MUSLIM IDENTITY IN EUROPE
By: Mughzi Abdillah

There is strong pressure today on Muslims living in European countries. The wave of immigration which started after the Second World War brought number of Muslims refuges to west European countries.  Some of them face the difficulty of regular practice of Islamic rules, the trouble of being part of minority often labeled as foreign, different, if not Barbarian, fundamentalist, and fanatic. Even if they try to hold on this permanent pressure, the situation influences their thoughts and actions; suggests their consciousness in order to protect themselves from non-Islamic environment and finally determine their identity in contrast with western culture.  On the other hand, alternatively some of them forget their origin and religion or try to erase their identity to fuse themselves in society and thus become one of theirs.

In both cases, we have one notice that Muslims do not define their Islamic identity by their selves, from inside. It is true not only for those who has an extremist attitude, but also great majority of Muslims who has difficulties in merely saying who are we. Why should it be so? Is there any inherent difficulty in defining Muslims vis-à-vis Western civilization? Is this the result of modern or European context? Each of this assumption carries part of truth.

Before being means of protection, however, Islam is an affirmative Faith which carries within itself a global understanding of creation, life, death and humanity (Tariq Ramadan; 2010).  This understanding should be basic of Islamic rule of thinking and behavior. In order to understand the Islamic identity, firstly, we must know the global vision of Islamic faith and the consequences of diverse field of human life. Moreover, we have to understand exactly the essential principle of Islamic rules and make them understandable in the light of context within European society. This is the way to contextualize Islamic teaching in European context.

Todays, the increasingly accessibility of the media, including satellite television, the internet and others, contribute to fragmentation of the traditional structure of religious authority. They serve as a vehicle to diffuse the concepts of individual and society, freedom and morality. On the other hand, many of the emerging of new voices and leaders of movement emerging in public sphere of the contemporary of Muslim world claim to interpret or inspired by basic religious text and idea. Unfortunately, many of them protect themselves from the loss of their loss tradition, interpret religious text textually and legitimate their thought as an absolute truth. In the manner of media, this religious argument and practice fostered the emergence of public sphere, and it has taken place in some countries.  

Mass media plays an important role in contributing to fragmentation of the public opinion. Some cases related to violence correlating with the name of Islam, such as September 11 attacks, Charlie Hebdo shooting, and Terror in Paris, have had a tremendous effect on people’s view of Islam in Europe and given rise to the negative perception which are so widespread. Moreover, the reporting of mass media on the crisis, violence and killings in Middle East assumed as the image of Islamic countries has engendered a climate of fear. “Islamophobia” emerged in public sphere as the European society’s fear of Islamic movement.  They assumed Islam as a terrify religion, so most of them presumed that the presence of Muslims immigrant to their countries is the potential threat to their culture, social and political live. Therefor, todays, European Muslims have a double burden both to seek their identity and to solve Islamophobia issue.  

By: Unknown On 7:19 PM

Continue Reading

BEYOND BELIEFE: SCIENCE & RELIGION

By: Mughzi Abdillah
(MA Student of Religious Studies, Ankara University)

“One of the greatest tragedies of our times is this impression that has been created that sciences and religion have to be at war”
(Francis Collins)

With the load of protests by a small number of religious groups over teaching scientific concept like evolution and the Big Bang in schools, and the load of proclamations by scientists, atheists and philosophers, it seems there is a war between religion and sciences. Religious teachings become rare while science develops progressively without ethical values. The attention given to the clashes glosses over the numerous cases in which science and religion harmoniously coexist.

Some people try to find a relationship between science and religion. While others believe that there can never be found a relationship between science and religion. Both of them are different entities, whether in terms of formal-material objects (ontology), research methods (epistemology), or the role that is applied (axiology).

Before discussing the differences or similarities between science and religion, we should consider the concepts and paradigms of science according to scientists. What exactly is science? How can we characterize it? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a given inquiry or theory or claim to be scientific, a part of science?

Terminologically, science means objective and systematical knowledge which is proved (M. Ridwan, dkk, 1999:577). The cornerstone of the scientific method is the postulate that nature is objective. In other words, the systematic denial that ‘true’ knowledge can be got by interpreting nature in terms of final causes …” (Monod 1971, 21, Monod's emphasis).

In this case, Bruno Guiderdoni (2004:41) expressed the opinion which is concerned the reasoning of the concept of religion. He distinguished the terms of science and religion in many definitions.

1.    Science asks objectively about “how”, while religion focuses on the question of “why”.

2.    Science is concerned with fact and reality, while religion is related with values and meanings.

3.    Scientific approaches use analysis and data, while religious approaches are synthetic. 

Some people consider science as the only objective knowledge because its truth can be proved evidently. They assume that religion arises from the faith, while science certainly based on reason. They think that the reason has its own foundation without having to refer to a transcendent reality. This secularism thought causes controversy about a relation of science and religion. Hence, Ian G. Barbour (2002:47) made typology a relationship of science and religion. For him, science and religion have definite relations summarized in four typologies: conflict, independence, dialog and integration.   

1.    Conflict

We still remember what happened in the 17^th century, when science and religion gave truth claim in the same domain. Religion and science both have the same right to explain the origin of universe, the heliocentric-geocentric, etc. Science and religion were considered as two opposites, so the people only had two choices: to reject religion and accept science or to reject science and believe in religion.

          The above perspective usually adopted by the group of scientific materialism and religious literalist. Some material scientists assume that material and reality are the basic nature (concerned with empirical reality), and believe that the scientific method is the only valid way to get the truth. For them, science is objective, opened, factual and progressive, while religion is subjective, closed, parish, not critical and very difficult to change. They cannot accept religion, because it is not public data that can be tested by experiment and the criteria of coherence, comprehensiveness, and usefulness. On the contrary, some religious literalists assume that the holly book is the only source of truth, because it is eternal revelation coming from God. They also argued that scientific theory such as evolution theory is too favor the philosophy of materialism and degrades moral commands of God.  

The view of clergies that only recognize the truth of scripture encourages people to assume that another view outside of religion is wrong and whoever denies the view of religion is called a pagan and thus deserves punishment. Scientists who did research that are contrary to the beliefs of religion became victims of oppression and cruelty of the church. For instance, Catholic Church gave severe punishment to Galileo Galilei because of his thoughts which were in opposition to that of the church. The same case also takes a place in Muslim country. The theory of evolution and sciences get a firm refusal there. One of concrete rejection is condemnation of Saudi Government on the Pokemon movie as one of the film’s character is believed to be based on the theory of evolution. This case illustrates that a relation of science and religion still remains big problem.       

2.    Independence

The second paradigm says that science and religion have different domain, science discusses about nature while religion teaches people values and ethics coming from God. Science is built based on observation and reasoning, while religion is based on the revelation of God. Religious belief depends entirely on the will of God, in the contrary science is based on discovery of human.

          According to Langdon Gilkey, science and religion have different functions. He describes them as follows:

a.      Science describes the data that is objective, public and repeatable. While religion concerns with the existence of the world and the personal experience (guilt, anxiety, forgiveness, trust, etc.)

b.      Sciences ask objectively about “how”.  At the same time religions focus on the question “why” to answer the wisdom of the phenomenon.   

c.      The basis authority of science is logical coherence and appropriateness of experience, while the highest authority of religion is God and His revelation.

In this case, scientists could carry out their activity freely without the involvement of theology, so do religious believers, because the methods and issues are different. Science is built upon the observations and reasoning, while theology is based on divine revelation.  

3.    Dialog

This view offers the relation of science and religion to be more constructive interaction rather than previous views. It is recognized that science and religion have common goal that can be discussed. Generally the aim of science is to develop the quality of human life. Of course, to develop human life, people must adhere to ethic values.

The dialog emphasizes the similarities of methods and concepts of science and religion. In this concept, science also discusses about relation of God and the world. It answers some questions that cannot be observed by scientists directly. For example, why the universe moves regularly?, who does maintain the regularity of the universe?. Albert Einstein asserts that religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame. So scientist and theologian should explain the phenomenon clearly.

4.    Integration

Science and religious doctrines are considered as valid and coherent sources of world view. Integrative relation of science and religion provides greater insight for human being. Science can improve religious beliefs by providing scientific evidence of revelation. Maurice Bucaille combined similarity modern scientific description with description of the Qur’an on nature. This combination is expected to improve religious understanding comprehensively.

There are many way to integrate a relationship of science and religion. We should realize that scientific data on regularity of the universe proves God’s power in regulating it. The consciousness arises when we learn the regularity. On the other hand, religious belief which is concerned with scientific theory should be reinterpreted and reconstructed. The general assumption that the texts are limited, meanwhile, realities are unlimited (al-nusus mutanahiyah wa al-waqai’ ghairu mutanahiyah) encourages theologian to reform and reinterpret the religious teachings. It insists that scientific theories, including religious ones that are established by scholars, they have probably an irrelevancy and human’s error in their concepts. As a result, understanding of religion in a certain era and certain level advancement of science might be reformed to be better and to be more contextual. Amin Abdullah considers it qabilun li al-niqash wa al-taghyir (subject to criticism and change).

REFERENCE

Abdullah, Amin. “Bangunan Baru Epistemologi Keilmuan Studi Hukum Islam dalam Merespon      Globalisasi”, as-Syir’ah, XXXXIV, December 2012.

Soroush, Abdul Karim. Menggugat Otoritas dan Tradisi Agama.Bandung: Mizan,

2002.

Abdillah, Mughzi, The Reinterpretation of Maqasid al-Shari’ah. UIN Sunan Kalijaga, 2013.

Barbour, Ian G. Issues in Science and Religion.

https://ahmadsamantho.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/empat-tipologi-hubungan-sains-dan-agama/

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion

http://bithadiary.blogspot.com.tr/2013/01/tipologi-hubungan-sains-dan-agama.html

By: Unknown On 6:55 PM

Continue Reading

BEYOND BELIEFE: SCIENCE & RELIGION

By: Mughzi Abdillah
(Ankara University)

“One of the greatest tragedies of our times is this impression that has been created that sciences and religion have to be at war”
(Francis Collins)

With the load of protests by a small number of religious groups over teaching scientific concept like evolution and the Big Bang in schools, and the load of proclamations by scientists, atheists and philosophers, it seems there is a war between religion and sciences. Religious teachings become rare while science develops progressively without ethical values. The attention given to the clashes glosses over the numerous cases in which science and religion harmoniously coexist.

Some people try to find a relationship between science and religion. While others believe that there can never be found a relationship between science and religion. Both of them are different entities, whether in terms of formal-material objects (ontology), research methods (epistemology), or the role that is applied (axiology).

Before discussing the differences or similarities between science and religion, we should consider the concepts and paradigms of science according to scientists. What exactly is science? How can we characterize it? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a given inquiry or theory or claim to be scientific, a part of science?

Terminologically, science means objective and systematical knowledge which is proved (M. Ridwan, dkk, 1999:577). The cornerstone of the scientific method is the postulate that nature is objective. In other words, the systematic denial that ‘true’ knowledge can be got by interpreting nature in terms of final causes …” (Monod 1971, 21, Monod's emphasis).

In this case, Bruno Guiderdoni (2004:41) expressed the opinion which is concerned the reasoning of the concept of religion. He distinguished the terms of science and religion in many definitions.

1.    Science asks objectively about “how”, while religion focuses on the question of “why”.

2.    Science is concerned with fact and reality, while religion is related with values and meanings.

3.    Scientific approaches use analysis and data, while religious approaches are synthetic. 

Some people consider science as the only objective knowledge because its truth can be proved evidently. They assume that religion arises from the faith, while science certainly based on reason. They think that the reason has its own foundation without having to refer to a transcendent reality. This secularism thought causes controversy about a relation of science and religion. Hence, Ian G. Barbour (2002:47) made typology a relationship of science and religion. For him, science and religion have definite relations summarized in four typologies: conflict, independence, dialog and integration.   

1.    Conflict

We still remember what happened in the 17^th century, when science and religion gave truth claim in the same domain. Religion and science both have the same right to explain the origin of universe, the heliocentric-geocentric, etc. Science and religion were considered as two opposites, so the people only had two choices: to reject religion and accept science or to reject science and believe in religion.

          The above perspective usually adopted by the group of scientific materialism and religious literalist. Some material scientists assume that material and reality are the basic nature (concerned with empirical reality), and believe that the scientific method is the only valid way to get the truth. For them, science is objective, opened, factual and progressive, while religion is subjective, closed, parish, not critical and very difficult to change. They cannot accept religion, because it is not public data that can be tested by experiment and the criteria of coherence, comprehensiveness, and usefulness. On the contrary, some religious literalists assume that the holly book is the only source of truth, because it is eternal revelation coming from God. They also argued that scientific theory such as evolution theory is too favor the philosophy of materialism and degrades moral commands of God.  

The view of clergies that only recognize the truth of scripture encourages people to assume that another view outside of religion is wrong and whoever denies the view of religion is called a pagan and thus deserves punishment. Scientists who did research that are contrary to the beliefs of religion became victims of oppression and cruelty of the church. For instance, Catholic Church gave severe punishment to Galileo Galilei because of his thoughts which were in opposition to that of the church. The same case also takes a place in Muslim country. The theory of evolution and sciences get a firm refusal there. One of concrete rejection is condemnation of Saudi Government on the Pokemon movie as one of the film’s character is believed to be based on the theory of evolution. This case illustrates that a relation of science and religion still remains big problem.       

2.    Independence

The second paradigm says that science and religion have different domain, science discusses about nature while religion teaches people values and ethics coming from God. Science is built based on observation and reasoning, while religion is based on the revelation of God. Religious belief depends entirely on the will of God, in the contrary science is based on discovery of human.

          According to Langdon Gilkey, science and religion have different functions. He describes them as follows:

a.      Science describes the data that is objective, public and repeatable. While religion concerns with the existence of the world and the personal experience (guilt, anxiety, forgiveness, trust, etc.)

b.      Sciences ask objectively about “how”.  At the same time religions focus on the question “why” to answer the wisdom of the phenomenon.   

c.      The basis authority of science is logical coherence and appropriateness of experience, while the highest authority of religion is God and His revelation.

In this case, scientists could carry out their activity freely without the involvement of theology, so do religious believers, because the methods and issues are different. Science is built upon the observations and reasoning, while theology is based on divine revelation.  

3.    Dialog

This view offers the relation of science and religion to be more constructive interaction rather than previous views. It is recognized that science and religion have common goal that can be discussed. Generally the aim of science is to develop the quality of human life. Of course, to develop human life, people must adhere to ethic values.

The dialog emphasizes the similarities of methods and concepts of science and religion. In this concept, science also discusses about relation of God and the world. It answers some questions that cannot be observed by scientists directly. For example, why the universe moves regularly?, who does maintain the regularity of the universe?. Albert Einstein asserts that religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame. So scientist and theologian should explain the phenomenon clearly.

4.    Integration

Science and religious doctrines are considered as valid and coherent sources of world view. Integrative relation of science and religion provides greater insight for human being. Science can improve religious beliefs by providing scientific evidence of revelation. Maurice Bucaille combined similarity modern scientific description with description of the Qur’an on nature. This combination is expected to improve religious understanding comprehensively.

There are many way to integrate a relationship of science and religion. We should realize that scientific data on regularity of the universe proves God’s power in regulating it. The consciousness arises when we learn the regularity. On the other hand, religious belief which is concerned with scientific theory should be reinterpreted and reconstructed. The general assumption that the texts are limited, meanwhile, realities are unlimited (al-nusus mutanahiyah wa al-waqai’ ghairu mutanahiyah) encourages theologian to reform and reinterpret the religious teachings. It insists that scientific theories, including religious ones that are established by scholars, they have probably an irrelevancy and human’s error in their concepts. As a result, understanding of religion in a certain era and certain level advancement of science might be reformed to be better and to be more contextual. Amin Abdullah considers it qabilun li al-niqash wa al-taghyir (subject to criticism and change).

REFERENCE

Abdullah, Amin. “Bangunan Baru Epistemologi Keilmuan Studi Hukum Islam dalam Merespon      Globalisasi”, as-Syir’ah, XXXXIV, December 2012.

Soroush, Abdul Karim. Menggugat Otoritas dan Tradisi Agama.Bandung: Mizan,

2002.

Abdillah, Mughzi, The Reinterpretation of Maqasid al-Shari’ah. UIN Sunan Kalijaga, 2013.

Barbour, Ian G. Issues in Science and Religion.

https://ahmadsamantho.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/empat-tipologi-hubungan-sains-dan-agama/

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion

http://bithadiary.blogspot.com.tr/2013/01/tipologi-hubungan-sains-dan-agama.html

By: Unknown On 2:16 AM

Continue Reading

Bahaya Laten Literalis Dalam Beragama

“Islam kita itu ya Islam Indonesia bukan Islam Saudi Arabia, bukan berarti kalau tidak pakai jubah dan sorban Islam kita tidak diterima. Rasulallah SAW memakai jubah, sorban dan berjenggot ya karena tradisi orang Arab seperti itu. Abu Jahal juga berpakaian yang sama, berjenggot pula. Bedanya kalau Rasul wajahnya mesem (sarat senyum) karena menghargai tradisi setempat. Nah, kalau Abu Jahal wajahnya kereng (pemarah). Silahkan mau pilih yang mana?”
(Gus Mus)

Untaian kata yang disampaikan Gus Mus ini seakan menyadarkan kita tentang keberagamaan beragama. Namun terkadang kita melupakannya. Tidak sedikit dari kita yang terjabak dalam hegemoni kearaban. Memandang segala sesuatu dari kulitnya. Membaca ayat dari hurufnya, tanpa mau mentadaburi isi dan kandungan yang tersirat di dalamnya.  

Cara pandang kaum neo-literalis, mereka lebih merujuk pada literal teks dari pada meaning dari teks tersebut. Bahkan mereka mengklaim bahwa apa yang mereka lakukan, dari segi berpakaian (dress style), fashion maupun tingkah laku semua berdasar dari tuntunan al-Qur’an. Bahkan lebih dari itu, mereka mengkritik rasionalitas kaum modern dan nilai-nilai yang bias dengan ‘euro-centricity’. Mereka sangat menentang barat, khususnya mengenai sistem demokrasi. Menurut mereka, sistem demokrasi sangat bertentangan dengan sistem islam. Lebih dari itu, bagi mereka pemerintahan, kekuasaan, dan kedaulatan (al-hakimiyah, wa al-tasyri’, wa al-siyasah) adalah hak priogratif Tuhan dan bukan urusan manusia. Sehingga tidak heran jika banyak dari teman-teman kita yang terjebak dalam pemahaman literal. Sebut saja teman sebangsa kita yang ikut perang di Suriah. Mereka ikut membunuh dan menembak orang-orang yang tak bedosa atas nama agama.

Mereka mengatasnamakan perjuangan mereka atas nama jihad. Dengan melandaskan perbuatanya pada ayat al-Qur’an, yang disebut dengan “ayat pedang” (the verse of sword). Dalam Q.S 9:5 disebutkan “bunuhlah kaum musyrik dimanapun kamu temukan mereka”. memang tidak salah seorang muslim melandaskan perbuatannya dengan dalil al-Qur’an. Namun menjadi masalah ketika pemahamannya itu dilakukan secara literal. Padahal selain ayat itu, al-Qur’an juga menyerukan perdamaian dan kesantunan kepada orang-orang yang berbeda agama. Q.S. 2:256, “tidak ada paksaan dalam beragama”. Artinya, dalam hal ini pemahaman ayat bukan dilakukan secara literal, tetapi maknawi. Abdul Karim Soroush mengatakan bahwa teks al-Qur’an dapat dilihat dari dua fungsi: fungsi esensi (essential function) dan fungsi aksidental (accidental function). Fungsi esensi merupakan makna literal dari suatu teks, sedangkan fungsi aksidental adalah relativitas penafsiran yang dipengaruhi oleh budaya, sosial, dan perkembangan sejarah. Kedua fungsi ini saling berkaitan, menghentikan makna lama dan melahirkan makna yang baru.     

Namun sayang, tidak banyak orang yang paham tentang makna substansi agama. Sehingga yang lahir adalah pengagungan pada nilai-nilai simbolik. Bearagama menjadi momok yang menakutkan. Karena agama manusia saling bertikai, karena agama pula manusia saling membunuh. Alhasil tak jarang dari mereka yang lari dari agama. Bagi mereka, lebih baik meninggalkan agama dari pada beragama tetapi membunuh. Jika demikian jadinya, Lantas apakah semua ini salah agama atau kita yang salah memahami agama?.

“Manusia-manusia congkak. Berbaju secuil kekuasaan kerdil –sangat pandir tentang apa yang diyakininya. Belang meliar –laksana kera berang. Bermain sulap digerbang surga. Sehingga membuat malaikat bercucuran air mata”.

(Shakespeare : 1975, 182)

By: Unknown On 1:07 AM

Continue Reading