Islam, the State & Civil Society:

Contemporary Islamic Movements and Thought

Chapter 17

Exiting Contemporary Islam, Heading Towards a Different Islam

by M. Qasim Mathar

I. Introduction

Muhammad Jawad Mughniyah quoted the hadith, or saying of the Prophet Muhammad:“The angel Gabriel descended upon Adam and said to him, ‘God has commanded me to let you choose one of three gifts: either intellect, religion or modesty.’ Adam replied, ‘I choose intellect.’ Then modesty and religion said, ‘Then we shall abide with you, O Adam, as God has commanded us to accompany intellect wherever it may be.’”

After quoting this hadith, Mughniyah explained that: 1) whatever the intellect rejects has no place in religion; 2) as long as religion remains inseparable from the intellect in any form, closing the door of ijtihad (interpretation) will mean closing the door of religion, because ijtihad, by definition, means freeing the intellect from restraints and allowing it room to “extract” problems from their roots (their ushul); and 3) a person of knowledge (whether a scientist, cleric or scholar) who is fanatical in asserting any mazhab (Islamic school of thought) is worse than an ignoramous, because his fanaticism idolizes an individual (i.e., the imam, or founder of that mazhab), instead of the religion of Islam itself, because our intellect does not require us to exclusively follow any given mazhab.

Likewise, if we oppose such a fanatic, it doesn’t mean that we oppose Islam and its essential truth. Nor, if we oppose a mazhab – or even its imam – does that mean that we are opposing Islam and its essential truth. What we should all do is follow Islam as dictated by our respective intellectual understanding and perceptions.¹    

A hadith transmitted by way of al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Ibnu Majah and al-Darimi states that the Prophet emphasized that, "May God bless whoever listens to my words and understands them by wa'yu (deep, inner revelation), and then passes them on in accordance with his understanding. Many people who receive these texts through others understand more deeply (wa’yu) than those who receive the information directly."

Another hadith states, “Many people transmit fiqh (the Prophet’s teachings) but are not faqih (i.e., lack understanding), and thus many transmit fiqh to people of greater understanding." In quoting this hadith, Dr. Setiawan Budi Utomo, the author of Fikih Aktual: Jawaban Tuntas Masalah Kontemporer (Actual Islamic Jurisprudence: Complete Answers to Contemporary Problems), said that the essence of fiqh is wa’yu (intelligent, deep, clear understanding); through wa’yu, the sources of Islamic teaching can be interpreted and understood.²

In his Foreword to Islam Mazhab Indonesia: Fatwa-Fatwa dan Perubahan Sosial (Indonesian Islamic Schools of Thought: Fatwas and Social Change), by M. B. Hooker – a professor at Australian National University – Professor Dr. M. Quraish Shihab wrote:

It is important that I mention that Hooker, the author of this book, is one of the observers of Islam (Islamists, once known by the term Orientalists) who do not regard Islam as a monolithic entity. This means that he – as well as several other Islamists such as Robert Hefner, Esposito and William Liddle – profoundly realizes that Indonesian Islam has specific characteristics whose intellectual, cultural, social and political expression may be, and in fact is, different from the expressions of Islam in other parts of the world. Indonesian Islam represents an expression of the socio-cultural context of this nation, which differs from the various Islamic centers in the Middle East. This is not a recent phenomenon. The situation has always been thus, ever since Islam arrived in Indonesia.³

 

II. Religion around Us

I've sometimes heard a cell phone ring in the middle of congregational prayer. I don’t know how the owner handled the situation. Maybe he panicked a bit and slipped away from the congregation to turn off his cell phone. But what if he were in the midst of a large congregation? Would he disengage and push his way out of the crowd, in between praying people? Why is there no fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) that tells us what to do in this situation? Of course, Imam Syafi’i and the imams of the other mazhabs (Islamic schools of thought) dating from classical times would not suggest rules to govern the use of cell phones. There were no cell phones in their time and – unlike contemporary ustadz’s and kiais (religious leaders) who generally have one in their pocket – these imams from the classical schools of thought never experienced owning one. Therefore, it was impossible for them to create a rule of jurisprudence regarding cell phones. However, the many hadith about the Prophet praying – he prolonged his prostration when his grandchild climbed onto his back and only got up after the child had climbed back down; he prayed while carrying his grandchild; shortened his prayer when he heard a child crying among the congregation; permitted killing a scorpion that posed danger during communal prayer – these and similar stories describe Muhammad as being acutely aware of his surroundings during prayer, although we also know that he was the most devout of Muslims.

With these thoughts in mind I wrote the following passage in my column “Jendela Langit” (“Window onto the Sky”) in the Fajar daily, a newspaper published in the city of Makassar, on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi.  The article was entitled “A Cell Phone Sang during Prayer”:

 Based on the Prophet’s various ways of praying, as previously mentioned, I don’t think there’s any need for you to interrupt your prayer to silence a talkative cell phone, especially if you’re in the middle of a congregation. While continuing your prayer (either as a member of the congregation, or leading it), you can simply take the cell phone and turn it off in one smooth motion. If the phone is still in your hand as you’re about to prostrate, you can set it on the floor when you reach the ground.⁴

I have long noticed that many of my Muslim brothers experience difficulty or are unable to perform certain rituals, such as fasting during the month of Ramadhan, because of their jobs. Indeed, Islamic jurisprudence discusses at length the issue of fasting in various situations. However, I don’t think classic Islamic jurisprudence offers a sufficiently definitive guide to cover all of modern life.

In another of my articles published in that same newspaper during the fasting month of Ramadhan⁵, I suggested that Muslims whose jobs prevent them from fasting (by abstaining from food and drink from sunrise to sunset), could adopt an alternate form of fasting known as fidyah (offering food to the poor, in portions corresponding to each of the giver’s daylight meals during Ramadan) or qadha (catching up on a neglected fast, by fasting on another day). In that article, I emphasized fidyah for pettycab and public transportation drivers. I also explained that if they feel that fidyah is too expensive for them, they can catch up on neglected fasting after Ramadhan by fasting in small increments, so that a month of neglected Ramadhan fasts can be “made up” little by little, as circumstances allow.

These two examples indicate that there is a dearth of appropriate rules to govern many contemporary situations related to religious practices, e.g., that involving cell phones. The reality of life calls for alternatives, which allow Muslims to choose a fiqh, or rule of Islamic jurisprudence, suitable to their circumstances. For example, fiqh concerning fasting would offer a set of alternatives: traditional fasting by refraining from food and drink from dawn to dusk; fasting by fidyah; and fasting by qadha. Each alternative is geared to specific groups of people and professions. Thus, individuals would have the freedom to choose the worship model of their choice and feel content with it.

I’m sure there are many other problems for which rules of jurisprudence are not yet available. In a question-answer session in a majelis taklim (Islamic study group), a woman asked how to perform the maghrib (sunset) prayer if she had already applied makeup before sunset, and had left immediately thereafter to attend a wedding reception. [Ed. note: preparation for Islamic prayer requires washing the face with water.] Is she permitted to postpone the sunset prayer? I suggested combining maghrib and isya (sunset and night) prayers by the jamak ta’khir method or, alternately, by shortening (qashar) the isya prayer. I also offered another alternative: “If you’re worried about water ruining your makeup, you can pray at the reception by tayammum (ritual ablution using dust instead of water).” I added that because men’s clothing is more practical and they wear minimal make-up, men can combine the two prayers using the jamak taqdim or jamak ta’khir methods. My reason for offering these suggestions is that the Muslim community currently finds itself in unusual circumstances. Another reason is: “We may devise kaifiyat (modes of worship), even if they are previously unknown to history, as long as they have roots in the Sunnah of the prophets.”

If we look around us, we notice many issues related to religious activities that have no corresponding rules of jurisprudence to guide our behavior regarding them. Situations like these can lead to various results: practicing religion by guesswork, or abandoning religion altogether.

Some time ago, Paramadina published a book entitled Fikih Lintas Agama: Membangun Masyarakat Inklusif Pluralis (Interfaith Religious Jurisprudence: Building an Inclusive and Pluralistic Society), which was written by a team of authors. It presents a perspective on religious jurisprudence based upon clear, profound and intelligent reasoning (wa’yu), which has freed itself from the shackles of fanaticism, authored by a group of Malay-Indonesian clerics and scholars. The book proposes a “different” fiqh, or system of religious jurisprudence, due to the fact that the “existing” fiqh is characterized by many problems in regards to interfaith relationships. But will the general Islamic community at large accept it? I think one of the early obstacles that must be addressed concerns the question: is the Islamic community ready – especially scholars, experts, public figures, leaders and activists – to practice and accept pluralistic religious jurisprudence among Muslims ourselves?

One example concerns the matter of tarawih prayer (during Ramadhan), which some perform in eight rakaats (i.e., eight sets of movements in prayer) and some in twenty rakaats. Interfaith or pluralistic fiqh would be impossible for an adherent of “8 rakaat tarawih prayer” who considers “20 rakaat tarawih prayers” to be fundamentally wrong, and vice versa. Similarly, it’s impossible for interfaith or pluralistic fiqh to be accepted by someone who recites the qunut supplication during the dawn prayer, and considers those who do not recite it to be wrong, and vice versa. Interfaith fiqh will only generate opposition and criticism from communities who believe that Christian and Chinese food is haram (unlawful). Again, these are merely examples to illustrate the current situation in the Islamic community, which represents an obstacle to formulating interfaith religious jurisprudence.

Interfaith fiqh can only sprout and develop in a Muslim community whose members – although they may practice 8-rakaat tarawih – do not resent, but rather embrace others who practice 20-rakaat tarawih, and vice versa. Interfaith fiqh can only grow and flourish in a Muslim community whose mosque may embrace 8-rakaat tarawih, but which opens its doors to brother Muslims who practice 20-rakaat tarawih, and vice versa. Interfaith fiqh can only grow, bear fruit, reseed, sprout, grow and bear fruit again in an Islamic community whose mosques post announcements such as this: “DURING THE MONTH OF RAMADHAN, THIS MOSQUE IS OPEN FOR 8-RAKAAT AND 20-RAKAAT TARAWIH PRAYERS; FOR THOSE WHO PERFORM MIDNIGHT WORSHIP; AND ALSO FOR ANY ORGANIZERS OF IDUL FITRI PRAYERS SHOULD THERE BE TWO SUCH PRAYERS.

 

III. Interfaith Religious Jurisprudence

After an explanation about its basis in faith, interfaith religious jurisprudence must abandon classical fiqh, especially those classical fiqh themes related to interfaith relationships. These themes include greeting non-Muslims or wishing them peace; saying “Merry Christmas” or expressing regard on the celebratory days of other religions; attending the holiday celebrations of other religions; joining interfaith prayers; allowing non-Muslims to enter a mosque; interfaith marriages; interfaith inheritance; and so on.

While classical fiqh generally restricts or prohibits the above-mentioned activities (categorizing them as haram, makruh, or allowed with severe restrictions), Interfaith Fiqh permits them. Interfaith Fiqh introduces a religious jurisprudence that is receptive to the plurality of rituals; a jurisprudence that emphasizes Islamic inclusiveness; and a jurisprudence that “accepts” other religions and builds synergy with them, breaking ground for interfaith cooperation.

Indeed, religions and all prophets and messengers came to bring guidance to solve human problems, so that humanity can achieve prosperity and social wellbeing. Religious jurisprudence shares this purpose – i.e., to offer a guide to solving problems – because religious jurisprudence is essentially derived from revealed scriptures, and elaborated by human reason whenever any given portion of the scripture is difficult to understand. Yet revealed scriptures and fiqh are nonetheless distinct, as the former is believed to come directly from God the Creator, while the latter is man-made and derived from revealed scriptures. “…based on its etymology, the word fiqh means ‘understanding.’ The process of understanding requires a dynamic dialectic between texts and contexts, because fiqh was not born of a vacuum, but as jurists’ response to contemporary problems”⁶

It is interesting to examine the theological basis of interfaith fiqh. On the basis of God’s words contained in the Qur’anic verse al-Nahl (16:36) and other verses of similar spirit, interfaith jurisprudence invites us to contemplate the plurality of truths delivered by God’s various prophetic emissaries (Fiqih Lintas Agama, p. 18). Based on that consideration, in my opinion we could further develop this thought and declare that every messenger may be termed "God’s Messenger” (Rasulullah). Thus, for Muslims, this title would not apply solely to the Prophet Muhammad. Similarly, this line of thought can lead to the acknowledgement that all religions brought by God’s messengers are true, and that their truths apply for all time. Of course, deviation from religious truth can occur in any religion, including Islam, as a result of human errors in properly understanding that religion in the course of history.

I believe that a tolerant, cooperative and sympathetic attitude toward non-Muslims – an attitude which practitioners of interfaith jurisprudence often claim to have adopted – is not enough. Such behavior should be extended to acknowledge that other religions are also true. Therefore, future interfaith cooperation should not be based solely on co-existence theology – a theology that acknowledges and accommodates the existence of every religion (Fiqih Lintas Agama, p. 185) – but rather, on acknowledging the truth that exists in the genuine teachings of those religions. This acknowledgement may be illustrated by the example of prohibited food. We should stimulate public awareness that each of God’s messengers prohibited different kinds of food to his people, as evidenced by the various religions. Therefore, if the Qur’an prohibits certain kinds of food, this does not automatically mean that these same foods are also prohibited to members of other religious communities, and vice versa. This also applies to the various forms of religious worship. For example, when the Qur’an tells of God’s messengers commanding their people to perform shalat⁷ (prayer, or worship), it must be understood that each messenger taught different forms of worship to their respective peoples. Thus, if the worship performed in temples, churches, synagogues and mosques are all based on instructions provided by God’s various messengers, then all these forms of worship are correct. As a result, I agree if it is said that every religion constitutes its own path to salvation (Fiqih Lintas Agama, p. 207).

In a similar vein, I agree with Fiqih Lintas Agama’s proposition of a more progressive, rather than literal, interpretation of the Qur’anic verses concerning jizyah, or the tax levied on non-Muslims (p. 152). I’d like to point out that in the context of Indonesia, the state was built not only by Muslims, but also non-Muslims, including communists whose party was eventually disbanded. Therefore, the interpretation of jizyah or zimmah/zimmi (the status of Christians and Jews) should not be based on a spirit of exploitation, discrimination or second-class citizenship. The recent civil war which occurred in Ambon and Poso [regions in eastern Indonesia] between Muslims and Christians was, I believe, the result of a grossly distorted understanding of religion. I have the same opinion regarding bombing incidents and suicide bombings, which continue to occur in much of the world.

 

IV. Towards A Different Islam

Can we “exit” the Islam of today and move towards a different Islam? When I posed this question to my graduate students, they didn’t answer right away. When I repeated the question – and my previous explanation that “We Muslims of the present century are all living within an Islamic paradigm erected by past generations” – a student replied, “Yes, we can, as long as we bring along the Qur’an and the Prophet’s hadiths (sayings) in erecting a different Islamic paradigm.”

I would like to augment my student’s reply by saying, “We can abandon the old Islamic paradigm that has bound us, and erect a different Islamic paradigm, by bringing along the Qur’an, as well as the holy scriptures of other religions and the Prophet's hadith, that are always measured against the Qur'an!"

We don’t have much time for a detailed reading of the extensive classical jurisprudence that has built the current Islamic paradigm. Our time is required for contemplating humanity’s present-day challenges and development, as a result of increased social mobility and the intensity of interaction in this borderless world, with its spectacular advances in science and technology that were unknown to religious jurists and prophets before us. In such a world, we must develop our own civilization. Muhammad Asad is quoted by Professor Abudrrahman Mas’ud as having said, “Lo! God does not change the condition of a person unless he changes something within himself first⁸: this is an illustration of the divine law of cause and effect (sunnatullah) which governs the lives of both individuals and communities, and makes the rise and fall of civilizations dependent on people’s moral qualities and changes in their inner selves.”⁹

We cannot accept activities and movements in the name of religion that actually debase religion, to the point that its image is now worse than ever before in history, as the entire world now witnesses. Nor can we stand idly by as religions position themselves to confront and destroy one another; nor permit one religion to assume a confrontational stance vis-à-vis another group (e.g. Islam vs. the West) – as irresponsible individuals and groups, motivated by their own base passions, seek to instigate. 

Kenneth Phifer was right – especially given our contemporary world, with its discordant interfaith relationships – to say, “Humanism teaches us that it is immoral to wait for God to act for us. We must act to stop the wars and the crimes and the brutality of this and future ages. We have powers of a remarkable kind. We have a high degree of freedom in choosing what we will do. Humanism tells us that whatever our philosophy of the universe may be, ultimately the responsibility for the kind of world in which we live rests with us.”¹⁰

However, we will only have enough time (to accomplish this, rather than destroy ourselves) if we pay attention to and study all existing scriptures, investigate their authenticity, examine their compatibility with the advice provided by all of God’s messengers and then, with the help of science and technology, formulate a new paradigm for ourselves and future generations. It is not a sin to re-think existing religious jurisprudence; it is a necessity. All sorts of Islamic groups have begun such endeavors. In the view of Kyai Haji Sahal Mahfudh (the current General Chairman of the Indonesian Council of Ulema), such endeavors, and all their implications, must be perceived as a process. Indeed, even after such a process reaches the level of renewal towards which we strive, this renewed religious jurisprudence will become a “fossil” in turn which must be renewed again, because of the constantly changing nature of space and time.¹¹

For example, the classical Islamic paradigm firmly established the six pillars of faith, with all their consequences for Islam and its relationship with other faiths. In truth, the Qur’an also introduces a “Two Pillars of Faith Plus” model, in the verses al-Baqarah (2:62) and al-Maidah (5:69). These verses describe faith as having only two pillars, i.e. faith in God and faith in the Hereafter; the “plus” refers to doing good deeds in this life.

I believe this “Two Pillars of Faith Plus" model is one of the pillars of our future civilization’s paradigm. Thus, all current pillars of faith may take their place in their respective rooms of religious law. Or, we may also choose to set them aside, after we succeed in grasping the essence of these models of faith, which originate and terminate in “Two Pillars of Faith Plus.”

With these examples of ideas concerning the design of a future “faith paradigm,” we can apply this frame of thought to all aspects of religion, both in Islam and in its relationship with other faiths, so that we can redesign religious life (both within and between different communities of faith) and civilization in the future. Thus, Interfaith Religious Jurisprudence is actually part of an enormous re-engineering project. I say enormous because it is part of our effort to understand once again the true spirit of revelation – an intellectual exploration that has not been undertaken by Muslims since the second century Anno Hegira (8^th/early 9^th century CE), when the Muslim community had already developed standard books of religious jurisprudence. If other works of fiqh were written after the second century, these were merely non-innovative reiterations and commentaries, which neither expressed new thoughts nor planted fertile seeds for the future development and growth of religious jurisprudence.¹

One of the consequences of this enormous engineering project is that we will discover “another Islam” that is very different from the current Islam. We must accept this as a natural consequence of the perpetual search for truth. Therefore, we need the conviction that we may leave behind our current religious faiths and beliefs, and that we shall discover a new and better faith/set of beliefs that is more humanistic, inclusive, pluralist and, indeed, more religious. In this regard, I think it’s appropriate for us to consider Dr. Yusuf Qaradhawi’s view that it’s high time we “set aside any material in books of religious jurisprudence that deal with imaginative cases, or obsolete legal matters, such as the detailed laws concerning slavery. This kind of information is so plentiful that you can find many examples of it in almost every fiqh chapter, both in fiqh dealing with worship and those governing human relationships. Religious jurisprudence must be related to reality and explain the laws of that reality…”¹³

We are fortunate to live in an era when the science of knowledge and its methodology are becoming more complete and accurate. With this science of knowledge and methodology, we can hope to grasp the revelatory message of scriptural texts in a manner that is more compatible with the demands of our own space and time, both present and future.¹⁴ For that reason, a new fiqh is a real possibility, and not out of the question. Given a new model of religious jurisprudence, the path to a different Islamic paradigm has opened.

Ihdinâ al-shirâth al-mustaqîm; God, please lead us to a future orientation that is clear, true and better. Amen.

 

Endnotes

¹ Muhammad Jawab Mughniya, Fikih Lima Mazhab: Ja’fari, Hanafi, Malik, Syafi’i, Hambali. Translated from Al-Fiqh ‘alâ Madzâhib al-Khamsah (Jakarta, PT Lentera Basritama, 2003), pp. xv-xvi.

² Dr. Setiawan Budi Utomo, Fikih Aktual: Jawaban Tuntas Masalah Kontemporer (Actual Islamic Jurisprudence: Complete Answers to Contemporary Problems; Jakarta: Gema Insani, 2003), p. viii.

³ Prof. Dr. M. Quraish Shihab, in Islam Mazhab Indonesia: Fatwa-Fatwa dan Perubahan Sosial (Indonesian Islamic Schools of Thought: Fatwas and Social Change; Jakarta: Teraju, 2003), p. 18.

⁴ Fajar daily, Makassar, “Jendela Langit” column, Tuesday, August 7, 2001.

⁵ Fajar daily, Makassar, December 17, 1999; this article was in the column "Fajar Ramadhan,” under the title Puasa Super Petepete.

⁶ Paramadina Team of Writers, Fikih Lintas Agama: Membangun Masyarakat Inklusif-Pluralis (Interfaith Religious Jurisprudence: Building an Inclusive and Pluralistic Society; Jakarta: Paramdina, 2004), p. 3.

⁷ See the Qur’an, for example: Maryam/19: 54-55, al-Anbiyâ/21; al-Hajj/22:41 and 67, Luqman/31: 17.

⁸ See the Qur’an, al-Ra’d/13: 11.

⁹ Prof. Abdurrahman Mas’ud, MA, Ph.D., Menuju Paradigma Islam Humanis (Towards a Humanistic Islamic Paradigm; Yogyakarta: Gama Media, 2003), p. 275.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Kyai Haji M. A. Sahal Mahfudh, “Introduction” to Dr. Ahmad Rofiq, MA, Pembaharuan Hukum Islam di Indonesia (Renewing Islamic Law in Indonesia; Yogyakarta: Gama Media, 2001), p. xvii.

¹² See Muhammad Hamidullah et al, Fikih Islam dan Hukum Romawi: Refleksi atas Pengaruh Hukum Lama terhadap Hukum Baru (Islamic Jurisprudence and Roman Law: Reflections on the Influence of Old Law on the New; Yogyakarta: Gama Media, 2003), p. 56.

¹³ Dr. Yusuf Qaradhawi, Fikih Praktis Bagi Kehidupan Modern (Practical Religious Jurisprudence for Modern Life; Jakarta: Gema Insani, 2002), p. 13

¹⁴ Fazlur Rahman is one of many Muslim intellectuals who have introduced methods for use in the project of comprehending the revelatory messages. Fazlur Rahman’s method is described in several books, including Moralitas al-Qur’an dan Tantangan Modernitas: Telaah atas Pemikiran Fazlur Rahman, Al-Ghazali, dan Ismail Razi al-Faruqi (Morality of the Qur’an and the Challenges of Modernity: Research into the Thought of Fazlur Rahman, Al-Ghazali and Ismail Razi al-Faruqi; by Tafsir et al, published by Gema Media in 2002. Another example of a method through which Muslims may understand revelation is the book by Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid, Menalar Firman Tuhan: Wacana Majaz dalam al-Qur’an menurut Mu’tazilah (Making Sense of God’s Decrees: Metaphorical Discourse in the Qur’an, in the View of Mu’tazilah; Mizan, 2003).

 

M. Qasim Mathar, Dr. MA, Ph.D., was born on August 21, 1947 in Makassar, on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. He is a professor in the Department of Religious Jurisprudence (Ushuluddin) and the Graduate Program at Alauddin Islamic State Institute (IAIN Alauddin) in Makassar; the Assistant Director of Academics and of the Students’ Board at IAIN Alauddin; and Director of the Graduate Program at Muhammadiyah University in Makassar. He earned his bachelor’s degree at IAIN Alauddin – Makassar’s Department of Religious Jurisprudence, and his master’s degree and doctorate at Syarif Hidayatullah Islamic State Institute in Jakarta.

Professor Mathar served as General Chairman of HMI (the Indonesian Students Association) at IAIN Alauddin in Makassar for two periods, and also as General Chairman of the Student Body at IAIN Alauddin. He is active in various non-governmental organizations both in Makassar and other Indonesian cities, including Forum Dialog Makassar, Interfaith/Interfidei, and NGOs for women. He also participates in the activities of the Liberal Islamic Network in Jakarta, and is a member of the Indonesian Forum for Democracy, which was founded in 2004 in Jakarta.

 

Printer Friendly Version of This Page