By Abdul Moqsith Ghazali*
During its Seventh National Conference in Jakarta (July 26-27 2005), the Indonesian Islamic Council (MUI) issued several fatwa that were seen by many religious leaders as unwise, divisive and hegemonic in nature.
In one broad conservative swoop, the group outlawed interfaith marriage, secularism, pluralism and liberal Islamic movements. It also banned interfaith prayers unless they were led by Muslims and ruled that children of a different religion from their parents could not receive inheritance.
The MUI then issued a fatwa declaring the Muslim sect Ahmadiyah an unlawful, illegitimate religion; a ruling that triggered a violent reaction against the group. Shortly after it was issued, several Ahmadiyah mosques were attacked by hard line orthodox groups.
In my view, these actions indicate several things. First, MUI has positioned itself as the sole legitimate interpreter of religious doctrine in the country. Its members regard it as the single authority with the power to decide whether individuals or groups have committed blasphemy, or if they have otherwise violated Islamic law. The mainstream groups that constitute MUI, therefore, have formed a power oligopoly and are seeking to impose their collective view on others.
The danger is that when Islam is dominated by certain groups it risks losing its egalitarian and libertarian spirit. MUI’s oligarchic behavior is, in fact, undermining one of the fundamental aspects of Islam.
The Prophet Muhammad spent much time criticizing the hierarchical authority in the interpretation of holy books as practiced in Catholicism. Subsequently, unlike Catholicism, Islam does not acknowledge the hierarchical authority (la rahbaniyyata fiy al-Islam) in the interpretation of the Quran.
In Islam, all interpretations of Quran (tafsir) begin with equal status. One interpretation of religious law may be considered better than another by virtue of its utility – how the religious community benefits from it – but its legitimacy has nothing to do with the perceived stature of the group that issued it.
Consequently, an interpretation is worthless if it does not bring greater welfare to the people even if the interpretation is made by such a supposedly august organization as MUI.
Islam, however, which is essentially pro-peace, rejects any interpretation of law, however sophisticated the process of creating it is, if it is likely to harm the people it is supposed to protect.
By issuing such fatwa, MUI has sought to restrict interpretations of the Quran to only those that it approves of.
Without realizing it, the MUI has adopted a view that there is only one truth, the truth that comes out of one textual interpretation of the Quran and Hadits. The more textual an interpretation is, the closer it to the truth.
The question is, has MUI consistently followed its textual view? The answer is definitely no. The proof is that the MUI outlaws interfaith marriage even when the Quran, al-Maidah:5, allows such marriages.
History shows that interfaith marriage has existed since the early years of Islam and that it was practiced by Prophet Muhammad‘s companions (shahabat) and the friends of the companions (tabi’in). If interfaith marriage were outlawed, then the shahabat and tabi’in would have committed a sin.
As importantly, MUI has usurped powers from the Supreme Court – the body that has the real authority to handle such cases. It is unfortunate that MUI received strong support from President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who during MUI’s national conference promised to listen only to MUI fatwa when dealing with religious affairs.
The problem is that MUI’s position in the political and legal structure of Indonesia is currently unclear. Does it have similar powers to other state institutions, such as the House of Representatives (DPR), the Supreme Court or the Supreme Audit Agency, or are its recommendations non-binding like other common-interest organizations? In the future, we must elucidate clearly MUI’s powers so that further controversy can be avoided.
In fact, the precedent with dealing with groups like MUI has long been set. MUI, as an institution outside the state bureaucracy and politics, should hold no formal authority in Indonesia apart from the informal authority it has over the religious groups it represents. MUI is neither God’s representative on Earth (dlill Allah fiy al-ardhi), nor is it the sole judge of the actions of mankind.
And if there is evidence that MUI’s fatwa have caused disorder, then the Supreme Court must review these fatwa. If they are found wanting, it must publicly reject them.
*The writer is head of the Wahid Institute Progressive Ushul Fiqh School
Retrieved from: http://www.gusdur.net/english
No comments:
Post a Comment