Critiquing Diversity
Normative-ideal religion is good and beautiful. But religion as a social reality as exhibited by its followers is not without its shortcomings and deviations. It is understandable that religion, which itself counts social criticism among its strengths,has become a frequent target of criticism today.
A particularly pointed criticism on diversity came from Karl Marx. In his view, many people ran to a life of religion to escape their defeat in political power struggles and economic strife. Exhausted by the economic war, they sought tranquility in the metaphysical world.
In a religious space, some receive an antidote or consolation to their troubles, and no longer worry or are sad at losing worldly pleasures, because God will compensate them with a pleasant afterlife that is far more beautiful and beatifying.
Nietzche also laid a similar criticism. Because of a defeat in their contest and struggle for power, religious people will run to God,whom they believe is great and powerful and will help them in defeating the adversaries who oppress them.
Therefore, in Marx’s view, God will offer Heaven to religious people as compensation for their worldly defeats, while according to Nietzche, religion will raise Almighty God to free them from oppression. Meanwhile, Freud has a similar criticism: He thinks of religious people as those who have experienced a crisis of love and hope that the presence of a beneficent God will calm and console their despondent souls.
Does this mean that Marx, Nietzche and Freud were anti-God and anti-religion? The answer could be yes; it could be no. The clear thing is that they criticize the practice of religious behavior based on their observations and association of the social environment during their lifetimes, which is in love based on rationalism, scientism and modernism. They view a life of religion as escape and consolation for those who have lost in the contests of life and do not want to work hard. Such people criticize the world, become disillusioned with the world, and then run to the metaphysical realm. As a result, the development of the world has been dominated and controlled by scientists with their sophisticated technology, while religious people are increasingly busy in entertaining the metaphysical world, which offers salvation and victory after death.
Religious historicity
Even though religion’s object of study and main focus is the metaphysical realm, all religious thought and behavior are actually rooted in socio-historical life. Throughout humanity, thought sand behaviors are formed by the traditions and social environment of the place where someone is born and grows. Being religious is a part and a need of human existence.
Even though religion is not always scientific and rational, religion functions to give spiritual peace and meaning to life.
Ontologically, when religion – which is believed to come from God – is understood and developed by its followers in the course of history, it should bridge that which is believed to be sacred and that which is profane. Bridging sacred texts and their interpretation and understanding among followers so that religious comprehension is genuine and in accordance with God’s will – this has never been. For example, the comprehension of the Quran among the Arabian community today and the Arabian community in the 6th century are surely different in their perspectives. The difference is increasingly evident when the Quran is comprehended by the Indonesian people, who possess a different natural environment and language. Meanwhile, the characteristics and wealth of the Indonesian language are very different from Arabic and not as rich as in terms of its idioms and vocabulary.
Therefore, it is logical if the approach to and translation of the Quranic text has experienced distortion and deviation in its meanings. To borrow from Gadamer, the readers’ encounter with a text will give birth to “the fusion of horizons”. The text will influence its readers, and the reader’s subjectivity and perspective will also influence the apparent message of the text. Of course, Muslims believe that there is only one Quran and that it speaks the truth because it is a compilation of the word of God. However, due to the limited reasoning and understanding that their thoughts are the product of history, we will not be free from our own shortcomings and limitations when interpreting the Quranic text.
Human knowledge remains relative, not absolute, even though this does not mean it is meaningless and that we will descend into nihilism. Therefore, if the Islamic world today knows the mazhab (sect) of Sunni, Shia, and other sects, certainly they were not known in the era of Rasulullah PBUH. These sects are all products of textual interpretation, the text of both the Quran and the Hadith as well as history books, and are developing constantly and continuously. Thoughts on and comprehension of the text give rise to action, wherein the three are an unconscious reflection of the social condition and spirit of their era. For example, there was a time when the Indonesian Muslims cared and fought only for independence, so that sectarian differences did not emerge.
Therefore, there were lines of hijab-less Islamic women fighters, but they were never disputed. Moreover, there were wives of kiai (ulema) who simply covered their hair. Followers of Ahmadiyah and Shia lived peacefully then, without feeling threatened. However, this topic always becomes fodder for debates today. Therefore, comprehension and action of religiosity are never one, and always develop dynamically, influenced by the times.
In the past, kaum sarungan (people in sarong) were always associated with devout santri (Muslim students) in their religious practice. Today, a new phenomenon has appeared, a symbol of militant religious followers whoare associated with those bergamis (robed) and others in celana cingkrang (calf-length trousers) with jenggot (beards). All of this constitutes a social script on what messages will be conveyed by such symbols, but whether they reflect a real and objective reality, we do not know, because what we see is simply marketing or symbolic text.
Quoting Jean Baudrillad’s view, in the visual era, “the signifier does not always reflect signified reality”. The signifier and its meaning do not always correlate positively, because image is prioritized rather than substance. Therefore, visual trash appears that catch us unawares. The expression of religiosity among Muslim people in the West and those in the Middle East, for example, is also different. In the Arabian region, even though they live on the same land,believe in the same religion and speak the same language, the Muslims of 20 countries continue to squabble to the present.
Moreover, the Islamic identity has been reduced to either Sunni or Shia. If this is tracked further, we find they are divided between those close to Saudi Arabia or Iran. The condition and spirit of the Middle East is very different from Indonesia today, even though its influence and impact have reached here. Arabian countries that follow a democratic government system are experiencing crisis and upheavals, while those ina sultanate live more peacefully and under control. There are other variants that are struggling for the caliphate system. Of them all, which is more Islamic? Each has its own different logic and societal condition. What we can do is to comprehend in advance what is really happening, and not be quick to judge.
Strength of civilization
If history is traced to the beginning of religion, we find that each religion has an agenda to advance civilization, to free people from poverty and ignorance, and offer peace. This spirit is in accordance with the ideals and agenda of the independence movement for the Republic of Indonesia. Muslims were invited, along with other societal groups, to struggle for independence so that all people scattered across the thousands of islands of this archipelago could possess a sovereign nation and country that could provide knowledge and prosperity. Recognizing the diverse ethnicities, languages, religions and geographical conditions that exist in this archipelagic state since the beginning, the founding fathers of this nation, in a genius and visionary way, inherited the motto: BhinnekaTunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity).
Our diversity constitutes a real and social capital. It would no longer be Indonesia if our diversity disappeared, so we all have to take maintain it. The noble values that became the foundation as well as the objective of the state have been enshrined in Pancasila. As time goes by, the relationship between the politics of religion and the state had frequently led to serious issues. The definition of the state and religion has developed because religion, as a social reality,is also intermingled with the interpretation and interests of its followers. So differences in perception and perspective exist between the state that was envisioned by the generation of freedom fighters and present-day politicians.
The concept s of sovereignty and independence envisioned by the founding fathers of the nation, no longer popular in this globalization era, has been replaced by the concepts of partnership and cooperation, even though in practice, they comprise hidden control and colonization by a stronger state as in the pre-independence period. The social articulation and participation of Muslims are no longer united and focused as they were in the pre-independence period, except for Muhammadiyah,which is consistent in supporting education and hospitals, and the kiais of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), who concentrate on maintaining pesantren (Islamic boarding schools) and the community. Muslims have a traditional and shared role in building democracy, because they are accustomed to associating outside the country.
However, when the culture and mechanism of democracy became part of a global movement driven by the state, Muslims were late to comprehend and anticipate it, so that they were not able to capitalize on their majority votes as a central pillar of advancing Indonesia. Muslims sense their voting capital, but are fragmented among political parties and without a solid, capable, and visionary political leadership that is accepted by all. Those radical groups that disparage their fellow Muslims have questioned the assumption that the majority of the Indonesian population is Muslim. Perhaps in their eyes, Muslims do not account for even 25 percent of the population. Let’s not ask the politicians, lest Muslims become a political minority,never mind the economic view.
All these answers are subjective, because the perspective and interpretation of the state and religion are also subjective, as affected by their respective interests. Administratively and demographically, the majority of the current government is Muslim, but a part is considered thaghut, or of “infidel” status.In actual fact, Indonesian Muslims are better in performing their ritual observances than those in other countries. Democracy today is a power struggle that is founded on majority votes.
In this context, the sentiments and symbols of being Muslim become an effective political instrument to build emotional solidarity towards winning the democratic contest. However, if the majority is simply a multitude possessing crowd mentality, they will lose the political and economic competitions because they are short of technocratic competence and a global economic network, even though they hold the majority quota in the legislature. This means that superiority in number will not guarantee that Muslims will become the pillar and mover of civilizations.
KOMARUDDIN HIDAYAT
Professor of School of Psychology of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah