Islam, Pancasila and atheism

Islam, Pancasila and atheism

M Syafi’i Anwar ;  A Senior Research Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation in Cambridge, Massachussetts

Sumber :  JAKARTA POST, 26 Juni 2012

Should Alexander Aan live in exile, could he express atheism without facing hatred and threats of beheading? One might wonder why he prefers to live in Indonesia — a predominantly Muslim country — which was reported by the US leading magazine Newsweek as representing “smiling Islam” more than two decades ago.

Unfortunately, Aan is currently facing “angry Islam”. We might argue that the majority of Indonesian Muslims remain moderate.

However, as Endy Bayuni argued, radical Islamic groups have raised Indonesia’s current political temperature (“Is there room for atheists in Indonesia?”, The Jakarta Post, June 18). The implication is far reaching, particularly in Aan’s case.

Having declared himself a “Minang atheist” and stated “God does not exist” on his Facebook account, Aan triggered revulsion and threats from hard-line groups. An angry mob also attacked Aan, but the police immediately arrested him. Recently, the Sijunjung District Court sentenced him to prison for two-and-a-half years.

Still, local Muslim leaders and clerics in West Sumatra accused Aan of committing apostasy and compelled him to repent. Meanwhile, the FUI (Islamic Society Forum) said he deserved the death penalty, despite his public repentance. Other hard-liners opined that all atheists should be beheaded.

Aan proclaimed himself an atheist out of the disappointment he felt with the role of religion in dealing with the complications of the worldly life. He wrote: “If God exists, why do so many bad things happen to this worldly life?” Thus, he was not only questioning God’s existence, but also offering a discourse.

As a Muslim, he expressed his faith through praying and fasting. But he stopped these rituals after considering religion useless and unable to resolve problems. I would suggest this is a matter of limited understanding of religious underpinnings, which led to a rather extreme conversion to atheism.

The case of Aan, who lives in Pulau Punjung, West Sumatra, reminds me of “the new atheist” ideas propagated among Western communities by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. These radical-secularist proponents denounce religion as not only retrograde but as an evil that has created horrible problems for human beings. They also claim that “God is Not Great” and “God is dead”.

At the beginning, some young and educated people may be interested in their ideas. However, Karen Amstrong, a noted theologian and the author of A History of God sharply criticized the fallacy and supercilious tendencies of new atheist ideas.

To Amstrong, God always exists and human being will always find a way to live with Him in a balanced, compassionate manner (Foreign Policy magazine, November/December 2009).

It is also crucial for the Muslim communities to rethink their views on apostasy. Noted Muslim intellectuals such as Syafi’i Maarif (Indonesia), Abdullah Saeed (Australia), Hasan al Turabi (Sudan), Rashid al Ghannussi (Tunisia), and others have discussed apostasy critically based on Islamic perspectives and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Maarif, for instance, rejects strict, legalistic and exclusive perspectives on apostasy.

He argues that the spirit of Islamic teachings is democratic as stated in the Koran, “there is no compulsion in religion” (Q.S. Al Baqarah: 256). Thus, he insists that atheists have the right to exist.

Furthermore, Muslim communities need to discuss atheism rationally and critically. Local Muslim leaders in West Sumatra argue that based on the first principle of Pancasila, “Belief in One Supreme God”, there is no room for atheism.

For instance, the vice rector of Imam Bonjol State Islamic University–Padang, Asrasriwarni, says: “If Aan declares himself an atheist, he must be severely punished or expelled from Indonesia. Pancasila does not tolerate atheism.” (padangnews.com, Jan. 20).

Pancasila is basically a “gentlemen’s agreement” among Indonesia’s founding fathers, particularly “secular nationalist” and “Muslim nationalist” groups. It is a common platform for Indonesian societies; regardless of their religions, ethnicities and ideological backgrounds.

Accordingly, the late Nurcholish Madjid argued that Pancasila should be percieved as an open ideology. The strength of Pancasila lies in its ability to unite all religions that have existed in Indonesia’s pluralistic society.

The weakness of Pancasila is related to monotheism based on certain religious underpinnings. Consequently, Pancasila is often misinterpreted as a closed ideology and one that is opposed to atheism.

History shows the New Order regime developed a mystification of Pancasila, declaring it is a sacred ideology. This regime issued People Consultative Assembly (MPR) Decision No. XXIX/MPR/1966 that banned Marxism/Leninism. Consequently, there is no room for atheism.

However, Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid revoked the decree during his presidency. As the guardian of pluralism, he was commited to upholding a rational discourse on atheism.

It is unproductive to pursue horrible and repressive approaches toward atheists and atheism. We should instead pursue persuasive dialogue with Aan. If he is still committed to atheism, no one can force him to change his beliefs.

It would be his own responsibility to be an atheist in the world and the hereafter. So, let’s be rational, objective and persuasive in resolving Aan’s case. Nobody is perfect, let alone a young and ordinary “former” Muslim like him. ●

Reformed Islam : Between hatred and critical thinking

Reformed Islam :

Between hatred and critical thinking

M Syafi’i Anwar ; A Senior Research Fellowa at Harvard Kennedy School, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, The US

SUMBER :  JAKARTA POST, 29 Mei 2012

 

Are Indonesian Muslims committed to a reformed Islam? This question arose during an informal discussion among Indonesian post-graduate students at Harvard’s Science Center cafe recently.

It was not easy to answer that question as they had recently been following the Irshad Manji saga and the increasing threat of Muslim hard-liners in Indonesia.

Along with the hard-liners’ success in failing Lady Gaga’s planned concert in Jakarta, another crucial question was asked: Where is Indonesia heading? No one could answer that question.

Let’s focus on Manji’s ideas about reformed Islam, which has sparked controversy in the Muslim world, including Indonesia and Malaysia.

In fact, most ordinary Muslims have not read Manji’s books, The Trouble with Islam Today (2003) and Allah, Liberty and Love (2011).

Consequently, they easily fall prey to the propaganda of hard-liners. Meanwhile, some Muslim activists have read Manji’s works with uncritical thinking.

There are two ways to respond to Manji’s books. First, those who read Manji’s books with hatred, resulting in ideological prejudice and subjective accounts as they judge the author’s personal identity and sexual orientation.

The reaction of hard-line groups, such as the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) and Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI), to Manji’s books demonstrates this thinking. Rather than discuss the book, they judge Manji as an avid promoter of homosexuality in Muslim communities.

They are committed to a homophobic mind-set, and the violence against Manji is justified on religious grounds.

Second, those who read Manji’s works based on critical thinking, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of her ideas with an open mind.

They might disagree with Manji’s ideas and challenge her arguments, but consider violence against her intolerable and religiously unjustified.

The strengths of Manji’s ideas lie in her ability to synthesize personal narrative, the paradox of Muslim societies and deconstruct the sacred Islamic texts. Manji’s approach can be categorized as “ultra-liberal” ijtihad (independent reasoning), promoting the power of reason and construction of fatwa-free lives.

Interestingly, Manji is also committed to using her personal narrative; writing with conversational style and producing her work as an “open letter” to Muslims to fight “the tribal and desert Islam” constructed by Arab cultures.

 Noted journalist Thomas Friedman suggests that Manji’s The Trouble with Islam is “critical thinking and self-reflection of a Muslim who is committed to promoting a vigorous and reformed Islam”.

The weaknesses of Manji’s work lie in capitalization of her personal narrative, subject position and offensive arguments in characterizing Muslims within the larger text against “Islamic troubles”.

This includes her self-proclaimed role as a reformer who pretends to “reform” the sacred Islamic texts, particularly deconstructing patriarchal, authoritarianism and anti-human rights tendencies.

Tarek El-Ariss of New York University argues that Manji’s knowledge of Islam is reduced to her personal narrative, calling for Islamic reform by her identification as a “Muslim refusenik”, promoting her “theoretical model” of ijtihad for liberating Muslims based on Western and secular traditions (The Muslim World, January 2007). Clearly, Manji is committed to the “Westernization of Islam as a liberating force on Islam and Muslims”.

Meanwhile, Manji’s overwhelming sympathy to US foreign policy in the Middle East and Israel is biased and uncritical.

Not surprisingly, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah leaders are not willing to respond to Manji’s books, although they condemn the acts of violence against her.

There are two possible reasons for this. First, they might consider a discussion about the book problematic due to Manji’s ultra-liberal approach, despite rejecting the opinions of hard-liners.

These are common tendencies for moderate Muslim leaders in the world. In her Allah, Liberty, and Love, Manji criticizes them as “orthodox Islam” who often obstruct liberal democratic values. Manji claims that such attitudes legitimize militant Islamist acts.

Second, moderate Muslim leaders might consider a discussion about Manji’s books as counterproductive, thinking that homosexuality is strictly prohibited in the Koran and hadith. So far, there has been no significant debate to counter this textual position.

There are several ultra-liberal Muslim activists who hold the opinion that Islam respects homosexuality and same-sex marriage is justified. However, moderate Muslim leaders mostly reject this argument, while other liberal Islam proponents do not endorse it.

Tariq Ramadhan, a noted modernist Muslim thinker from Switzerland, suggests that Islam does not promote homosexuality. He says that it is rejected in principle since it does not correspond to the divine project established for all human beings.

However, he will fight against homophobic discourses or attacks. Moderate Muslims could use this as a reference, regardless of their disagreement with Manji’s ultra-liberal ideas. At least they should speak up in countering violence against Manji.

Finally, we are pleased that despite facing threats and receiving awful treatment from hard-liners, Manji is still optimistic about the future of Indonesian Islam as she recently stated in The Jakarta Post. To Manji and other liberal Islam proponents, I would suggest that the reformed Islam not only needs the power of reason, but also wisdom.  ●