “liberalism” conjure among Muslims certain images of Western style of “laissez faire” that anything and everything goes.

Liberalism means notoriously free sex, unfettered exercise in free speech, including blaspheming religion and religious symbols, etc, etc. Liberalism, for some Muslims, entails secularism, which means a hostile attitude towards religion. These are all misconceptions, in my opinion.

At the core of liberalism is the idea of freedom and liberty, particularly individual freedom. I don’t think there is a contradiction between Islamic core values and liberal values. Part of this individual freedom is freedom to adhere to a certain belief system, whatever it is. This is what in liberal philosophy is called “religious freedom”.

Is there anything in Islam that contradicts this idea of religious freedom? I don’t think so. In Islam, as in modern liberal philosophy, religious freedom stands paramount as the most basic right that each individual should be enjoying.

'Why fear liberal ideas in accordance with Islamic values?'

Why fear me spreading liberal ideas if, as I mentioned, liberal ideas are in essence in accordance with core Islamic values? The answer is: fear or phobia of terminology. There is a deliberate, sinister campaign mobilised by certain conservative groups to scare Muslims with certain terms such as liberalism, secularism, democracy, feminism, etc. This is old story, in fact.

In the classical era, there were fear mongers who tried to instil a deep antipathy among Muslims against Mu’tazilah, Qadariyyah, Syi’ah, and so forth. This is dangerous “internal war” within Muslim society. We should end this culture of fear-mongering in our society. It promotes the culture of hatred and gets in the way of productive dialogue.

I know the problem is not Islam and liberal ideas. The problem is that there are certain interpretations of Islam, let’s say a conservative interpretation, that sees liberalism as a threat simply because liberalism, in fact, encourages a reasoned exchange of ideas and views. A conservative mindset tends to loath liberalism because it advocates diversity and pluralism, whereas conservatism emphasises “keseragaman”, homogeneity and orthodoxy.

Malaysiakini: Can you tell us what are the ideas or outlines of idea you planned to present at the Oct 18 roundtable discussion?

Ulil Abshar: The discussion is about the roots of religious fundamentalism, a problem that all Muslims should deal with seriously today. My thesis is as follows: There are two sources of religious fundamentalism, particularly in the Muslim world.

One is theological, the second socio-political. What I mean by theological source is certain ways of interpreting the Scripture (ie, the Quran or Hadith) in a manner that justifies violence, exclusion of others, the persecution of those who adopt different views, partitioning the social space where we live into two chambers, “the chamber of believers” and “the chamber of non-believers”, etc.

It is interesting that the Quran is a malleable text that is repeatedly subject to twisting by any groups in Islam. Jihadis can twist verses in the Quran to condone the killing of the “kafir”, with “the kafir” being defined so broadly to include Muslim co-religionists as well. Sad.

Take for example a prophetic tradition that says, “Whoever changes his or her faith, kill him or her (man baddala dinahu fa-qtuluhu).” This is, for me, a dangerous hadith. What I mean by “dangerous” here is that this tradition is so malleable and flexible that you may justify killing Ahmadis or Shi’ites because they are “murtad” or leaving the Islamic faith.

This same tradition is so malleable that it can be used to justify to kill Muslim freethinkers because they are deemed non-Muslim or leaving the Islamic faith. This is what I mean by theological roots of religious fundamentalism.

By way of doing justice to history, this is not a modern phenomenon. It has been there in our history. The so-called khawarij or splinter group of the 7th Century AD had caused a lot of trouble or “fitnah” because of their violence-inclined interpretation of the Scripture.

The second root of religious fundamentalism is political in nature. This concerns the political system existing in Islamic countries in the modern era. As we know, the majority of Muslim world lives under authoritarian and non-democratic states.

The big lesson we learn from Muslim countries such as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and others is that instead of stemming fundamentalism, closed-systems and authoritarian states breed it and give fundamentalism a boost.

Another lesson from Indonesia (under the former regime) and Malaysia is also important: authoritarianism and religious conservatism are mutually reinforcing each other in what is called “the holier than thou politics”. This is not also solely a modern case. We had this kind of politics in the second period of the Abbasid rule, beginning with Caliph al-Mutawakkil who reigned from 847 AD to  861 AD.

Rulers are always the beneficiaries of conservative religion that ensures stability, conformity and homogeneity. This is the common theme that runs in Islamic history since the Abbasid era and down to our era. L’histoire se répète. History repeats itself!

Tomorrow: Part II - Problems of Muslims - exclusivity, no diversity

                                    

This interview with the Indonesian liberal Islamist thinker was conducted online by the Malaysiakini Team.