Berawal dari
sebuah tamparan keras di pipi kanan,,,
(Rabu, 8 Mei 2012 di LKiS)
Abdullah Ahmad El-Naim in his book entitled “Islam and Secular
State; Negotiating the Future of Shari’a “ (when he talked about pluralism
in Indonesia) is true saying that the majority of population identify
themselves as Muslim in their indigenous understanding of Islam which have been
pluralistic and tolerant of difference.
Yet, he also recognized that there is also religious puritanical
movement “Wahabbi” view on Islam that early challenged Indonesia.[1]
The spread of
Islam in Indonesia started when traders from various countries entered
Indonesia with the teachings
of Islam. Azra noted that there was a massive conversion
to Islam in 14 century. It was caused by simultaneous decline of Hindu/Budha
kingdoms in Nusantara, such as Majapahit, Sriwijaya, Kutai Kartanegara and the
rise of Islamic kingdoms such as Samudra Pasai, Demak, Mataram, Ternate, etc.[2]
This massive conversion is reasonable because the process of introducing Islam
was not only very gradual but also synchronistic. Nine sufi saints or well
known as Walisongo were willing to accommodate pre-existing beliefs and
practice instead of insisting on prophetic exclusiveness. For this, we find
many cultural-religious inheritances that prove the combination of religion and
culture. This kind of view has been being the nature of Islam Indonesia, as
el-Naim said, which is indigenous and tolerant to pluralism.
The more puritanical Islamic movements had just come later in the
19th century. It is noted by the Padri movement which was influenced
by the Wahabi theology of Hanbali school. More recently in 1912, Muhammadiyah
was founded with the aim of purifying faith from un-Islamic superstitions.
The new order regime did not
give enough space for people to voice their right, including the right for
religious freedom. Only after the down fall of Suharto, people find their
freedom to strive for their right. In Indonesia law, it is stated that every
citizen has right to express their ideas orally, textually, and so forth freely
and responsibly following the ongoing constitution.[3]
Yet, there is polarization in our freedom. In one side, people
enjoy their freedom to express their ideas, and in another side, people are
free to ban certain idea. The case concerning the prohibition of discussion
with Irsyad Manji is the example of polarization. Each of parties argued that
they have right to speak. The objection on such discussion emerged everywhere.
In Salihara, in Solo and in Jogja, many protests happened.
It was a shame
that the rector of UGM issued a
policy to cancel the discussion which was originally held at the CRCS. More
than that, the reason for the UGM to issue the policy was not popular as merely
for common good and because it bears disadvantages more than its benefits. Many
people protested the presence of Irshad Manji in Indonesia under the pretext
that she was trying to spread misguided ideology about lesbianism and homosexuality.
The objections of those who reject were expressed in various
actions, ranging from threats, criticism through the media both electronic and
mass media, demonstrations, and culminating in the dissolution of the
discussion that followed the destruction and oppression to the participants. I
myself (as a participant) witnessed the scary tragedy in LKiS, Wednesday, May
8, 2012. Some people including myself were beaten; they threw pots, torn books,
dishes, glasses and broke the glasses of the buildings. There was absolutely no
security from the police.
Police
had just arrived after LKiS was destroyed, when they were asked about their
authority to protect, they argued that LkiS did not give any application for a
license told that there would be a discussion. The police ran away from their
responsibility to protect the public which indeed it is public’s right to
discuss and gain the sense of security.
On
the other hand, those who criticized the presence of Manji argued that Manji
made propaganda which is incompatible with Islamic values. In a discussion
organized by the Faculty of law in UGM, KAMMI activist (who also participated
actively in the rejection of Irshad Manji) argued that the refusal is based on
the incompatible values. More than that, they also stated that they have the
right to speak, whether to support or reject the discussion with Manji.
So
clearly, there is incompatibility between the rights of expression and the
common good. Irshad Manji is truly has right to speak, that participants are
entitled to receive information, but when it conflicts with the norms of
society, which one should be prioritized?
This
paper will discuss about the conflict between human rights and the common good
particularly related to the case of Irsyad Manji in Indonesia. This paper
concerns in two questions, first, Is it true that the right is everything
and therefore must always be fought even though it is in conflict with the
existing norms? What about the case of Irshad Manji? Second, can the
refusal against her be justified?
To
answer these questions, I will use the theories of Rawls about political
liberalism where he talks more about “priority of right and the ideas of common
good” to see his position among these two items and “public reason” to find the
way to reconcile between right and common good. Yet, I also need to refer to
Bhiku Parekh about “intercultural dialogue” and his opinion in regards with the
case of Salman Rushd who also gained criticism.
Irsyad Manji
and “Allah, Liberty and Love”
Irsyad Manji is the author of Allah,
Liberty and Love. This book is her second book after TheTtrouble with Islam
Today. Irsyad was born in Uganda in 1968 from the descendant of Indian and
Egyptian Muslim. During the military dictatorship by Idi Amin, she and
thousands “Asians” families were expelled from the country and moved to
Vancouver, Canada as political refugees.
Her career
started by working as a legislative aide to Canada’s most feminist Member of
Parliament. Here, she started to work on Journalism, ranging from press
secretary for Ontario’s first women’s issues minister, speechwriter for the leader
of the New Democratic Party, co-starred in Friendly Fire[4] and produced In the Public Interest on Vision
TV in 1990, [5]
hosted Citytv’s QueerTelevision (QT)[6],
TV Ontario’s Big Ideas in 2001, authored The Trouble with Islam Today
in 2004.
In 2005, Irshad served as a visiting fellow at Yale University and
became a senior fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy, giving
public lectures about Islam on both sides of the Atlantic. In the same year,
she also produced a documentary film concerning her project, Faith without
Fear. This film was launched in 2007 and introduced her to Robert F. Wagner who recruited her to teach
moral courage.[7]
Her
first book, The Trouble with Islam Today is like an open letter for Muslim fellows.[8]
The problem for her is more than militant groups; it is the mainstream Muslims
who have changed Islam to be fear ideology. It is shown that all questions she
raised attracted many critics.[9]
Through The Trouble with Islam Today, she wants to reveal the truth that
happens in all aspects of Muslim life. Irsyad Manji is criticizing not only
Islam actually, but all religions and ideology that has doctrines
preventing people from exercising their moral sense, solidarity, and reason.
Her documentary film “Faith without Fear” premiered in April 2007 was
held on the road. She met many people and found them struggle with their
cultures, traditions, and power structure that fence in their own religious
experiences.[10]
Irsyad
Manji is very sensitive of limitation. For her, freedom is something that must
be voiced and respected. In her second book, she said: “Muslims and
non-Muslims who live in democracy have to develop the spine to expand
individual liberty, not stunt it, because without freedom to think and express
there can be no integrity, of the self or society”. [11]
Irshad Manji calls
for faith-reform where
we have
freedom of religion. She
herself labeled herself as a reformist
who invited other fellow
Muslims to have courage to use their wonderful mind. Ijtihad, as she
announces is an Islam’s own tradition of dissenting, reasoning and
reinterpreting. Further, she explains, “ijtihad is not a violent struggle.
Ijtihad is about struggling to understand our world by using our mind which
implies exercising the freedom to ask questions, sometimes uncomfortable ones”.[12]
She
believes that it is a very big idea to change the world. Yet, she also realizes
that it is not easy for people to have courage to voice their ideas because of
the cultures and religions they belong to are still very difficult to accept
the changes. Here is the aim of “Allah, Liberty and Love”, to transform fear to
moral courage for people will enjoy their freedom. Following the definition
given by Robert F. Kennedy, she translated moral courage as willingness to
speak truth to power within community for the sake of greater good. In which it
allows us to tap our consciences, to replace conformity with individuality and
to draw closer to the source that created us by coming to know ourselves.[13]
And “moral courage needs love, but to be
truly courageous, love needs to be accompanied by thinking”.[14]
Ijtihad
means
people are to think. They are free to ask. She relies her idea on the Qur’an
that almost every chapter opens by praising God as the compassionate and
merciful and that Qur’an encourages people to think rather than blindly follow
their dogma. This discussion takes her to distinguish between faith and dogma,
where the earlier does not forbid exploration and the later does.[15]
Recognizing this idea, Manji stated that through Ijtihad, she found a path to
reconcile Allah, Liberty and Love. She loves Allah (on her own way) who gives
her freedom for questions and to be no matter she becomes. For her, God
could be our conscience or our creator, or the joyous integration of both,
known as integrity.[16]
News site “al-Rahmah” reports that in her book
Faith Without Fear , she revealed a story pitched an insult to the prophet Muhammad SAW that he has edited the
Qur'an, she also doubted on the Koran as it is a weak and false history which
becomes favorite for the orientalists to attack al-Quran and the Prophet
Muhammad. "As an illiterate merchant, Muhammad depend on the recorder
to record the words he heard from God. Sometimes the Prophet himself suffered
incredible to describe what he heard. That's how the" satanic verses
"- paragraph-verses that worship idols – is reported to be received by
Muhammad and recorded as authentic verse of the Koran. Prophet then crossed out
the verses, blaming the cunning of Satan as the cause of the error log ".
This story is also stated by Salman Rushdie who insulted the prophet in his
novel 'Satanic Verses'.[17]
Rawls; Political Liberalism
Rawls
identified that “modern democratic society is characterized by not only
pluralism of comprehensive religious, philosophical and moral doctrines, but
also by incompatible yet reasonable comprehensive doctrines”.[18]
Nobody can guarantee that people agree upon certain doctrines. What people
believe as good maybe different for others, and Rawls realizes that this
incompatibility is normal under democratic regime. What he can purpose is to
design it into good package so that it does not undermine the unity and justice
for society.
Rawls argued
that to have individual doctrines is the right of every citizen, yet in public
arena, this individual conception should be translated into common language
that is acceptable for citizens in democratic country. The various comprehensive doctrines often make community split
because of the mutually coerced doctrines between the parties. Minority voices
are often lost in the mid of high
majority’s voice. Public reason is to give every man an opportunity to talk
about anything that can be understood by common reason/language.
Public
reason does not close the door to comprehensive doctrines. All are entitled to
voice the doctrine which they believed its truth using political arguments that
could be common ground.He argued, “in any case, since the political conception is shared by
everyone while the reasonable doctrines are not, we must distinguish between a
public basic of justification generally acceptable to citizens in fundamental
political questions and the many non-public bases of justification belonging to
the many comprehensive doctrines and acceptable only to those who affirm them”[19]
Political
conception of justice is characterized by first, moral conception worked out
for the basic structure of a constitutional democratic regime, second, political
conception presents itself as a reasonable conception for the basic structure
alone and third, political conception of justice is not formulated by
comprehensive doctrines but fundamental ideas in the public political culture
of a democratic country.[20]
While comprehensive doctrines include
conception of what is of value in human life as well as ideals of personal
virtue and character.[21]
Rawls
political liberalism puts justice of basic rights and liberties as the
priority. Not using comprehensive doctrines as the language does not mean that
a liberal political conception of justice cannot use the ideas of the good,
indeed, Rawls himself admitted that right and good are complementary because
political conception must draw upon various ideas of the good.[22]
Yet, there are some restrictions of the good, including that the good must be
able to be shared by the citizens and it doesn’t presuppose any comprehensive
doctrines. Priority of right means that the admissible idea of good must
respect the limits of, and serve a role within, the political conception of
justice.[23]
The political conception that is workable as public basis for
justification must count human life and the fulfillment of basic human needs
and purposes as in general good, and endorse rationality as a basic principle
of political and social organization.[24]
Parekh and Intercultural
Evaluation
In
contrast to Rawls who tries to bridge the fact of pluralism by public reason and
his strong defense for human rights, Bhiku Parekh has a different position in treating
the cultural pluralism. While Rawls tries to put comprehensive doctrines behind
public reason, Bhiku Parekh displays those
cultures side by side in a multicultural framework. Parekh neither see multiculturalism
as a political doctrine with a programmatic content, nor as a philosophical
theory about human beings and the world, but as a perspective on human life.
Within the framework of pluralism, incompatibility among
doctrines often happens. Disagreement due to the difference in value between
one community to another often leads to conflict and discrimination. As Rawls,
Parekh also have the concept of consensus in resolving the conflicts of
culture. It's just different from the mechanism of overlapping consensus.
Consensus here is an open and morally serious dialogue that produces agreement on
values that must be respected even if there is an uncomfortable compromise.[25]
Parekh
argues that it is possible to reach a set of universal values as a core of
shared values or the values of society, but its realization is very
difficult. This happens because each culture brings its own values. The only
way to resolve the disagreement is through the dialogue in which different
values are brought into a creative interplay and balanced and
traded-off, yields an inherently tentative consensus that helps us decide on a
generally acceptable.[26]
Again, Parekh stated that in each case our
initial judgment is based on society's operative public values. When a minority
practice offends against them, it invites disapproval. However, that is not a reason to disallow it. [27] Instead
of evaluating and judging the
minority with values that cannot be negotiated, it is better for majority to dialogue
with the minority about the disagreement occurred between them. In the
dialogue, the real process of justice occurs where the minorities have the
opportunity to be heard. And dialogue, then has a two-focus, centered on the
practice of minority and societies’ operative public values, the minority’s
way of life and the wider community’s way of
life, whether such practices done by the minority shall be continued or
discontinued.[28]
Indeed, as long as the practice does not violate minority public values,
there is no reason for the ban.
In
this regards, Bhiku Parekh does not forbid the use of comprehensive doctrines
as an excuse to defend the values espoused by the minority. If there is an
urgent problem and that such practices are morally unacceptable, public values of
the wider community should be valid for at least three important reasons. I
quote fully the three reasons as follow. First,
they are woven into its institutions and practices and cannot be radically
revised without causing considerable moral and social disorientation. Second,
while a society has an obligation to accommodate the minority way of life, it
has no obligation to do so at the cost of its own, especially if it remains
genuinely unconvinced by the minority's defense of the practice. Third,
when the minority consists of immigrants they need to appreciate that since
they are unfamiliar with the wider society's way of life, they should defer to
its judgment in contentious matters. They also need its support to counter the
resentment their presence generally provokes among some sections of society,
and are more likely to secure it if, after making their point, they gracefully
accept its decision. (273)
Analysis
Rawls
and Bhiku Parekh are similar in terms of struggling for equality, but very
different in pursuing the equality. As an expert in political philosophy, Rawls
talk a lot about human rights and political conception, he does not give much
room for comprehensive doctrines in the public sphere, while Parekh who has a more
tendency to social sciences provides more space for comprehensive doctrines as
the fact of multiculturalism. Then how will they assess the case that struck Irshad
Manji some time ago?
The
point of the rejection aimed to Irshad Manji was preceded by a series of
assumptions that she tried to spread the ideology of Lesbianism and homosexuality
to young generation. Her work "God, Liberty and Love", was mentioned
as propaganda to justify misguided ideologies. She is also accused as insulting the prophet
Muhammad. These were reasons that make some Islamic organizations in Indonesia
rejected her arrival. In the name of their religion, they dissolved the
discussion forcefully in Salihara, CRCS and LKiS. Discussion is truly citizen’s
right, yet, it has been castrated in the name of religion and moral defense of
the nation. In accordance with Rawls's view, there are several important points
to note.
First, the dissolution
of the discussion is contrary to democracy. Forcible dissolution of the
discussion is a violation of the constitution because suppressing the rights of
citizens. It does not only violate the Act of 1998. No. 9 on freedom of speech,
but also violates the right of citizens to sense the security. Threats and
intimidation, especially accompanied by destruction and mayhem is a criminal
act that cannot be tolerated. In this case, justice for fairness has not been
done because the inequality of justice would occur due to the absence of clear
limits on freedom.
Second, the rights of
citizens to discuss should be more respected than the ideas of good reasons
echoed by the limited community. Moreover, their ideas of good they announce
are not common consensus that can legitimize public power. Those who resist the
coming of Irshad Manji is not a mainstream Muslim of Indonesia that-as en-Naim
said- have a tolerant view, but more similar to the Padri who struggled for a
faith-purification that demanded the establishment of Arab Islam in Indonesia.
Third, the reasons used by
radical movement to disperse the discussion with Irshad Manji are unreasonable
because they use their comprehensive doctrines to ban the discussion. However, humans
have the freedom to be heard and listened. Again, the case is in dispersing
such discussion, it is not that Manji is trying to propagate certain ideology,
but threats and dissolution have violated the rights of others to likewise
speak, in the name of freedom of expression. Their comprehensive doctrines are
radically different from the other group of mainstream Muslim in terms of
tolerating human right. But the small group that opposes Irshad Manji has a
voice that is much louder than a majority Muslim’s.
Pros
and cons not only occur between the Muslim fundamentalists and Irshad Manji, but
also between fundamentalist and moderate Muslims. The later deeply regrets the
attitude of the earlier who did not provide enough space to simply carry out
the discussion.
In
fact, the case that struck Irshad Manji is not much different from the case of
Salman Rushd who was also greatly criticized by Muslims world. According to
Parekh, such issue is not a simple case because it raises some important issues
such as the logic of dialogue between cultures, intercultural equality, common
civic demands, rights and obligations of immigrants, the nature and limits of
free speech and the position of religion in public life.
The
case of Salman Rushd drew much more attention from Public because he clearly
insulted Muslim’s holy man (Muhammad) through his work The Satanic Verses. Parekh
even mentioned that Rushd did communal libel or group defamation because of
writing such a book. [29] Parekh
was then excused when massive demonstrations occurred. In his long statement he said:
In most societies libel is an offence.
Broadly speaking it consists in making public, untruthful and damaging remarks
about an individual that go beyond fair comment. Libel is an offence not
because it causes pain to or offends the feelings of the individual concerned,
for the damaging and untruthful remarks made in private do not constitute
libel, but because they lower him in the eyes of others, damage his social
standing, and harm his reputation.[30]
.
The
important thing to note is that both Manji and Salman Rusdh declared themselves as Muslims who fight for freedom of speech.
Identity,- whether it is realized or not has added the injury. The analogy is
easy, when others hurt us, the effect would not be more ill than when we are hurt
by those we love. Religious identity is so strong. When the Orientalists
falsely blasphemed Islam, Muslims reacted not so great. But once they know that
the blasphemy was part of their own, they feel that their honors are insulted.
Just like what is expressed by a student in a discussion with Dr. Zainal Abidin
Bagir in the faculty of Law, Gadjah Mada University on May, 16 2012. The
student repeatedly said "Why must admit as muslim if she wants to insult
Islam?".
Manji
declared herself not as a moderate Muslim, but Muslim reformer who campaigned
for freedom of speech. In this case,
Rawls would defend their rights to speak when the overlapping consensus legitimate
Manji’s project of moral courage. The problem is, where is the protection of
minority’s right and dignity (when they feel their reputation is trampled by
Manji’s freedom of speech)? Is it true that there is no limit to free speech?
Rawls probably will say yes, if only
overlapping consensus says that Manji’s project is okay (even though it does
not meet the “morally” common good). But Parekh will say that freedom
of speech is not the only great value, it needs to be balanced with others as
avoidance of needless hurt, creation of social harmony and human culture,
protection of the weak, truthfulness in the public, and self-respect and
dignity of individuals and groups.[31] No
single value trumps all others, and their relative importance can only be
decided in the light of the social and cultural context and the likely
consequences.[32]
It means that everyone is free to speak,
yet accompanied by noticing other values.
In
my opinion, the refusal of Irsyad Manji’s ideas is reasonable since her idea is
controversial. Demonstrations are also legitimate done because it is also
regulated by law. Yet, to oppose the discussion because Manji’s idea is
incompatible with their idea is unreasonable.
I regret, why did those (who did not agree) dissolve the discussion?
Parekh solution for bridging two different cultures is to conduct the
evaluation of cross cultures through the discussion forum where major issues
can be addressed effectively by the representatives of different groups. I
myself have a different argument with Manji, yet it does not mean that I could dismiss
the discussion.
I have also my
own suggestion for Manji. I will respectfully present Rawls’ public reason for her. For
me, her moral courage is very
good because she tried to open the closed door of ijtihad which lately left
during the re-raise of conservatism among Muslims. Manji encourages Muslims to be
critical for the dogma that binds not only the youth of Islam, but any youth
under the system of rigid orthodoxy. Yet, to say that she is a Muslim
reformist needs to wait an appropriate time considering the arguments she built
was not strong enough. She did not include in-depth discussion of her encouragement
to be critical. Instead of using religious language that would trigger an
internal polemic on Islam, it might be more acceptable that her moral courage translated
in public language which is acceptable to all parties. What Manji did is merely
quoting religious texts without giving an acceptable scientific analysis.
To
summarize, there are some points that I need to confirm. First, to not agree with
certain view is lawful, but dismissing the discussion is against the constitution.
Second, the dissolution of the discussion is not in accordance with the common
good of tolerant people of Indonesia. Third, the use of certain comprehensive
doctrines (fundamentalist Islam) as the reason for the dissolution of the
discussion opposes democracy in Indonesia. Fourth, that freedom of speech
should also consider other values so as not to injure another culture, in
this regards, right is limited by the common good. Fifth, dialogue and
discussion is needed to evaluate the two cultures, so dismissing such
discussion is unreasonable. And the last, Irshad Manji needs to provide a more
sharp arguments if she wanted to fight for Islamic reform. Or to simply
encourage critical thinking to young people, it will be very useful if she
distanced herself from religious language and use public reason which is acceptable
to all walks of life.
References
Azra, Azyumardi. Jaringan Global dan Lokal
Islam Nusantara . Bandung: Mizan.
2002.
El-Naim, Abdullah Ahmad. Islam and Secular
State; Negotiating the Future of Shari’a.. USA: Harvard University Press,
2008.
Manji, Irshad.
Allah, Liberty and Love. Canada: Random House, 2011.
Parekh, Bhiku. Rethinking Multiculturalism,
Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. London: Macmillan Press, 2000.
Rawls. John Rawls. Political Liberalism, A
New Introduction and The Reply to Habermas. USA: Columbia University Press.
1996.
UU Tahun 1998.
No. 9.
https://www.irshadmanji.com/About-Irshad
[1] Abdullah Ahmad el-Naim, “Islam and Secular
State; Negotiating the Future of Shari’a (USA: Harvard University Press,
2008) p. 227
[2] Azyumardi, Azra. Jaringan
Global dan Lokal Islam Nusantara (Global Network and Local Islam in
Nusantara).( Bandung: Mizan, 2002) p. 18-19
[3] UU Tahun 1998. No. 9. Chapter 1, article 1
[4] A weekly debate segment that pitted her
liberal views against those of a conservative.
[5] A show that sought accountability from
politicians and CEOs.
[6] The world’s first program on commercial
airwaves to explore the lives of gays and lesbians.
[7] https://www.irshadmanji.com/About-Irshad
[8] Irsyad Manji, Allah, Liberty and Love
(Canada: Random House, 2011) P.4
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid., p. 7
[11] Ibid., p. 10
[12] Ibid., p. 2
[13] Ibid., p. 8
[14] Ibid., p. 9
[15] Ibid., p. 7
[16] Ibid., p. 12
[17] http://arrahmah.com/read/2012/05/18/20228-,
the statement in quotation is my free translation.
[18] John Rawls, Political Liberalism, A New
Introduction and The Reply to Habermas(USA: Columbia University Press,1996)
p; xviii
[19] Ibid., p. xxi
[20] Ibid., p. 175
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid., p. 176
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid,, p. 177
[25] Bhiku Parekh, Rethinking Multiculturalism,
Cultural Diversity and Political Theory (London: Macmillan Press, 2000) p.
266
[26] Ibid., p. 267
[27] Ibid., p. 270
[29] Ibid., p. 313
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid., p. 320
[32] Ibid.
