The Gospel of Homosexuals; Cross-Reading Homosexuality in Christian and Islamic Traditions

From the medieval confrontation between Islam and Christianity to the present era of interreligious dialogue, question related to sexual morality, particularly that concerns issue of homosexuality has been an interesting challenge for many to understand. Cross-cultural reading of texts is one of many options by which we may regard it as a perspective to depart, we may pull the trigger by exposing some facts on how Islamic “death-penalty” for homosexuals—for instance—appears as allegedly clashed with the “Western” conceptions of basic human rights. Here we could recall—for instance—the controversial movie titled “Fitna” which was directed by Scarlet Pimpernel in 2008, in which Islam was harshly depicted as heart-less religion, even barbarian, especially for gay men who commit homosexual practices in Muslim countries like Iran.

Some Western gays assume that Islam is more accommodative to gay culture than Christian-Judaeo tradition. Homosexual sex-tourism to Muslim countries and the considerable number of gays who convert to Islam have played a significant role in making modern “Western sexuality” visible in the Islamic world (Duran, 1993: 186). As an impact, liberal-sexual morality of modern Western world is perceived by Muslims as an indication of the decadence of the West. As an example, many Islamists like Prof Dr. Malik Badri used the notion of “Western modernity” and “Western sexual revolution” as weak points by which he showed the superiority of Islam and its morality over Western civilization (The AIDS Crisis; 2000). Because of such tendency, movements of gay sexual rights that appear in the Islamic world have always been regarded negatively as symptoms of 'Westernization' or forms of Western cultural and ideological imposition.

Regardless of the assumption of Islam being too much denial or more accepting to homosexuals compared to Christianity, this writing is not intended to discuss religion and sexuality in such a normative way. It is not about to create a new theology, but rather to obtain a close-comprehensive understanding on the discourse of homosexuality based on Quranic and Biblical reading, particularly on verses that are closely related to the issue.

This is more about an invitation to cross the two traditions in order to review the existing theological construction of homosexuality, in order to argue that the texts would never construct homosexuality discourse by itself, but rather to highlight some sociological and anthropological facts showing that the disapproval of both religions to homosexuality was socially and culturally constructed, particularly during the process of the dissemination of Tafseer and exegetical activities. The process of “othering” homosexuals certainly involves a particular setting in which social norms and cultural categories were taking place.

Homosexuality in Christianity

It is somehow surprising me that it was easier for me to find references on “Christianity and homosexuality” than on “Islam and homosexuality”. I am not quite sure whether this preliminary note can be considered as the hypothetical departure that Christianity (which many people uncritically regarded as The West) is more open to the issue of homosexuality compared to Islam.

During my short random research for books, I have found at least two similar books on “homosexuality and the Bible”. The first book is written by Donald J. Wold under the title Out of Order; Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (1998). And the other book is written by Daniel A. Helminiak under the title What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality (2000).

While Donald in his book tried to provide analytical reading to the discourse of homosexuality in the ancient Near East, Old Testament and New Testament, Helminiak on the other hand proposed an alternative reading to the Bible which is supposedly representing the “liberal-progressive” interpretation to the Bible, particularly in regard to the discourse of homosexuality.

From these two books I found that in Christianity, “homosexuality discourse” is often referred to the text of old testament, especially Genesis 9:18-27 which is about the story of Noah and his children, Genesis 19: 1-11 on Sodom and Gomorra, Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13 on law on male-male sex. While in the New Testament, we will find only few verses which explicitly (literally) denote the notion of homosexuality. The clearest one is Roman 1:18-32. 

It might be important also to mention that there are other biblical texts which are indirectly related to the issue of homosexuality. Some of them are Judges 19 (Story of Levite) & Ezekiel 16:48-49 (Sodom), Isaiah 1:10-17, Jeremiah 23:14, Zephaniah 2:8-11 (all about Sodom and Gomorra), Matthew 5:17-19 (New Testament as the continuation of Old Testament’s law, including law on homosexuality), and Matthew 10:5-15 (hospitality and Sodom-Gomorrah).

All these biblical texts are perceived and understood literally by the traditional-literal readers of the Bible—especially from the rabbinic interpretations—as the condemnation towards homosexuality in Christianity. These particular texts and their interpretations are usually understood by Christians to denounce homosexuals.

However, there are efforts from Biblical scholars to re-think about these texts using historical-critical approaches to these texts. These efforts showed that actually the process of “othering” homosexual happened during the interpretation activity itself. Because actually, these texts in particular never stated clearly about “homosexual-other” but rather imply about many other issues. Secondly these texts were born not in a social vacuum, but they emerged in a specific context, in which the homosexual othering was already constructed.

Both books which I have mentioned before started with the same consideration that “sexuality” is—indeed—a new discourse. We cannot expect from the Bible to say about “homosexuality” as the term that confirm the word “homosexuality” as we understand it today. In fact, homosexuality in today discourse is not merely about same-sex sexual “activities”.

It is also about a particular way of being human; about spontaneous affection for people of the same sex; about ethical possibility for expressing that affection in sexual relationships etc. Homosexuality today is a core aspect of the personality, which probably fixed by early childhood, biologically based, and affecting a significant proportion of the population in virtually known culture (Helminiak, 2000: 40)

So what do those texts mean historically?

Helminiak’s historical reading on Sodom and Gomorra especially Genesis 19: 1-11 suggests that the story shouldn’t be understood literally as condemnation of homosexuality (Helminiak, 2000), because in fact, there is no clear evidence that the verse is directed to be a proposition to condemn homosexuality. There are other ‘criminal-ethical’ issues which supposed to be the “actual” concerns of the story of Sodom and Gomorra. Historical-critical reading to the Bible suggests that at the time of this mythical story was “created”, sex was merely incidental. The actual sin was bitter hatred of strangers (Helminiak, 2000: 43-50). That’s why we found in the text that the strongest moral issue of this mythical story is about hospitality and inhospitality (Wold, 1998: 77).

The story of Sodom and Gomorra is not about sexual ethics, since the context of these texts doesn’t recognize “sexuality” as being “hetero” or “homo” as today’s “Western classification”. Sodom and Gomorrah is not about male-male sex, but rather male-male rape, it was not even about homogenitality but hard hatredness and abusing visitors. From the story and its context, forcing sex on man was a way for humiliating them. Sodomy was a way to insult men by treating them like women. The practice of Sodomy even imply about superiority of the one who penetrates and the inferiority of the other receptive sexual partner (Helminiak 2000: 43-50, Wold, 1998: 77).

If the story of Sodom and Gomorrah never state clearly about prohibition of homosexual activity like we understand it in today term, the prohibition of male-male sex occured only in the “holiness code” of Leviticus, and nowhere else (Helminiak, 2000: 53-54). However, Helminiak said that the abomination to male-male sex was merely about “Homogenital acts” not “homosexuality” as the term understood today. In fact, Homogenital act was prohibited by Jewish leaders to be practiced in Jewish community, because Homogenital act is “Gentile activities”. The prohibition of Homogenital act was a process of maintaining tradition; cultural identity of the Jews etc. (Helminiak, 2000: 53-61).

As we all have known, Israel has to be “Holy” (different from Gentile [Egypt and Canaan]). Israel was God’s Chosen People (Leviticus: 18) which supposed not to behave like others, even sexually. In fact, Homogenital act was one of Canaan’s traditions. Some of other traditions of Canaan was “fertility rites” that family might have sex one another; having sex with menstruating woman; child sacrifice etc. all of these practices were banned by Jewish tradition and the prohibition called “The Holiness Code”. That’s why the holiness code called these rituals as “Abomination” (Leviticus 18:22)

We see that “Holiness code” of Leviticus prohibits male same sex acts for religious reasons (identity-other) not merely for sexual reasons. It was neither ethical nor moral, because the prohibition was intended to keep Israel distinct from the Gentile (Ummiyyin). So, Homogenital sex is forbidden because it was associated with Gentile identity. No thought is given to whether the sex itself is right or wrong, the intent is to keep Jewish identity strong. However, we should be aware that this interpretation belongs to the Jewish view toward “others” (Canaan). The case might be different if we reverse the direction to consider what would be the view of Canaan toward Jews? Who are here the “colonials” who live as the center, and who are the “peripheries” who live at the margin, especially in this accusation?

As the old testaments contain texts on homosexuality and their interpretation in a cultural context, we may find also texts from the New Testament, for instance Roman 1: 18-28 which is also talking about a cultural issue. Helminiak said that only in the verse 27 that he found a clear reference to Homogenital acts in which he elaborated the word of Paul “unnatural intercourse”, “degrading” and “shameless act” etc. (Helminiak, 2000: 75-86)

Homosexuality in Islam

If we have found biblical texts which supposedly to be the references to ban homosexuality, there are—at least—seven places in the Qur’an in which Muslim considered them as the verses condemning homosexuality. They are QS: 7:80-84, 11:77-83, 21:74-75, 22:42-44, 26:165-175, 27: 54-59, 29: 27-33. But, all of these verses are about the story of Prophet Lot and Sodom. In fact, it is important to say that we couldn’t find any Qur’anic reference to homosexuality except that is derived from the story of Sodom. However, unlike in Christianity, homosexuality messages in the Qur’anic version of Loth and his community is more explicit than in Christianity. 

Beside those texts of al-Quran, Muslim considers also Hadith as the second textual basis for their belief. One of those Hadith texts which signify about “homosexuality” telss us that the Prophet Muhammad PBUH said that “If two men commit unchastity with each other, then punish them both” (quoted by Jim Wafer, 2000). Another Hadith which recommends to stone Muslims who practice sodomy said “kill both the homosexual active partner (al-Fa’il), and the passive one (al-Maf’ul)”.

Muslim traditional interpreters of al-Quran such as Ibn Kathir, al-Qurthuby and al-Alushy tend to use “inter-textual” approach (Tafsir al-Ayah bi al-Ayah [or] bil-Hadits) to explain these texts. Al-Alushy—especially—is very visible in using this inter-textual approach, since He is very supportive to the idea of correlative inter-textuality (Munasabat/ Tanasub) as many of rabbinic interpretation models of the Bible. Ibn Kathir is also close to this approach when he elaborates more on Hadith and traditional narratives (Riwayat / Akhbar) to explain Quranic verses, while al-Qurthuby is more attentive to the aspect of Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence) and moral messages of the Quran.  However, all of them consider those verses mentioned above as the explicit condemnation toward homosexuality.

Indeed, traditional Tafsir never distinguish between homosexuality and homogenitality. They do not recognize terms such as homoeroticsm, sexual behavior and sexual orientation etc. But the classical Islamic tradition simply says that Islam doesn’t support any practice of “homosexuality” of no matter what.

If we search more carefully to the issue of homosexuality in Islam, especially in the literature of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), many of Muslim scholars tend to not further elaborate in the discourse. Some others even tend to be ignorant toward the issue, while indeed there are few Muslim scholars who have concern to talk about “homosexuality” in terms of its “Islamic punishment”.

However, it seems that Muslims do not have a single word regarding the punishment for homosexual people. There has been diversity about prophets’ opinion on the matter since sex between males was treated differently by the various legal schools in Islam. Hanafite School said that man to man sexual practice does not merit any physical punishment, while Hambalite School said that sex between males must be punished severely with stoning (rajm). According to Hambalite School, this punishment is referred to the Quranic narratives that Sodomites were punished by God with the “rain of stone”. It is narrated also that Abu Bakar (the first great successor of Muhammad) supposed to have had a Luthi (who practice sodomy) burned alive. Another Muhammad’s companion, Ibn Abbas stated that “sodomite should be thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned” (Bell, 1979: 31).

As I have said beforehand that it is rather difficult to find a literature on Islam and homosexuality especially if we look for an “alternative” reading to the verses of homosexuality. Indeed, there are only few persons—if I cannot say “no body” at all— who dare to approach homosexuality in Islam through textual analysis (interpretation). In fact, Muslims still consider homosexuality as a marginal discourse, if not an embarrassing and distasteful subject of study, Western scholars of Islam and the Middle East have either ignored it altogether, treated it in occasional footnotes or, at worst, misrepresented and judged it on the basis of their personal moral convictions (Schmidtke, 1999: 261)

Nevertheless there are some references which are approaching the issue of homosexuality in Islam more culturally. We found as pioneer Abdul Wahhab Bouhdiba with his book Sexuality in Islam (1975). Subsequently we found Bruce W. Dunne's with his book Outline of an agenda for historical research on homo- sexuality in the Middle East (1990), which followed by Sexuality and eroticism among males in Moslem societies, a collection edited by Arno Schmitt and Jehodea Sofer (1992) and Bio-bibliography of male-male sexuality and eroticism in Muslim societies (1995) These books consisted primarily of personal accounts by Western travellers of their disappointing sexual encounters with Arabs and Iranians. Another essay which is very important is written by Khalid Duran “Homosexuality in Islam”, in a book edited by Arlene Swidler Homosexuality and world religions (1993), also the other current book which concerns about homosexuality in Islam is edited by Stephen 0. Murray and Will Roscoe: Islamic homosexualities: culture, history, and literature (1997). The most recent book published by Muslim scholar on homosexuality in Islam is written by Scott Kugle under the title “Homosexuality in Islam: Islamic Reflection on Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Muslims”(2010)

Although we cannot find “liberal-progressive” interpretation of Quranic texts on homosexuality as enough ........

[the full version of this article should be requested via my email CONTACT - Madyan]

Islamic Law of Inheritance; Negotiating History and the Challenge of Modern Muslim Society

Ahmad Shams Madyan

(Paper Collection: January 2012)

Islamic law of inheritance has been one amongst significant controversies, both inside and outside Muslim community. This "law" in particular is challenged by the discourse of modernity, ranging from the questions of democracy, gender equity, and social justice. It is interesting to talk about the Islamic law of inheritance as a tradition that is still being practiced by modern Muslim society. The law itself may be seen from the perspective of Western popular ideologies as the picture of gender biased practices that are still performed by such patriarchal society.

In fact, it has always been problematic for us to place religion in the midst of modern challenges. “Modern” means that the shifts and the structures of the world become more complex, busy, efficient, and productive. When dealing with the issue of family law particularly that concerns the regulation of wealth distribution (inheritance), it means that the issues of equality, gender and human right come up as things that should be taken into accounts.

There are at least three attitudes of Muslims to regard this doctrine in particular. Two of them are the extreme examples of Muslims who accept or reject. For Muslims who accept the doctrine, they simply understand that the text is given without any need for interpretation since the text is already clear as mentioning exact numbers and partition of the wealth, while the other extreme is those who simply reject the notion of justice in the doctrine of Islamic inheritance since the text does not confirm the spirit of gender justice in any sense at all.

In regard to modernity, Robert N. Bellah describes Muslims by dividing them into two extreme categories (Beyond Belief: 2000), the first is Muslims who who understand religion as some thing permanent, completely divine and un-changeable. To see the law of inheritance, for instance, they understand it as the doctrine is literally given by God that must be accepted willingly. Hence, what they must do is only to obey their God. Abdul Hamid Ishaq, a South African Muslim scholar from Madrasah Ta’lim al-Dien, is the example when he said “…The fact that the inheritance is essentially a gift from Allah Ta'ala and as such it is His prerogative to give to whomsoever what He wishes…”

On the opposite, the second extreme category is represented by secularist Muslims who view the teachings of Islam, including the law of inheritance, as one among irrelevant doctrines which should be left out. This second stream sometimes represents a strong rejection to Islam as “way of life”. They believe in Islam as no more than a spiritual path.

As Bellah seems to support the need for mid-understanding of Islamic doctrines which can be adaptive to modern challenges This writing is taking a side to highlight the third-mid category as they are Muslims who pursue to negotiate the doctrine of inheritance through the lens of modernity. They neither accept nor reject, but negotiate and reinterpret the doctrine by considering the doctrine along with some sociological and historical analysis.

The question is how Muslims negotiate this doctrine? Why this third category of Muslims think that it is necessary for them to reinterpret the law of inheritance so that it can survive.

Inheritance in Early Islam; a Defense

In the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyah period) women did not inherit and only men could inherit. This was the social setting in which Qur’anic verses of inheritance were revealed. Islam therefore, has transformed the status of women from being neglected to being recognized as legal heirs with fixed shares. Thus, the transformation of the status was revolutionary at that time.

Before the detailed verses of inheritance have revealed to the prophet, every body was asked to make bequests for his family members. Nevertheless according to the custom of Arabs before Islam, some male relatives would take whatever the deceased left behind.

When Aus bin Malik (R.A.) passed away, he left behind a wife, two young daughters and an infant son. Here again the cousins of the deceased took away whatever was left behind. The widow of Aus bin Malik (R.A.) brought her complaint to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and informed him that she and her children were totally deprived of their inheritance. The Prophet (PBUH) asked her to be patient until God reveals something in this regard. On that occasion the following verse was revealed: "And for the males is a share of what has been left behind by the parents and relatives and for the females is a share of what has been left by the parents and relatives." (4:65)

Not long after that, a similar incident occurred with the widow of Sa'ad bin Rabi' (R.A.). It was reported by Ibn Kathir (774) that the wife of Sa’ad bin Rabi’ (Ummu Kuhhah) had come to the prophet Muhammad PBUH and said “Oh Rasulullah, these are the two daughters of Sa’ad bin Rabi’ who was killed as a martyr in the battle Uhud, and their uncle took all his possessions and did not give them any thing”. Soon afterward the Qur’anic verses on inheritance were revealed to Muhammad in which it was stipulated that two daughters together, in the absence of sons, receive 2/3 of the estate. On the basis these Quranic verse Prophet Muhammad was reported to have ordered the uncle to give to he two-daughters 2/3, and to the wife 1/8, and to keep the rest. Finally, on this the detail laws of inheritance were revealed.

Was Islam discriminative against women?

Looking from the perspective of modern gender justice, It is true that women were discriminated by men in the early period of Islam. But, the discrimination was not suffered only by Arab women. In fact, we can find such discrimination against women in the more modern civilization such as the English Common Law which does not give the right for women to own their properties until 1880s.

In the United Kingdom, the Married Women's Property Act was only approved by Parliament as late as 1882 to abolish the previous law, which stated that a married woman couldn’t hold any property independent from her husband. A similar situation happened also in France, whereby this right was only recognized in 1930s, which is actually less than 100 years ago. This is how the early societies dealt with the matter of inheritance and the distribution of wealth, where the treatment is favorable to men, while women were treated as the second-class creations. (Rafidah Abdul Jamal; The Issue On Inheritance: The Unfair Treatment of Women?)

Such this fact need to be exposed to examine fairly how the unbalanced treatment on women is also improved by the new set of rules introduced by Islam in its era. Indeed, .....


[the full version of this article should be requested via my email CONTACT - Madyan]

SYARIAT; Untuk Siapa?

Ahmad Shams Madyan*

Terlepas dari beragam level penafsiran tentang apa yang dimaksud dengan Syari'at, setiap orang Islam memang mengaku tunduk pada "Syari'at", namun untuk orang yang bukan Muslim, apakah mereka juga harus turut ditundukkan? Beberapa kalangan berargumen bahwa penerapan 'Syari’at Islam' itu eksklusif, terbatas hanya untuk umat Islam saja, namun banyak yang memahami bahwa mendakwahkan Islam kepada umat non-Muslim itu juga merupakan bagian dari syariat yang eksklusif itu sendiri. Lalu bagaimana?

Tantangan kita memang cukup berat untuk meletakkan 'Islam' dalam konteks pluralitas agama. Manakah yang didahulukan, klaim-klaim kebenaran sendiri, ataukah kerendahan hati untuk menerima 'yang lain' sebagai orang-orang yang juga berhak memilki klaim kebenaran yang berbeda? Di dalam al-Quran, derivasi kata syariat disebut terdapat dalam surat al-Maidah (5) : 48. Terjemahan ayat tersebut berbunyi:

Dan Kami telah turunkan al-Quran kepadamu dengan membawa kebenaran, membenarkan apa yang sebelumnya, yaitu kitab-kitab (yang diturunkan ebelumnya) dan batu ujian terhadap kitab-kitab yang lain itu; maka putuskan lah perkara mereka menurut apa yang Allah turunkan dan janganlah kamu mengikuti hawa nafsu mereka dengan meninggalkan kebenaran yang telah datang kepadamu. Untuk tiap-tiap umat diantara kamu Kami berikan SYIR'AH (aturan) dan MINHAJ (jalan yang terang) sendiri-sendiri. Sekiranya Allah menghendaki, niscaya kamu dijadikan-Ny satu umat (saja), tetapi Allah hendak menguji kami terhaddap pemberian-Nya kepadamu, maka berlomba-lombalah berbuat kebajikan. Hanya kepada Allah lah kalian semuanya dikembalikan, lalu diberitahukan-nya kepadamu apa yang telah kamu perselisihkan

Ayat ini sangat relevan untuk dibaca dan dipahami dalam rangka mendudukkan Islam ditengah kerumunan agama-agama lain; meletakkan 'Syari’at Islam' ditengah Syari’at (aturan-aturan) yang lain.

***

Untuk membaca ayat diatas, Setidaknya ada dua model penafsiran yang bisa kita golongkan. Penafsiran pertama bersifat inklusif; yang terbuka atas eksistensi agama dan syariat lain. Model interpretasi kedua bersifat eksklusif; yang berarti tertutup dan tetap menafsirkan ayat ini sebagai justifikasi klaim Islam sebagai agama dan Syari’at yang paling dan maha benar. Penafsiran inklusif diusulkan oleh para penafsir seperti Rasyid Ridla, al-Tabataba'i, Farid Esack dan juga beberapa penafsir kontemporer lainnya. Sedangkan penafsiran model kedua dapat kita jumpai dalam gaya penafsiran tradisional (klasik), sebut saja misalnya karya al-Thabarydan al- Razi.

[1] penafsiran Inklusif

Sebelum mengutip penafsiran Ridla dan al-Tabataba'i, Saya ingin mencatatkan bahwa potongan ayat "... Untuk tiap-tiap umat diantara kamu Kami berikan SYIR'AH (aturan) dan MINHAJ (jalan yang terang) sendiri-sendiri" itu sangat mirip dengan makna ayat al-Quran lain yang mengatakan "Bagi tiap-tiap umat telah kami tetapkan MANSAK (jalan/aturan/syariat) tertentu yang mereka lakukan, maka janganlah sekali-kali mereka membantah kamu dalam urusan (syariat) ini dan serulah kepada (agama) Tuhan mu. Sesungguhnya kamu benar-benar berada pada jalan yang lurus’ (Q.22: 67). Dalam pandangan saya, kedua ayat ini memang sangat identik dan keduanya bisa dipadu untuk bersama-sama dibaca sebagai respon Al-Qur'an terhadap keragaman agama.


Dua ayat identik ini menyebutkan bahwa fungsi Al-Qur'an sebagai kitab suci adalah untuk mempertegas kembali kebenaran kitab-kitab yang diturunkan sebelumnya, sekaligus mengukuhkan Muhammad sebagai salah satu Rasul dari gugusan para nabi dan rasul Allah. Beberapa nama nabi-nabi itu disebutkan secara khusus dalam Quran, sementara sebagian nama nabi yang lain tidak disebutkan (Q. 40:78). Dalam hal ini, al-Qur'an menyatakan bahwa Muhammad adalah penunjuk dan pengarah yang memiliki agama (Dien) yang sama dengan yang diwahyukan kepada Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa dan Isa [Yesus] (Q.42: 13, 16:36 dan 35:24)

Kembali ke teks al-Maidah yang menggunakan kata SYIR'AH dan MINHAJ tadi, Sebagian besar Mufassir mengatakan bahwa kata SYIR'AH adalah bentuk lain dari istilah 'SYARI'AH', keduanya memiliki arti yang sama, karena keduanya berkaitan dengan kata MINHAJ, yang secara harafiah berarti ' jalan yang jelas'. Dalam tafsirnya, Ridla misalnya mengurai panjang makna etimologis kata 'Syir'ah' dan 'Syari'ah' yang keduanya berarti "jalan air/ sumber air atau lajur sungai..".

Dalam tafsir Ridla, telah dipaparkan juga diskusi yang cukup panjang tentang perbedaan antara istilah Dien (agama / keyakinan) dan 'Syari'ah'. Bahkan, komentar dari Ridla dan juga al-Thabathaba'i tentang ayat ini telah membuat jelas bahwa "Syari'ah adalah aturan tertentu bagi komunitas tertentu" sementara "Dien adalah sebuat pola atau pattern yang lebih universal, sebuah jalan ilahi yang lebih umum bagi seluruh umat manusia". Jadi menurut dua orang mufassir ini, konsekwensinya adalah bahwa Syari'ah bisa menerima pencabutan dan ralat (nasakh), sementara Dien (agama) dalam arti luas tidak bisa dihapus atau di gantikan (al-Tabataba'i, 1973, 5: 350). Lebih jelas lagi, Ridla dalam tafsirnya juga membandingkan berbagai 'Syari'at' yang dapat membatalkan satu sama lain. Berbeda dengan 'Dien' (agama) yang akan selamanya akan tetap satu (Ridla, 1980, 5:351).

Hemat saya, baik Ridla dan al-Thabathaba'i telah menyarankan bahwa "Islam" sebagai agama institusional yang telah dianut oleh banyak orang saat ini adalah bentuk reifikasi (bukan makna yang utuh) dari istilah Dien (agama/keyakinan). Seorang pemikir Muslim dan mufassir asal Afrika Selatan, Farid Esack, juga turut menegaskan tentang terjadinya reifikasi makna dari kata 'Islam' ini sebagai bentukan Syari'ah yang bisa diubah dan dibatalkan, seperti agama-agama yang terlembaga lainnya. Namun menurutnya, memang akan hanya ada satu satu 'Dien' (agama / keyakinan) dengan makna yang tidak direifikasi, yaitu yang dimiliki oleh semua agama dan lebih bersifat eternal dan universal (Esack, 1997:167).

Untuk argumen ini juga, Ridla mengatakan bahwa “Allah telah memetakan jalur dan cara beragama yang berbeda-beda, tergantung pada kapasitas manusia yang berbeda pula...” Pemahaman seperti ini lah yang kemudian menjadi sangat sinkron ketika dalam ayat yang sama juga disabdakan bahwa "Sekiranya Allah menghendaki, niscaya kamu dijadikan-Nya satu umat (saja)... (Q. 5:351)"

***


[2] interpretasi Eksklusif (vs) Inklusif Interpretasi teks
Tidak mengherankan, .....


[the full version of this article should be requested via my email CONTACT - Madyan]

Verbum Dei: The Words of God Revisited

By: Ahmad Shams Madyan

According to the traditional belief of Muslims, al-Qur’an is the words of God revealed to the earth trough Gabriel, the angel, unto the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This doctrine is seemingly fixed as accepted to be one amongst the six pillars of Islamic faith (Rukun Iman). Some social scientists addressed questions to this belief clarifying about what does God’s revelation actually mean. In fact, this question is not addressed only to Muslims, as it is also addressed to other religions holding the idea of “scripture” as God’s revelation.

However, the problem is more complicated for Islamic theology which regards al-Qur’an as the prominent manifestation of that divine revelation. It is not like some Christians—for instance—who believed that the revelation of God is manifested prominently by the birth of Jesus, not by the canonic book namely “the Bible”. The Bible—for some Christians—is not the ultimate form of God’s revelation. Therefore, they are not really bothered theologically when they found some scientific mistakes or historical errors in their scripture.

On the contrary, Muslims believe that the core meaning of God’s revelation is reflected by the existence of Al-Qur’an itself, it is not reflected by the flesh of Muhammad PBUH. It is an excuse for Muhammad to do some mistakes in his life, because he is only a human being regardless of his divine mission as a prophet. But it’s never acceptable that Muslims find errors in al-Quran, since God is never wrong. Furthermore, Muslims believe that al-Qur’an with all of its text and its arabicity are the biggest miracle of Muhammad. They believe that those 114 chapters of al-Quran; all of them are the holyVerbum Dei; The Words of God.

“When in time that God actually said those words? In what occasion he said so? Did he use that Arabic language to speak? If God has a language, does it mean that he is bounded by temporal-spatial limitations like his creatures? Then how to understand the contradiction about the transcendence of God, which is already believed by Muslim’s theology as a completely different Being (Mukhalafah Lil Hawadits)?

Nobody can answer that question satisfactory. Therefore, those logical questions lead many social scientists to their statements that al-Quran is not more than just a worldly product; despite of its extraordinary meanings and inspirations which most Muslims may regard them as coming from the Divine.

Many scientific approaches to the Qur’an have been done by scholars; ranging from the discipline of history, anthropology, social linguistic, psychology and so forth in order to rationalize this doctrine and make it more intelligible. Some of these scientific assumptions come into deadlock, and turn into the idea of deconstruction, throwing a conclusion saying that actually “there is nothing such God’s revelation at all”. Many Muslim scholars in the past history of Kalam [theology] intruded Islamic faith with philosophical arguments by which they made some apologetic answers to that conflict. Some of them are satisfied, but many others consider the answers as even more problematic. A large number of Muslims just believe in the idea of Verbum Dei regardless of the unanswered questions, insisting their belief and defending what they hold as an unquestionable “creed”.

Contemporary religious studies and Interdisciplinary approaches then try to bridge religion and science and moderate the tensions by proposing a way of thinking in which both interests may come along without negation. It is a way that we may see the truth of al-Qur’an in a crystal analogue, in which the sparkling colors of it are many and they may be seen not only from only one perspective and dimension. It means that when some body believes in al-Qur’an as the divine words of God, he expresses one truth of it from only one angle. Also when somebody else tells that al-Qur’an is the words of Muhammad, he is also true because he is looking the other truth from different angle. Both truths are not contradictive at all, because like a sparkling-colorful crystal which has many projections of the colors, the many truths of al-Quran are seemingly similar

Many truths; How?
From the crystal analogue, a point that we should be sure before answering the question of whether the Quran is transcendent or profane, is to be sure about which dimension or perspective we are going to depart to throw the answer?” If we are talking about the historical authenticity based on material evidences (historical approach), we should not be bound to say that al-Qur’an is the words of Muhammad PBUH, because that’s all what history can provide report to us. History is right when it can only find that the first subject of al-Qur’an was only Muhammad. History is also honest when it couldn’t find any divine beings (i.e Allah or Gabriel) within the miraculous Qur’anic chronology. What we called “history” is merely a collection of material data, which can not trace its limit to report some thing beyond that material. For me, It is even too much to expect that history should report about God and Gabriel if the history itself is limited to be always based on the question about “when” (time) and “where” (space)?

In his book The Study of Religion in an Age of Global Dialogue (2000), Leonard Swidler said that one function of History, psychology, anthropology and sociology is to provide raw materials for the philosophy of religion, so it can attempt to relate the data to one another and explore their meaning and significance.

That’s why if some one is unable to say that al-Qur’an is the words of God because of her/his historical approach, ....

[the full version of this article should be requested via my email CONTACT - Madyan]

Tak Perlu Meributkan Syiah, Karena Ahlussunnah Juga Bukan Sebuah Nama

Mereview Kembali Sekte Awal-awal, Sejarah Teologi Islan

Mengangkat kembali tema-tema Aqidiah Sebagai presentasi ideologi, atau mengurai detail altar sejarah aliran tertentu, akan menjadi bahasan ulang yang menjemukan. Namun barangkali cukup penulis singgung secara umum, bahwa sekte Syi’ah yang sekarang misalnya, adalah pengembangan yang sangat jauh dari ide pertamanya yaitu Tasyayyu’. Satu koreksi kesejarahan mungkin, bahwa Syi’ah belum-lah bisa dikatakan lahir pada saat riuh proses arbitrasi (tahkim) antara ‘Amru bin ‘Ash dan Abu Musa al-Asy’ari paska perang Shiffin (657 M). Lebih jeli, pecahnya umat Islam sebagai pendukung Ali, pendukung Mu’awwiyah dan golongan abstainis (khawarij), hanya bisa direfleksikan sebagai fenomena demokratis dalam gebyar pesta politik zaman itu. Background politis ini harus dicermati dan dibedakan, dengan pengembangan Syi’ah selanjutnya, sebagai satu aliran ideologis yang memiliki karakter teologis dengan doktrin-doktrinnya yang mandiri.

Beberapa kalangan intelektual mulai menyejarahkan kembali aliran Syi’ah ini dengan penanggalan yang lebih akurat, bahwa Syi’ah, sebagai sebuah varian ideologi keislaman, baru dilahirkan pada abad ke-III, tepatnya, setelah adanya kabar tentang “Ghaibah kubra”, menghilangnya imam ke dua belas mereka (baca: al-Mahdy 329 H). Munculnya doktrin-doktrin baru sejak peristiwa itu, seperti Wilayat alFaqieh, Khumus, Taqiyyah, Raj’ah, Bada’ dan lain sebagainya, lebih tepat ditengarai sebagai “tangis kelahiran” Syi’ah. Karena sejak saat itulah, Syi’ah -secara deklaratif- mulai mengenalkan diri, sebagai aliran baru yang memiliki nalar interpretasi berbeda dengan muslimin lain , bahkan sangat mendasar, perbedaan itu hingga pada taraf “rukun iman” (?)
Dari sanalah sebenarnya mengapa harus dibedakan antara Syi’ah dan Tasyayyu’. Pemahaman lebih dalam lagi akan mengantarkan pada statement radikal, bahwa antara dua terma ini (Syi’ah dan Tasyayyu’) terdapat satu kesenjangan yang berarti, bahkan sebagian ulama’ menganggapnya sebagai suatu Shira’ (Clash).

Antara Syi’ah dan Tasyayyu’

Suatu kepantasan jika sejarah duka ahl al-Beit sangat mengundang simpati dan luapan emosi. Satu kewajaran juga, jika simpati dan emosi tersebut kemudian tumbuh membentuk fanatisme “berlebih” dari kalangan awam. Rasa salut, simpati dan fanatisme inilah yang diistilahkan kemudian dengan terma Tasyayyu’. Kalangan Syi’ah sendiri berbeda-beda dalam menginterpretasikan mafhumnya secara konkret;
1. ada yang memandang Tasyayyu’ sebagai luapan rasa cinta
2. ada yang memandang Tasyayyu’ sebagai dukungan politik
3. ada juga yang memandang Tasyayyu’ sebagai sebuah akidah

Rupa-rupanya, interpretasi Tasyayyu’ sebagai akidah-lah yang berandil besar dalam mencipta karakter baru, sekaligus merubah identitas golongan ini sebagai satu aliran resmi bernama SYI’AH hingga sekarang ini .
Pemilahan sikap terhadap tiga pola pemahaman Tasyayyu’ ini memang harus digagas, untuk kemudian segera disosialisasikan sesuai proporsinya, bahwa Tasyayyu’ sebagai dukungan politis, kecintaan “lebih”, atau bahkan fanatisme kalangan awwam terhadap ahl al-Bait, adalah satu kewajaran yang tidak perlu “digugat”. Berbeda dengan Syi’ah sebagai rumusan pemikiran, sekaligus wacana ideologis (konsep akidah), relevansi doktrin-doktrinnya bisa kita perbincangkan, sebagaimana kita pun juga “wajib” menelaah kembali aliran-aliran lain melalui motivasi pembelajaran yang adil, termasuk kita juga harus meelaah aliran mayoritas yang secara “terpeleset” menyebut dirinya “ahlussunnah wal jamaah”.



Review terhadap hadits sekte

Barangkali mengulang kembali penafsiran hadits sekte, akan banyak membantu. karena pembicaraan seputar sekte biasanya selalu dikaitkan dengan teks hadis sekte ini, apalagi jika pembahasan itu melulu menggunakan nalar kritis terhadap kelompok tertentu, dalam hal ini Syi’ah. Maka, ingin penulis singgung sebelumnya hadis sekte yang berbunyi;

“Umat ku akan terpecah menjadi 73 golongan, semuanya masuk neraka kecuali satu. Para sahabat pun bertanya, siapakah itu wahai Rasul? Rasulullah menjawab, yaitu orang-orang yang berpegang pada sunnahku “ahlussunnati” dan (sunnah) sahabat-sahabatku “wa jama’ati”. Atau dalam teks lain, “ma kuntu alaihi al yauma wa ashaby” (orang-orang yang I’tikad agamanya sesuai dengan ku dan sahabat-sahabatku, seperti hari ini) .

Hadis diatas seharusnya dianggap sebagai teks suci yang lebih bercirikan nalar normative. Pemahaman bahwa hadits ini berisi pesan, agar umat Islam selalu berpegang pada al-Quran dan Sunnah, akan lebih mudah diterima akal dan hati, dibanding jika hadits ini dipahami “ceroboh”, bahwa waktu itu, Rasulullah Saw meresmikan sebuah “nama” bagi kelompok tertentu.

Tentunya sebagai teks normative, hadits seperti ini memancing banyak interpretasi dan usaha-usaha pemahaman (ijtihadat). Namun nampaknya, yang sering terjadi adalah pemaksaan penafsiran yang dilandasi subyektifitas sebagai kelompok tertentu. Setiap golongan menganggap bahwa kelompoknya-lah golongan yang dikecualikan “selamat” itu. Nasiruddin al-Thusy misalnya, menunjuk bahwa “al-firqah al-najiyah” (kelompok yang selamat) itu adalah Syi’ah Imamiah. Ibn Taymiah berkata lain, bahwa yang paling berhak menyandang nama “ahlussunnah waljamaah” adalah ahli hadits dan sunnah. Tak ketinggalan, kalangan Asy’ariah dan Maturidiah juga ikut berebut, mengklaim bahwa ahlussunnah waljamaah itu adalah nama resminya.

Pada akhirnya, memang ulama-ulama Asy’ariah inilah (sebagai anutan mayoritas), yang paling berhasil mencipta wacana umum, bahwa ahlussunnah waljamaah itu adalah nama kebesarannya. Ketenaran nama “Asy’ariah” atau “Maturidiah” kemudian larut dan hampir terlupakan, karena telah melebur sebagai kelompok yang menyebut dirinya “sunny”?. Saat itulah, karakter dogmatis dalam statement nabawi tentang “alfirqah annajiah” menjadi sangat dilematis. Semuanya menganggap bahwa kebenaran hanya miliknya, dia sendiri yang selamat, kelompok lain sesat dan masuk neraka


“Ahlussunnah” sebagai wacana, bukan nama

Maka terbukti, bahwa ulasan seputar hadis sekte belumlah menemukan finalnya hingga sekarang, perebutan legalitas sebagai sekte yang selamat dan dijanjikan Rasulullah Saw masuk surga (alfirqah annajiah) masih berkelanjutan. Sungguh pun demikian, jika wihdah al ummah (persatuan umat) masih dianggap sebagai semboyan dan idealisme yang dicita-citakan, apalagi kondisi umat sekarang ini yang “jenuh” menanti persatuan, maka kiranya, yang diperlukan sekarang adalah mencoba memahami kembali hadits sekte tersebut, setelah terlebih dulu menanggalkan subyektifitas sebagai kelompok tertentu.

Sikap rekonsiliatif obyektif seperti ini perlu, agar ego sebagai penganut suatu aliran hanya akan menjadi titik tolak untuk “melihat” aliran lain sebagai pembanding, bukan pesaing apalagi “musuh”. Konsep pembandingan semacam ini tentunya akan membuka pemahaman baru, bahwa mungkin ada sisi kebenaran di kelompok lain, sebagaimana juga ada kemungkinan salah pada aliran sendiri. Sungguh bukanlah masuk dalam cela talfiq (pindah-pindah madzhab secara eklektis: mencari yang mudah-mudah), ketika seseorang -dalam beberapa hal- harus mengikuti alur pikiran kelompok lain, jika memang kebenaran ada disana. Justeru yang tercela adalah konsisten terhadap satu aliran, kemudian bersikeras melakukan semua doktrinnya dengan menutup mata.

Keterangan Rasul Saw bahwa kelompok yang selamat itu “ahlussunati wa jamati” perlu dipahami, bahwa “kalimat” itu merupakan standar keselamatan yang dijanjikan Nabi Saw, bukan sebuah nama. Toh, Islam tetap membela hak berpendapat dan mengemukakan ide, bahwa setiap orang ataupun kelompok, berhak memiliki interpretasi dan pemahaman sendiri. Syi’ah berhak menafsiri, sebagaimana juga Asy’ariah, Mu’tazilah dan yang lainnya. Hanya saja, Rasul Saw. memberikan parameter, bahwa interpretasi yang selamat adalah yang sesuai dengan al-Quran dan Sunnah, beliau membahasakannya dengan “maa ana ‘alaihi alyauma wa ashabi” atau dalam redaksi lain, ”ahlusunnati wa jamaati” itu. Dengan demikian, masing-masing kelompok tetap memiliki peluang salah dan benar. Semuanya bisa memberi dan bisa pula dikritisi.

Mencomot statemen “ahlusunnati wa jama’ati” sebagai sebuah “nama” hanya akan berdampak perebutan yang tidak sehat, saling mengkafirkan, anarki antar kelompok dan rasa superioritas suatu golongan tertentu hingga merasa benar sendiri dan tidak menerima kritikan dari luar. Lebih fatal lagi misalnya, ketika vonis neraka dan sorga tidak lagi dianggap sebagai hak preogatif Tuhan. Masing-masing mengetuk palu, menyatakan bahwa yang tidak sesuai dengan ideologinya adalah golongan-golongan yang pasti masuk neraka. Perasaan benar sendiri seperti inilah nampaknya, yang menghipnotis kalangan Asy’ariah setelah berbaju besi “sunny”. Demikian juga kelompok-kelompok lain yang mencoba “zalim”, memperebutkan kata “ahlussunah waljamaah” sebagai “nama resmi” golongannya, kemudian menuduh sesat kelompok lain.

Maka penulis tetap berkeyakinan, bahwa waktu itu Rasul Saw tidaklah bermaksud agar umatnya yang diramalkan pecah menjadi berpuluh-puluh golongan itu memperebutkan sebuah “nama”. Kiranya, yang beliau harap adalah satu sikap kompetitif dari masing-masing kelompok agar senantiasa menyesuaikan pemahaman dan interpretasinya masing-masing dengan parameter Quran dan Sunnah, yaitu maa ana ‘alaiahi alyauma wa ashabi, mereka itulah nantinya yang akan selamat, karena mereka adalah golongan yang berpegang pada sunnah “ahlusunnati wajamaati” itu.



Memahami al-Sawaad al-A’dzam (golongan mayoritas)

Nampaknya perlu juga direview, sebuah teks lagi yang sering disalahgunakan dalam pembicaraan seputar sekte. Yaitu hadits Nabi yang berbunyi “alaikum bi assawad al a’dzam” yang kiranya bermakna “ikutilah golongan mayoritas”.

Yang patut disayangkan dari doktrin aktsriah (mayoritas) semacam ini adalah permahamannya. Seringkali, doktrin seperti ini dijadikan stempel legalisir, bahwa golongan yang besar itulah satu-satunya yang benar dan yang lain salah. Padahal sepatutnya, sebelum menelan mentah-mentah hadits ini, ada yang perlu digaris bawahi terlebih dahulu, yaitu menyadari posisi Rasulullah Saw sebagai seorang pemimpin. Perintah agar kita selalu berada dalam kelompok mayoritas, harus kita akui sebagai ekspresi sikap yang jeli dan bijak.

Bagaimana pun, pemimpin yang baik akan memberikan intruksi umum, agar umatnya selalu berada dalam golongan terbesar, sesuai dengan falsafat gembala domba yang selalu diajarkan pada seluruh Nabi. Sungguh sangat tidak rasional, jika Rasulullah Saw membiarkan umatnya kebingungan, apalagi menjawab kebingungan mereka dengan berkata “terserah pilihan anda masing-masing”. Maka, seakan Rasul bersabda; “jika kalian kebingungan, ikuti saja golongan terbesar”. Tentunya, kelompok yang besar akan lebih aman diikuti, apalagi jika konteks waktu itu adalah membicarakan tentang konsep keselamatan (sorga).

Namun yang perlu dipahami ulang disini adalah, bahwa ....


[the full version of this article should be requested via my email CONTACT - Madyan]