INTERVIEW The problem within Islam is not in its diversity but how it deals with it, opines liberal Indonesian Islamic scholar Ulil Abshar Abdalla.

If Muslims adopt an ‘exclusivist’ attitude, Ulil Abshar warns, it would risk excommunicating many Muslims as ‘murtad’ or ‘kafir’.

Instead, he urges the adherents of the religion to adopt a more ‘inclusive’ attitude and embrace diversity of opinions within Islam to enrich their own traditions.

This, he says in this second part of his interview with Malaysiakini , is the best way to combat religious fundamentalism among Muslims.

Ulil Abshar ( right ) was slated to speak at a roundtable on fundamentalism organised by the Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) on Oct 18, but was barred from entering the country.

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

Here is the final part of the interview:

Malaysiakini: How do you compare religious fundamentalism in Indonesia and Malaysia? Looks like in Indonesia, the people are conservative; but in Malaysia, both the people and the authorities are conservative. Do you agree?

Ulil Abshar: As mentioned before, both Indonesia and Malaysia share the same challenge of increasing conservatism, and also fundamentalism. Post-reformasi, Indonesia is in a bit more fortunate situation.

The democratic state in which Indonesians live in today makes it possible for members of the public to engage in a completely free exercise of thought and faith. The Indonesian youth are passionate to discuss issues, including Islamic themes, from different points of views.

Different approaches to Islamic studies are being experimented with, giving birth to various trends of Islamic thoughts. You have liberal Islam, progressive Islam, feminist Islam, LGBT-friendly interpretation of Islam, transformative Islam, liberation theology-style of Islam, besides the traditional discourses that already exist: Shafi’i Islam, Ash’ari Islam, Sufi Islam, and so forth.

But then, Indonesia has also its own Achilles heel to deal with. Democracy, as far as the Indonesian experience is concerned, has its own problem, a problem that Fareed Zakaria, an American scholar and commentator, summed up aptly: “Democracy without liberalism.”

There is certain tendency in Indonesia, in which we have a strong democracy and a deficit in liberal culture. What I mean is that we have democracy in one hand, and an increasing trend of religious conservatism and radicalism on other hand.

Indonesian democracy brings us into a paradox situation where you have pluralist Islamic groups on one hand and the Hizbut Tahrir, which promotes an antiquated notion of Islamic caliphate on other hand.

Nowhere had Hizbut Tahrir been able to conduct its International Caliphate Congress except in Indonesia. That is the irony of Indonesian democracy. That irony is that Hizbut Tahrir has a deep hatred towards democracy, seeing it as a “kafir system”, while allowing itself to avail of freedom of speech provided by democracy.

'Why should there be many Islams?'

I have few words to say about the different adjectives that we attach to Islam: liberal Islam, progressive Islam, fundamentalist Islam, etc, etc. Some people get dizzy because of these adjectives, asking in turn: Why should there be many Islams? Why not just ONE Islam?

This is a question that I encounter so often. My answer is like this. Yes, there is ONE Islam, an Islam that we find in the Quran and Hadith. But then, the story doesn’t end there. Despite the fact that Muslim are in possession of single Scripture, ie, the Quran, the fact remains that Muslims find themselves divided along various madzhab or theological lines. From the very beginning, diversity exists in Muslim society and will remain so forever, until the day of qiyamah.

The problem with Muslims today is not with diversity, but with how they stand in the face of this diversity? Do they prefer the attitude of exclusivism that tends to impose a single way of thinking on the whole ummah, deeming everything that differs as “deviant”, “sesat”, “murtad”, or “kafir”?

Or, do they instead adopt the attitude of inclusiveness and pluralism, looking at diversity with an open eye, trying to benefit as much from this diversity as possible to enrich one’s own tradition.

In my view, one of best ways to prevent the spread of fundamentalism in Islam is to promote this culture of inclusiveness and pluralism. Can we stop demonising others, such as the Shi’ite or Ahmadis as “kafir”? Can we stop using “murtad” to designate fellow Muslims who have a different interpretation of Islam? That is a little step towards more inclusive culture in Muslim society.

Malaysiakini: The scandal in 2012 - can the personal life of a Muslim scholar be questioned and put up for scrutiny? Do you sanctify Muslim leaders with scandals? How do you defend yourself in this?

Ulil Abshar: Islam respects personal life. In the Quran, there is a strong prohibition of “tajassus” as we read in 49:12. Tajassus is probing another’s personal life. But then, Islam is being trapped in communitarian culture and by that, we have this common tendency among Muslims to question the personal life of people in a way that resembles an inquisition trial.

This in fact runs contrary to the Quranic precepts. If you live in a country like Saudi Arabia, where you have morality police (muttawwa’in) or hisbah polic,e such as we see in the Province of Aceh in Indonesia, you will see the rampant practise of tajassus, a practice of probing into the personal lives of people, including their religious lives.

'We leave to God what lies hidden'

This is annoying and unacceptable, even from the Islamic point of view. Islamic jurisprudence tradition (fiqh) has an interesting precept to direct our conduct in public life: nahnu nahkum bi al-zawahir wa-l-Lahu yatawalla al-sara’ir: we rule by way of what is apparent to us, as we leave to God as to what lies hidden from us.

Tajassus is also contrary to the basic principle in any religion, including Islam. In Islam, we learn about the notion of ikhlas, meaning a devotion to God without any external pressures or riya’ (showing off).

Our devotion is not accepted by God unless we perform it in the state of ikhlas. How could we perform such devotion if we are fearful of others probing into our personal life? In a society where we have a strong culture of tajassus, we may see a public observance of religious rituals, but also a hypocrisy in the same time.

Malaysiakini: Can one pick and choose what they want from Islam if they are Muslims? For example, can one not perform the five pillars and yet claim to defend Islam and be Muslim? What about you, yourself - do you adhere to these practices or do you think this is conservative Islam and that religion is personal between God and you?

Ulil Abshar: This is not an easy question to answer. I may dodge it by using flowery, diplomatic words in order to avoid answering it frankly. But I prefer to face this question head on.

I think it is time for us to think seriously in order to redefine what it means to be Muslim in this age. Who is the Muslim today? Is “Muslim” an exclusivist category that applies solely to those who perform prayers five times in a day, fast during Ramadan, give alms and perform the haj? Is “Muslim” an exclusivist category that is valid only for the followers of a certain sect: Sunni, Shi’ite, Wahhabi, Salafi, etc?

Here is the problem. If we define Islam in an exclusivist manner, we run the risk of excommunicating different kinds of Muslims who don’t fall under our definition. The more exclusivist our definition is, the more we will render many Muslims “murtad” and “kafir”.

If, to be Muslim means, for example, adhering to Sunni doctrinal principle, then we will excommunicate the Shi’ite, Mu’tazilite, Kharijite, Qadarite, etc. The game may go even further.

Since Sunni is not a single and monolithic group, we may pursue our definition of Islam further: What Sunni sect are you affiliated with? If you believe that Wahhabism is the only true Sunni, then you may end up outcasting the Asharite or Maturidite, and so forth.

This is a classic problem that had been dealt with by Ghazali in his known work, Faisal al-Tafriqah bain al-Islam wa al-Zandaqah (The Drawing of Boundaries Between Islam and Agnosticism).

Ghazali’s solution to this problem is not satisfying for the challenge we are facing today, in my opinion. However, we should appreciate his attempt at apparently drawing a more or less inclusivist line and definition of what it means to be a Muslim in his era. For that, Ghazali merits his own credit. But as I said, his solution is not satisfactory for our era.

What it means to be a Muslim today

Let’s go straight forward to the main business. What it means to be Muslim today? There are two criteria in my opinion. One is professing to be Muslim. You may call it shahadah. But terms are not so important for me.

The first thing you have to do to be Muslim is that you profess and consider yourself as a Muslim. Professing can be verbal or non-verbal. Professing may stem from the fact that you are born in a Muslim family.

Because you are born in Muslim family, naturally you consider and profess to be Muslim. I think in the majority of cases, a Muslim is a Muslim because of the incidence of birth. Should we be born in Thailand, in a Buddhist family, it is most likely that we will be Buddhist. Conversion is a rare case.

Then comes the second criteria: ie, living a moral life. You may profess to be a Muslim and then pursue a wicked life that runs contrary to moral values. This is not the Islamic life. Rituals may or may not help you to live a moral life.

As it is known to us, there are many Muslims who observe, in a meticulous manner, every single ritual in Islam and yet their daily lives are far from a moral life. That is why I don’t see rituals as a useful definition by which we delineate the boundary between Islam and its anti-thesis.

What is moral life? Our fiqh tradition has a good word: huquq al-adamiyyin, that is, respect for the rights of the children of Adam. To live a moral life is to respect dutifully the rights of others and not cause any harm to them. The Prophet Muhammad said, la darara wa la dirara: there is no harm and no causing of harm to others.

You may say, the moral life is a life that is bound by that known golden rule: don’t do unto others what you don’t want others to to you. If you, Muslims, do not like others to address you as “kafir ”, never do that to others Because addressing others as “kafir” is an act that causes inconvenience to others.

Yesterday: Ulil: Islam and liberal values see no conflict

                 

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

Islam, Muslims and I

The 'curse' that befell the Pharaoh is now on us