Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd: A Critical Theologist Fighting for Justice

Obituary: The prominent Egyptian thinker and theologian Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, who once was accused of apostasy for his contemporary interpretation of Islam, has died aged 66 in a Cairo hospital. He was admitted to hospital last month suffering from a viral infection. Abu Zeid was buried Monday in his home village in the Nile Delta. Below is a piece based on my interview with him, just a few hours before he left Indonesia after an incident that forced him to leave the country in 2007.

NASR HAMID ABU ZAYD (Alpha Amirrachman/JP)


First published in The Jakarta Post, November 30, 2007

NASR HAMID ABU ZAYD: A CRITICAL THEOLOGIST FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE

Alpha Amirrachman, Contributor, Jakarta

Liberal Egyptian Koranic scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd had no idea his presence here in Indonesia for a seminar would offend hard-line Muslim groups.

Under pressure from the groups, a high-ranking official at the Religious Affairs Ministry sent a text message to the committee that read: "... We suggest Abu Zayd cancel his trip ... in spite of last minute advice, this reminder is crucial and final. We are not responsible for his attendance..."

Zayd then canceled his appearance at the meeting. Hence, one should not underestimate the antidemocratic elements spreading throughout Indonesia, which seem ready to kill its newly found freedoms.

Born in Qufaha near Tanta, Egypt on July 10, 1943, Zayd earned his bachelor degree in Arabic studies from Cairo University in 1972, and later his master's (1977) and doctorate (1981) in Islamic Studies from the same university. His dissertation is on the interpretation of the Koran.

In 1982, he joined the faculty of the Department of Arabic Language and Literature at Cairo University as an assistant professor. He became an associate professor in 1987.

Nevertheless, Zayd suffered persecution for his view of the Koran as a religious, mythical, literary work. After his promotion to the rank of full professor in 1995 and a hisbah (Committee for Virtue and the Propagation of Islam) trial against him by a fundamentalist Islamic scholar, Zayd was declared a murtad (apostate) by an Egyptian court.

He was consequently declared divorced from his wife, Cairo University French Literature professor Ibthal Younis.

"The verdict is there but the Egyptian government never implemented the verdict against me," Zayd said during a recent interview, just a few hours before he left the country.

He added that he and his wife had challenged the verdict before deciding to leave the country and live in the Netherlands.

He currently holds the Ibn Rushd Chair of Humanism and Islam at the University for Humanistics, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

"I have never been expelled by the Egyptian government," he said, adding that he freely visits his country since he still holds Egyptian citizenship and carries his country's passport.

"And my wife returned several times to Egypt for the supervision of master's and PhD students at the French department of the Cairo University."

Zayd was dismayed and confounded by the unprecedented treatment he endured here.

"As many as 10 of my books have been translated into Bahasa Indonesia and I supervised many Indonesian students who were sent by the Religious Affairs Ministry and some have become professors."

He said the motives of the Muslim fundamentalists who had moved against him in Egypt had been mixed.

"I was highly critical toward the development of the so-called Islamic investment system at that time," he recalled.

Zayd said many ulema have become "religious advisors" in a system where a "highly suspicious" 25 percent interest rate was floated.

"I uncovered the lies and tricks ... they stole a huge amount of money from people who have never received anything, even until now," he said, "so they moved against me by hook or by crook and by making a lot of noise about my academic works."

He argued that the science of interpretation was deeply rooted in Islamic tradition and was not something utterly borrowed from the West.

"Shall we wait for God to interpret the Koran for us?" said Zayd, who received the Ibn Rushd Prize for Freedom of Thought in Berlin in 2005.

"Humans can interpret the Koran only with their human capacity, which can be empowered by knowledge. If we are ignorant God will be very angry ..."

Despite the accusation he is a "Westernized" theologist, Zayd can be very critical of the West.

He said the war against terror and the subsequent expressions, such as "our values" and "our culture", entailed the notion that others were "uncivilized".

"And I don't believe the U.S. is working to spread its democratic values because interests dictate its policy," he said of what he dubs the "new empire project of the U.S."

He cited the example of how the U.S. had supported Pakistan's Musharraf who had illegally annulled the constitution and arrested activists, while at the same time slapping a total economic embargo on military-ruled Myanmar.

He said that before the failure of the U.S. in Iraq, the U.S. had tried to "democratize" the dictatorial regimes in the region, but now the U.S. was forced to cooperate with the "moderates" in the region.

"No nation can install democracy without the working of internal power, like here in Indonesia with its student movement," Zayd pointed out.

"Besides, democracy can result in a new government that the U.S. might not like," said Zayd, who supervised master's and PhD students at the University of Leiden as well.

"But when speak about the culture of the West; we speak about ideas and philosophies ... about possible shared values ... about a free market of an exchange of ideas.

"Here the distinction between the East and West is sometimes ideologically emphasized," he said.

"Hence, the differentiation of the different aspects of the West is important, we don't need to take the West as it is and reject the West as it is. Besides there is no single 'West', when the European Union sides with dictators, for example, I would be against it at this specific point, because I am with freedom and justice."

"So I have to be critically engaged with every culture, even with my own culture," he said.

Zayd believes no culture will contradict the values of human justice, political and religious freedoms. He says the denunciation of these values in any cultural context is an instrument of protecting particular political powers in order for certain groups to maintain privileges at the political cost of others.

He said universal values, which are often regarded as purely Western, are in fact part of the human struggle for peace and justice.

And he holds the view that a humanistic interpretation of the Koran can account for social change within Muslim societies, whose development has been stalled by the dogmatic interpretation of certain ulema "who want to keep their power as the only authority of Islamic knowledge by manipulating both the people and the political regime."

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Ideological interest in interpreting the Koran

The Jakarta Post | Fri, 06/18/2010 4:21 PM | Opinion

Saturday, May 8, 2010

Sebuah Obituari: Al-Jabiri dan Ihya Ulum al-Aqli

Novriantoni Kahar

Retrieved from: http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/novriantoni-kahar/sebuah-obituari-al-jabiri-dan-ihya-ulum-al-aqli/422415721795

Sejak wafatnya Muhammad Abid al-Jabiri, Senin, 3 Mei lalu, saya terus merenung tentang apa sumbangan terpenting intelektual Maroko itu bagi studi Islam. Saya memiliki dan membaca hampir semua buku karangannya. Boleh dipastikan, sebagian besar bukunya menjadi bahan rujukan utama saya ketika menulis makalah ataupun mengajar. Tapi tetap saja sulit menjawab pertanyaan: apa sih yang istimewa dari al-Jabiri. Saya coba kembali merenung dan mencerna ulang, apa yang saya dapat dari al-Jabiri dan kurang saya dapatkan dari pemikir Arab kontemporer lain semisal Hassan Hanafi, Muhammad Arkoun, Khalil Abdul Karim, dan lain-lain. Setelah menimbang-nimbang, inilah beberapa kesan saya terhadap karya-karya al-Jabiri.

Pertama, dari sebuah obituari yang dimuat sebuah media Arab, saya baru tahu kalau al-Jabiri punya latar belakang ilmu eksakta sebelum masuk ke ilmu-ilmu sosial di bangku kuliah. Di sekolah menengah, dia bahkan tergolong pintar dalam ilmu matematika dan pernah diutus ke Swiss untuk melanjutkan studi. Namun suatu ketika ia terkagum pada kitab al-Muqaddimah Ibnu Khaldun sehingga menarik minatnya untuk merambah studi khazanah intelektual Islam klasik secara serius. Dari sedikit info ini, saya baru mengerti mengapa dia bisa menulis dengan sistematika yang sangat mengagumkan. Tidak loncat-loncat seperti Hassan Hanafi atau terlalu bermain-main bahasa dan istilah seperti Muhammad Arkoun. Permisalan al-Jabiri dalam soal sistematika dan kerapihan dalam menyusun argumen, setara dengan Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd dan Muhammad Syahrur. Nama yang belakangan ini adalah intelektual Suriah yang juga bukan jebolan pesantren, tapi alumni teknik elektro yang mampu menulis buku yang mengagumkan tentang studi Alquran (al-Kitab wa al-Quran).

Saya pun jadi bertanya, adakah hubungan antara latar belakang ilmu eksakta itu dengan kerapihan dalam menyusun argumen dan mensistematika pembahasan. Mungkin saja. Tapi bukan itu betul yang penting. Yang menakjubkan, mereka ini bukan jebolan sekolah menengah agama seperti pesantren di Indonesia, tapi mereka mampu melahirkan studi-studi yang inovatif, tidak konservatif, dan menakjubkan tentang khazanah intelektualisme Islam. Ini sesuatu yang langka di Indonesia, karena biasanya jebolan non-pesantren sini justru menjelma sebagai intelektual Islam yang jauh lebih kolot dari jebolan pesantren.

Kedua, membaca al-Jabiri terasa sangat membantu dalam mengarungi khazalah intelektualisme Islam klasik yang mahaluas. Tidak gampang membolak-balik kitab klasik Islam dalam beragai disiplin ilmu, misalnya dalam bidang sejarah, teologi, ataupun etika. Selain terbentur keterbatasan sumber, aspek bahasa, kebingunan soal konteks penulisan, aspek-aspek teknis lainnya pun bisa menguras energi yang tak sedikit. Banyak intelektual Arab kontemporer yang mampu memainkan peran intermediasi ini bagi peminat studi Islam klasik hari ini. Namun saya melihat hanya al-Jabiri yang secara kronologis dan begitu sistematis mampu meringkaskan itu semua dalam berbagai karyanya.

Jika kita ingin mengetahui hampir semua ide tertulis tentang pemikiran politik Islam, baik dari sumber Arab ataupun Persia secara runtut, kita tinggal merujuk saja ke al-`Aqlu al-Siyasi al-`Arabi (Nalar Politik Arab). Jika hendak memahami semua gagasan yang ditinggalkan intelektual klasik Islam tentang etika, khatamkan saja al-`Aqlu al-Akhlaqi al-`Arabi (Nalar Etis Arab). Jika berminat mendalami aspek epistimologis atau apa dasar-dasar pembentukan khazanah klasik Islam itu, tinggal baca saja dua karyanya sebelum itu, Takwin al-`Aql al-`Arabi (Formasi Nalar Arab) dan Bunyat al-`Aql al-`Arabi (Struktur Nalar Arab). Karena begitu pentingnya karya-karya ini, saya berpendapat bahwa tidaklah lengkap studi seseorang tentang pemikiran politik atau etika Islam tanpa melahap atau paling tidak melek terhadap kedua karya ini terlebih dahulu.

Ketiga, yang menonjol dari al-Jabiri dibanding pemikir Arab lainnya adalah usaha yang sungguh-sungguh untuk merasionalisasi hampir semua bidang studi ilmu keislaman. Kalaupun ia tidak mampu merasionalisasi semua aspek doktriner dari Islam, paling tidak kita dibuat paham tentang konteks dari doktrin itu, atau mengapa pemikiran atau doktrin tertentu muncul dan untuk apa. Al-Jabiri berupaya keras untuk menunjukkan apa yang sosiologis, yang politis, dan yang historis di balik sesuatu yang dibalut sakralitas dan berlindung di balik selubung agama. Jika di Indonesia kita mengenal istilah “preman berjubah”, cobalan tugaskan al-Jabiri untuk menjelaskannya. Saya yakin, dia akan mampu menyingkap jubah itu, lalu menunjukkan secara detil bahwa jubah itu tak lain hanya kedok untuk menutupi aksi-aksi premanisme. Penjelasan dan data-data serta konteks sosial kemunculan aksi-aksi premanisme itu, dan mengapa pula memakai jubah bukan kostum lainnya, akan betul-betul dibuat meyakinkan di tangan al-Jabiri.

Memang upaya seperti ini bukanlah khas al-Jabiri, namun juga dilakukan oleh intlektual Arab kontemporer lain seperti Mahmud Qumni, Mahmud Ismail, atau Khalil Abdul Karim. Tapi pada al-Jabiri-lah asumsi-asumsi metodologis dan bangunan teori yang dibuatnya mampu ditopang oleh argumen dan data-data yang menakjubkan dan meyakinkan. Ambillah contoh soal konsep al-Jabiri tentang aqidah, qabilah, ghanimah, yang lantas dijadikannya kerangka untuk menjelaskan gagasan dan dinamika politik Islam sejak masa nabi sampai masa kini. Ketiganya dibahas dengan rinci, umpamanya bagaimana aqidah dibentuk, mengapa qabilah penting, dan apa peran ghanimah dalam menggerakkan dinamika politik Islam. Aqidah di sini adalah aspek ideologisnya; qabilah merupakan aspek sosiologisnya; dan ghanimah adalah aspek ekonomisnya.

Keempat, orang sering bertanya, mengapa ilmu-ilmu keislaman berputar-putar dan tidak beranjak dari situ-situ saja dan hampir tidak banyak inovasi dan gagasan baru yang muncul. Untuk menjawab soal ini, bacalah Takwin al-`Aql al-`Arabi dan Bunyat al-`Aql al-`Arabi. Di situ, al-Jabiri mengulas tiga bentuk nalar yang berfungsi dalam pembentukan dan reproduksi keilmuan Islam dan berkontestasi untuk mendapatkan tempat di bumi Islam. Nalar bayani yang begitu dominan di dunia Islam adalah penjelas utamanya. Juara kedua ditempati nalar irfani, dan yang paling sial adalah nalar burhani.

Nalar bayani adalah sebentuk epistimologi yang menjadikan teks tertulis seperti Quran, hadis, pendapat atau fatwa ulama, sebagai basis utama untuk membentuk pengetahuan. Teks yang hidup, masih terus vital, dan tak jarang dianggap sakral itu kemudian dibayankan atau dijelaskan secara tidak berkesudahan sehingga muncullah ilmu seolah-olah. Ilmu muncul karena restatement atau lewat pengungkapan ulang apa yang sudah dikatakan dan dijelaskan di dalam teks masa lampau. Hampir tidak ada yang terlalu baru di masa kini berbanding masa lampau. Inilah yang disebut al-Jabiri sebagai aktivitas memberanakkan kata-kata (istitsmar al-alfadz). Jadi yang terjadi di dunia Islam sesungguhnya bukanlah bertambahnya ilmu agama, tapi menggunungnya kata-kata yang dirumuskan ulang dari kata-kata yang sudah ada sebelumnya tanpa proses kreatif dan penalaran yang memadai. Inilah yang mengukuhkan aspek legalisme dan eksoterisme Islam.

Juara dua yang mendominasi alam intelektual dunia Islam adalah nalar irfani. Pengetahuan yang didapat lewat intuisi atau zdauq dan mukasyafah inilah yang menempati tingkat keabsahan kedua sebagai anak kandung ilmu pengetahuan Islam. Dalam bentuk aktivisme, nalar irfani menjelma dalam bentuk istiqashah, tarekat (baik yang muktabarah maupun ghaira muktabarah), zikir lokal, interlokal, maupun nasional, dan berbagai bentuk pencarian aspek esoterisme Islam lainnya. Aspek yang popular dari nalar irfani akan menghasilkan zikir, ratapan, tobat nasional, munajat-munajat, dan training ESQ. Sementara aspek yang filosofis dari nalar ini menghasilkan khazanah mistisisme Islam yang spekulatif seperti ditunjukkan al-Ghazali, Jalaluddin Rumi, maupun Ibnu Arabi.

Yang sial adalah nalar burhani. Nalar ini tidak terlalu berhasil membumi di dunia Islam kecuali di masa keemasannya. Ia minggat ke Eropa setelah menguatnya neo-Hanbalisme di dunia Islam, dan tak pernah balik sampai kini. Nalar ilmiah inilah yang redup dan tak kunjung bersinar di dunia Islam. Sudah sejak lama ia tidak mendapat tempat yang layak di ranah-ranah pendidikan dan kebudayaan Islam, bahkan sampai kini. Di sektor ekonomi-politik pun, nalar ini tak menjadi acuan. Al-Jabiri tampak berupaya keras untuk menyalakan kembali pelita nalar ini lewat kajian ulangnya terhadap karya-karya intelektual klasik Islam seperti Ibnu Rusyd (bidang filsafat), Ibnu Khaldun (bidang sejarah), maupu as-Syathibi (bidang hukum/fikih). Ia punya impian besar agar peradaban Islam dibangun atas fondasi rasionalitas ilmu pengetahuan, bukan legalisme dan formalisme hukum agama dan non-agama, ataupun racauan mistikus mabuk.

Justru karena itulah dia dituduh sebagai fanatis Ibnu Rusyd dan mengidap sindrom egosentrisme sektoral dalam menelaah khazanah intelektualisme Islam. Dalam buku Hiwar al-Masyriq wa al-Maghrib (Polemik Intelektual Timur Arab dan Barat Arab), dia dianggap kurang fair karena menganggap khazanah intelektualisme Islam di kawasan Maghribi lebih rasional dari kompatriotnya di kawasan timur Arab. Al-Jabiri dianggap kurang apresiatif terhadap Ibnu Sina, al-Farabi, al-Ghazali, dan pencapaian-pencapaian intelektualisme kawasan Arab sebelah timur, dan hanya memuji-muji Ibnu Rusyd, Ibnu Khaldun, as-Syathibi, dan bahkan Ibnu Hazm yang dikenal sebagai seorang legalis-formalis.

Terlepas dari polemik di atas, obsesi al-Jabiri untuk menghidupkan ilmu-ilmu rasional Islam (ihya `ulum al-`aql) pantas disambut dan dilanjutkan lebih giat lagi. Sudah nyata di dunia Islam bahwa proyek menghidupan ilmu-ilmu agama (ihya `ulum ad-din) al-Ghazali yang bersifat bayani dan irfani sudah sukses gilang-gemilang dan begitu hegemonik. Hegemoninya itu mendominasi hampir semua sektor pendidikan dan kebudayaan masyarakat Islam, sehingga umat Islam sulit untuk keluar sejengkal pun dari pantauan radar keduanya. Al-Jabiri dalam hal ini juga merekomendasikan kita untuk menjadi anshar Ibnu Rusyd daripada Ibnu Hanbal dan al-Ghazali.

Umat Islam sudah terlalu banyak mengonsumsi ilmu-ilmu yang dihafalkan dan diwariskan secara turun-temurun. Juga terlalu banyak menghabiskan waktu untuk menyingkap rahasia dan hikmah ilahiah di alam raya. Sudah pada tempatnya untuk memberikan porsi lebih banyak kepada aktivitas penalaran agar ciri khas manusia sebagai “makhluk yang bertindak berdasarkan ide”—sebagaimana dikatakan filsuf Ibnu Bajah—dapat teralisasi. Jika tidak, isi otak umat Islam tak akan lebih dari susunan huruf dan biji tasbih tanpa ditemukannya bukti bahwa otak itu pernah bekerja sebagaimana mestinya. Sebuah harapan yang gampang diucapkan, tapi tidak mudah diwujudkan, bukan?!

Jakarta, 8 Mei 201

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

In Memoriam, Mohammed Abed Al-Jabiri (1935-2010): Overcoming Civilizational Anxiety

There are three general trends of Arab intellectuals. First, some Arab intellectuals cling to the tradition (turath) handed down from the past to be applied in the present. The tradition/heritage is believed to be the source of Arab-Islamic renaissance (nahdah). These intellectuals are often labeled as “Islamist”, “Fundamentalist”, “Salafist”, or “Revivalist”, which generally refers to Muslim Brotherhood movement―whose main figures are Hassan al-Banna and Sayid Qutb― and refers to the revivalist movement led by Jamaluddin al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh. Second, some of them incline to adopt Western ways through an idea of revolution, rationalization, secularization, liberalization, and modernization (hadathah) in the aims of rebuilding Arab civilization. These scholars are represented by liberal thinkers like Adonis (Ali Ahmad Said), and Marxist intellectuals like Tayyib Tazini and Husain Muruwwah. Third, other Arab intellectuals are prone to be selective in invoking inspirations from both tradition and modernity in order to find a kind of authentic Arab modernity. There are two main approaches used by Arab intellectuals in this third category; the ideological approach of Hassan Hanafi and the epistemological way of Mohammed Abed Al-Jabiri.

The first and the second groups of Arab intellectuals do not reflect a creative engagement with tradition or modernity. Their project is merely reviving the tradition (turath) to be applied in the present or blindly adopting Western values and practices into Arabic contexts. The third group of intellectuals whose project is searching for an authentic modernity of Arab is more interesting because they are more creative and critical in dealing with both tradition and modernity. However, instead of discussing the ideological way of Hassan Hanafi, which is criticized as too encyclopedic, cerebral and theoretical , let's focus on Al-Jabiri’s epistemological project. His main contribution and project reside in what he calls “contemporary reading” of the tradition (turath) instead of “turathi reading” of it, and in his critique of Arab reason which in turn generates a philosophical ground for an ‘authentic Arab modernity’.

Classical Attitudes Towards The Turath
The term turath is actually a modern term which, according to Massad, refers today to “the civilizational documents of knowledge, culture, and intellect that are said to have been passed down from the Arab of the past in the present”. The discussion about the turath emerged and accelerated after the 1967 Arab defeat with the view of understanding the reasons behind such a defeat. The underlying reason for the study and assessment of the turath is the following question that is often asked by a number of Arab intellectuals, “What are the reasons behind the defeat and how we can achieve progress?”
The above contemporary Arab thoughts, from revivalists, liberalists and Marxists, provides their specific ways of reading the turath in order to overcome such defeated feelings and to achieve the intended progress. According to al-Jabiri, there are three existing methods of reading offered by Arab intellectuals; the fundamentalist reading, the liberal reading, and the Marxist reading.

The first method of reading (al-qira`ah as-salafiyyah which is used by Salafists, Fundamentalists, Islamists, or Revivalists) is based upon two questions; “How do we regain the greatness of our civilization, and How do we resuscitate our turath (heritage, tradition)?” Accordingly, the turath is read as both means and goal in terms of regaining the great civilization. In the first place, one must look back to the turath in the past. This is a necessary means for finding ‘an authentic Arab-Islamic identity’ which resides in “the era of glory”, in which “true Islam” was genuinely practiced. Then, one could perceive the ‘era of the glory’ as the goal, in the sense that such an ideal type of civilization in the past must be revived and regained in the present time. The basic reasoning of this method is that “what took place in the past could be achieved in the future.”

In the same fashion, the second reading method, the liberal one, is centered upon the following questions, “How do we live our era and How do we assume our relationship to our turath?” If the salafiyyah reading resorts to the Arab-Islam tradition in the past, the liberal reading paves the way of Western-European tradition, in terms of living the life in the present time and in terms of reading the turath. In this method, the Arab-Islam tradition today is expected to adopt “European frame of reference and hence sees in tradition only what the Europeans see in it.” Therefore, an Orientialist-like reading of the turath is prevalent. For example, when it comes to the reading the Arab-Islamic (philosophical) tradition, this reading method would reconstruct it back to its Jewish, Christian, Persian, Indian, (and other) origins. The role of Arab-Islam is merely intermediary between the Greek and modern (European) civilizations. If the ‘glory of Arab-Islamic civilization’ in the past was achieved through the assimilation of a foreign past (mostly Greek) to Arabs, then by analogy, the future Arab-Islam civilization should also adopt and assimilate into “the European present-past”.

The third reading, which is the Marxist method, is derived from the questions: “How do we achieve our revolution and “How do we restore our traditions?” In the leftish reading, the turath is approached only in the aims of achieving the project of revolution; and revolution is used for restoring the turath. The problem arises when there is no “class struggle” or “dialectical materialism” in the Arab-Islamic tradition. This reading then attempts to “manipulate historical reality” for the sake of “theoretical schema.” It means that the “theoretical schema,” which is borrowed from the founding fathers of Marxism, is superior over “historical data”. As if the goal of reading the turath were ”to prove the soundness of the ready-made dialectical method” provided by Marxian theorists.” Thus, the project of this leftish reading is merely to apply the Marxian ready-made dialectical method in the Arab-Islam context.

The above three ways of reading, for al-Jabiri, are just the same from the perspective of epistemology. All of them are governed by a hidden-unconsciousness which acts as logical reasoning. Their basic mode of reasoning is what the ancient Arab scholars call the “analogy of the unknown to the known (qiyas al-ghaib `ala al-shahid).” To be more precise, for these entire reading frameworks, “the unknown (al-gha’ib)” is equal to “the future” while “the known (al-shahid)” is equal to their current epistemological references―be it “the greatness of civilization in the past”, “Western-European civilization”, or “Russia/China model of revolution.” In other words, although they have different ideologies and aspirations, their mode of reasoning is in common, namely “the analogy of the unknown to the known” or “the analogy of the future to the known others (past civilization, European civilization, or Russia/China model of civilization)”. The uncritical use of such analogical reasoning by Arab intellectuals in fact generates what al-Jabiri calls as the understanding of the turath which is confined within tradition (qiraatu at-turath li at-turath)” or what Massad literally translates as “turath view of turath.”

Al-Jabiri’s Project I: Re-Reading The Turath
Al-Jabiri’s fundamental project is accordingly to oppose this “turath view of turath” through finding a “contemporary view of the turath.” There are three stages of contemporary reading offered by al-Jabiri; first, the necessity of an epistemological break from the understanding of turath that is locked inside turath; second, disjoining the “read-object (maqru’)” from the “subject-reader (qari’)”; third, rejoining the reader-object to the subject-reader.

The first stage of contemporary reading aims to render a decisive epistemological break from the structure of the Arab reason of the “era of decline” and its extension in contemporary Arab thinking. The break is not a rejection of the turath, but it is a renunciation of the turath understanding of the turath. In other words, what would be rejected is not the turath, but our relationship with the tradition; because, the relationship with the tradition which lies on a traditional understanding of the tradition by means of the analogical mode of reasoning (i.e. qiyas al-gha’ib `ala al-shahid) leads to the stagnation of Arab reason. This kind of relationship not only locks our modern time inside of the paradigm of the “era of decline”, it also creates what al-Jabiri calls “a permanent presence of the past inside the game of thought and inside the affective domain, thus feeding the present with ready-made solution.” Therefore, this traditional relationship should be epistemologically deconstructed and replaced by contemporary relationship with the tradition (turath).

The second stage of the contemporary reading aims to create an objective reading of the turath. The objective reading of the tradition is necessary since contemporary Arab “readers” are generally restricted by the tradition, which means that tradition absorbs them, thus depriving them of independence and freedom. Al-Jabiri describes such acute absorption of the subjectivity of the Arab reader by tradition (turath) as follows: “From the day of his birth, we have not ceased to instill tradition in him, in the form of a certain vocabulary and certain concepts, of a language and a thought; in the form of fables, legends and imaginary representations, of a certain kind of relationship to things and a certain way of thinking; of types of knowledge and certain truths. He receives all this without the slightest critical reaction or critical mind.”

The objective reading of the turath operates within the idea of the necessity of two reading moves; one, the separation of the subject-reader from the object of reading; two, disjoining the object of reading from the subject-reader. The first move of the reading enables us (the subject) to regain our dynamism, in order to rebuild the turath (object) in a new perspective. The second move of the reading enables the turath (the object) to “regain its independence and its personality, its identity and its historicity.” By employing these two reading moves, one could achieve “objectivity” in terms of building a relationship with the tradition (turath) and the turath can have its own “contemporareinity.”

Accordingly, one would be aware of his own identity, consciousness and freedom with regard to the tradition, and the tradition would be understood and placed within its desires, aspirations, problematics, and historical stages as a whole (episteme). This makes the tradition contemporary to itself.
The third stage of the reading is directed to make the turath contemporary to us as the subject-reader; therefore, rejoining the read-object (turath) to the subject-reader (a contemporary reader) is necessary. In Al-Jabiri’s mind, this can only be achieved through intuition (hads). It is however not intuition used in the sense of mystics. This intuition is more identical with a logical or mathematical intuition which enables contemporary readers to unveil what the read-object had silenced. The intuition which must “decipher signs within the text undoubtedly folded inside the game of thought that are hidden by the strategy of discourse.”

If the silenced aspects within the text (i.e. tradition) are unveiled, contemporary readers could identify its ideological contents besides its cognitive contents. Unfortunately, according al-Jabiri, the cognitive contents of Islamic tradition―which are primarily taken from the physical sciences of Aristotle―are dead subjects, incapable of reviving. They are collapsed with the advent of modern science. However, the ideological contents of the tradition are still alive, in the form of a dream. This dream projects a possible future. It is not a dream when we project our future into the past (like those who want to revive the greatness of past civilization). We call it “a dream” when “the future” is projected into the time to come. Therefore, the task of contemporary readers of tradition is to interact critically with the tradition, seeking an enlightened dream from the surviving tradition, and making it engaged with our desires, aspirations, and concerns. In this way, the turath will be considered contemporary to us modern readers.

Al-Jabiri’s Priject II: A Critique and Reconstruction of Arab Reason
Al-Jabiri utilizes the above stages of reading to reexamine all Islamic scholarships, which includes Islamic jurisprudence, theology, Arabic grammar, Arabic poetry, rhetoric, Quran exegesis, Hadith criticism, and philosophy. For him, these scholarships began to be systematically written down and codified by Arab scholars in the age called “The Age of Tadwin/The Age of Codification,” starting from the middle of the second century of Islamic era. The process of intellectual recording and its codification extended to the Abbasid era when the oral tradition of Islam was collected, translations from non-Arab cultures are made, and the system of Arab-Islamic thought was established. As a result, when Arab scholarship reached the age of maturity, there were three major intellectual disciplines that eventually shaped what al-Jabiri calls “Arab Reason”:

First, the discipline of explication (`ulum al-bayan), whose epistemological method applies analogical thinking (al-qiyas al-bayani) in almost entire early Arab Islamic scholarships ranging from grammar, rhetoric, prosody, lexicography, Qur’an exegesis, Hadith sciences, Islamic law and legal theory, to Islamic theology (kalam). This analogical reasoning requires the availability of a certain kind of origin/original case (aṣl), the derivate/new case (far`), the reason/the cause (`illah), and the logical/judicial conclusion (hukm). For example, drinking wine is prohibited because it is intoxicating. Taking drugs, although its explicit legal ruling is absent in either Quran or Hadith, is also prohibited based on the analogical thinking, which refers to the case of wine. The reason for the prohibition of drugs is its similar effect to wine, namely the intoxicating effect. In this case, drinking wine is the aṣl, taking drugs is the far`, the intoxicating effect is the `illah, and the prohibition is hukm. So, the legal ruling in the new case (taking drugs) can be known by means of analogy to the original case (drinking wine) based on its similarity (intoxicating effect). This kind of reasoning is also used in the other disciplines, although they may have different terms. In theology, for instance, the aṣl is called as- ṣahid, (the known) whereas the far` is al-gha’ib (the unknown). To know the reality of the unknown (e.g. God) can be achieved through analogy to the reality of the known (e.g. human attributes). In Quran studies, furthermore, all contemporary issues (far`) are supposed to be assessed by the aṣl, which is the Quran. The reason underlying the use of this analogy (qiyas bayani) is to seek the harmony between reason (`aql) and revelation (naql).

This kind of tradition for al-Jabiri is not worth emulating. This tradition traps contemporary readers in the problematic systems of reference (sulṭah al-marji`iyyah)―namely associating the unknown with the known (in the realm of epistemology)―and infinite attempts to harmonize reason with revelation (in the realm of ideology). Contemporary scholars unfortunately still use this system of reference. The past heritage or the Western-Europe civilization functions as the aṣl or the ṣahid (the known) whereas the future functions as the far` or al-gha’ib (the unknown). Although deficiency in this analogy is apparent―i.e. the aspect of reason/similarity (`illah) is absent―, they still impose the logical conclusion (hukm) insisting that the future (the unknown) should be filled with the known (either the past or the West). The extension of this epistemological reasoning and ideological vision from the age of tadwin into the present cannot be tolerated. Therefore, al-Jabiri advocates the above deconstructive reading projects, namely the necessity of the epistemological break and of the historical reading. Without such epistemological break and historical reading, the contemporary Arab Reason will always be locked within the turath.

Second, the discipline of Gnosticism (ulum al-`irfan), which is based on inner revelation and insight as an epistemological method, which includes Sufism, Shi`i thought, Islami`ili philosophy, esoteric Qur’an exegesis, oriental illumination philosophy, theosophy, alchemy, astrology, magic, and numerology. Gnosticism claims that philosophy and religion can be synthesized by means of its Gnostic reasoning. Al-Jabiri however denies the epistemological method of Gnosticism not only because of its ideological contents―which is the revenge of Persian aristocracy using the cover of Shi’ism or their heritages like Zoroastrianism. But more importantly, he refuses it because of its heretical and irrational characters. One, the epistemology of Gnosticism is basically Hermetic, which is neither Arabic nor Islamic in content, but, it covers itself with the cloth of Islam. Second, this epistemological method is founded upon neither reason nor senses, but upon an inner revelation and insight (kaṣf). It claims that the conclusion/knowledge is not derived from analogical reasoning (qiyas) or demonstrative reasoning (Aristotelian syllogism), but it is acquired through the claim of a direct experience with the divine.

Third, the Gnostic epistemology is colored with a mythological, mystical, and magical way of thinking. In this light, the truth does not result from religion, philosophy, or science. It is generated from finding esoteric-mystical meanings which are preserved in mythologies. For al-Jabiri, this kind of epistemology cannot be an inspiration for Arab intellectual progress. The dream that it offers is not the enlightening dream, not inspiring the emergence of the independent Arab reason and Arab authenticity.
Third, the discipline of inferential evidence (`ulum al-burhan), whose epistemological method is based on empirical observation and intellectual inference. They include logic, mathematics, physics (all branches of natural sciences) and even metaphysics. The epistemological foundation of al-burhan’s disciplines however is basically rooted in the Aristotelian tradition, especially the method of logical demonstration, which uses deductive and inductive logical reasoning through syllogism. In Arab-Islamic context, this tradition was developed by al-Kindi and al-Farabi, then reached its peak in the hand of Ibn Rushd. According to al-Jabiri, al-Burhan is unlike others whose epistemology is based on revelation, consensus, and legal reasoning (their main logic is analogy) or based on the sainthood (wilayah) and inner-insight (kaṣf). Al-Burhan is the only discipline whose epistemological reasoning is based on human intellectual and natural capacities including senses, experiments, and rational judgment. This is the tradition which al-Jabiri is looking for. It is the tradition whose dreams and epistemology are worth emulating although its contents may be disputable. Al-Jabiri calls this tradition as “the spirit of Averroism/Ibn Rushd (ar-rūh ar-ruṣdiyyah).” In the Rushdian scheme of truth, in addition, religion and philosophy coexist; although they have different epistemological systems, their truth is the same and not contradicting each other. At this level, Rushdian spirit contains the spirit of “rationalism, realism, axiomatic and critical approach.”

Accordingly, al-Jabiri launches two major projects in terms of finding the authenticity of Arab Reason. First, a complete historical independence of the Arab self (al-istiqlāl at-tārikhī li adz-zāt al-`arabiyyah) ; and second, building a foundation for A New Age of Tadwin (aṣr tadwīn jadīd). The first project necessitates the modern Arabs to free themselves from two exemplary systems of reference, the Arab-IsMatuslamic past and the present Western-Europe. Alternatively, he proposes the Rushdian spirit, as explained above, as a point of departure for the independence of Arab historical identity. By adopting this spirit, on the one hand, modern Arabs will not be alienated from their own tradition (because the Rushdian spirit is rooted in Arab-Islamic tradition); on the other hand, they also will not be deprived from Western-European modernity (because its foundation is rationalism which both the Rushdian spirit and Western civilization advocate). The second project of al-Jabiri however seems to be utopian project, which suggests the beginning of a new age of Tadwin founded upon the Rushdian spirit. All Arab-Islamic sciences and disciplines should be based on the burhan’s system of thought, abandoning the bayan’s and the `irfan’s epistemology. Accordingly, al-Jabiri argues that if the Cartesian spirit is present in French thought or the spirit of empiricism inaugurated by Locke and Hume is present in English thought, so the spirit of Ibn Rushd must be also present in the Arab modern thought.


The above exposition is an attempt to show the internal dynamics of a modern Arab intellectual, namely Mohammed Abid al-Jabiri, in dealing with Arab-Islam intellectual tradition and with the Western-Europe civilization. Here the Arab, the Orient (using Said’s term) and Islam are not represented and not spoken by others, either Orientalists or Arabs who live in the West. Rather, the real Arab intellectuals, represented by al-Jabiri, speak for themselves about their struggle to find their own way, ideal, and identity amidst “civilizational anxiety”. In this respect, al-Jabiri offers the Arab intellectuals two ways by means of which the authenticity of Arab modernity can be achieved and the Arab civilizational anxiety can be resolved. First, by rereading Arab-Islamic traditions and heritages (turath), and second, by reconstructing Arab reason based upon the Rushdian spirit.

The first way enables al-Jabiri to criticize his fellow Arab intellectuals, ranging from Islamist scholars to the liberal and leftish intellectuals, such as Jamaluddin al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Sayid Qutb, Adonis, Ali Abdur Raziq, Hassan Hanafi, Tayb Tazini, and others. Although these modern intellectuals may have different ideological agendas, their epistemological way of reading the tradition is the same, namely the analogical reasoning (qiyas). This reading method for al-Jabiri renders “Arab reason” locked within a circle of tradition. Contemporary Arabs become unable to think and to act out of such traditional references and ways of thinking. Al-Jabiri therefore offers a contemporary reading which; one, enables us to keep our identity, freedom, and independence from the cycle of tradition; two, enables the tradition to be contemporary to itself because it is understood in its own context; three, enables us to engage critically with the tradition in the aims of seeking a tradition (turath) which can participate in dealing with our present concerns and aspirations.

The second way of al-Jabiri (the reconstruction of reason) however enables him to first of all criticize many classical and medieval Arab-Islamic scholars including Imam Shafi’i, Abu Hasan al-`Ash`ari, Abdul Qahir al-Jurjani, Imam Sibawaihi, Imam al-Ghazali, and Ibn Sina. They are accused to be the founders and the advocates of analogical reasoning, which is regarded by al-Jabiry as the cause of the decline of Arab-Islamic civilization. Ibn Sina in particular is also attacked by al-Jabiri for his inclination towards Gnosticism, which is deemed irrational and incompatible with the project of Arab rationalism. Instead of using analogical reasoning (qiyas bayani) and Gnostic insight (`irfani), inspired by Ibn Rushd, al-Jabiri suggests the demonstrative-inferential epistemology (buhani) as the foundation for the Authentic Arab Modernity or the Authentic Arab Rationalism. By paving the way of Ibn Rushd, he believes that modern Arabs will be able to have their civilizational independence and to establish a new age of Tadwin.
Although al-Jabiri’s exposition of the turath and his critique of his fellow Arab intellectuals may not be immune from ideological motives (i.e. reviving the superiority of Maghribi’s intellectuals), his contribution to the discourse of Arab nahdah is undoubtedly very significant. His valuable contribution is not only in terms of understanding the turath and the present Arab situation, but also in terms of searching for the future identity of Arab modernity.

Retrieved from: http://www.facebook.com/notes/syifa-amin/in-memoriam-mohammed-abed-al-jabiri-1935-2010-overcoming-civilizational-anxiety/419188204531

المفكر المغربي محمد عابد الجابري في ذمة الله

2010-05-03 المفكر المغربي محمد عابد الجابري في ذمة الله

عمون - انتقل الى رحمته تعالى ،اليوم الاثنين بالدار البيضاء، المفكر المغربي الكبير محمد عابد الجابري، وذلك عن سن تناهز 75 عاما.

وحصل الراحل، وهو من مواليد عام 1935 بفكيك التي تلقى بها تعليمه الأولي ثم غادرها إلى الدار البيضاء، على دبلوم الدراسات العليا في الفلسفة عام 1967 ثم دكتوراه الدولة في الفلسفة عام 1970 من كلية الآداب والعلوم الإنسانية بجامعة محمد الخامس بالرباط، التي عمل بها أستاذا للفلسفة والفكر العربي والإسلامي.

وفي عام 1958 انتقل إلى دمشق ليحصل على الإجازة في الفلسفة، بعد أن حصل على البكالوريا كمرشح حر ولم يتم دراسته الجامعية، وعاد للمغرب لينتسب إلى الجامعة المغربية الفتية، حيث أكمل فيها مشواره الأكاديمي.

وفي عام 1967 نال الراحل شهادة الماجستير بعد مناقشة رسالته "منهجية الكتابات التاريخية المغربية" ، والتي عن طريقها اكتشف عبد الرحمن بن خلدون وقرر أن يكون بحثه لنيل شهادة الدكتوراه عام 1971 حول فكره، وجاءت أطروحته بعنوان "العصبية والدولة : معالم نظرية خلدونية في التاريخ العربي الإسلامي".

وقد انخرط الراحل محمد عابد الجابري في خلايا العمل الوطني في بداية خمسينيات القرن الماضي، كما كان قياديا بارزا في حزب الاتحاد الاشتراكي للقوات الشعبية، الذي ظل يشغل لفترة طويلة عضوية مكتبه السياسي، قبل أن يعتزل العمل السياسي ليتفرغ لمشاغله الأكاديمية والفكرية.

وخلف محمد عابد الجابري العديد من المؤلفات من بينها "نحن والتراث : قراءات معاصرة في تراثنا الفلسفي" (1980)، "العصبية والدولة : معالم نظرية خلدونية في التاريخ العربي الإسلامي" (1971)، و(نقد العقل العربي) الذي صدر في ثلاثة أجزاء هي (تكوين العقل العربي) و(بنية العقل العربي) و(العقل السياسي العربي).

كما أصدر "مدخل إلى فلسفة العلوم : العقلانية المعاصرة وتطور الفكر العلمي" (1982) و"معرفة القرآن الحكيم أو التفسير الواضح حسب أسباب النزول" في ثلاثة أجزاء، و"مدخل إلى القرآن الكريم".

وألف الراحل أيضا ، "أضواء على مشكلة التعليم بالمغرب" (1973)، و"من أجل رؤية تقدمية لبعض مشكلاتنا الفكرية والتربوية" (1977)، و "المنهاج التجريبي وتطور الفكر العلمي" (1982)، و"إشكاليات الفكر العربي المعاصر" (1986)، و"وحدة المغرب العربي" (1987)، و"التراث والحداثة : دراسات ومناقشات" (1991)، و"الخطاب العربي المعاصر" (1994)، و"وجهة نظر : نحو إعادة بناء قضايا الفكر العربي المعاصر" (1992)، و"المسألة الثقافية" (1994) و"الديمقراطية وحقوق الإنسان" (1994)، و"مسألة الهوية : العروبة والإسلام والغرب" (1995)، و"المثقفون في الحضارة العربية : محنة ابن حنبل ونكبة ابن رشد" (1995)، و"الدين والدولة وتطبيق الشريعة" (1996)، و"المشروع النهضوي العربي : مراجعة نقدية" (1996) .

وقد استطاع الراحل محمد عابد الجابري ، عبر سلسلة "نقد العقل العربي" القيام بتحليل العقل العربي عبر دراسة المكونات والبنى الثقافية واللغوية التي بدأت من عصر التدوين، ثم انتقل إلى دراسة العقل السياسي ثم الأخلاقي.

وفي نهاية هذه السلسلة يصل الراحل، الذي كانت له مشاركات في الصحف والمجلات، وأصدر مجلة شهرية بعنوان (نقد وفكر)، إلى نتيجة مفادها أن العقل العربي بحاجة اليوم إلى إعادة الابتكار.

وقد حاز محمد عابد الجابري، وهو عضو مجلس أمناء المؤسسة العربية للديمقراطية، العديد من الجوائز، من بينها جائزة بغداد للثقافة العربية-اليونسكو (يونيو 1988)، والجائزة المغاربية للثقافة (تونس-ماي 1999)، وجائزة الدراسات الفكرية في العالم العربي (2005)، وميدالية ابن سينا من اليونسكو في حفل تكريم شاركت فيه الحكومة المغربية بمناسبة اليوم العالمي للفلسفة (16 نونبر 2006).

Retrieved from: http://www.ammonnews.net/article.aspx?articleNO=59844

Mengkritik Para Pengkaji Islam

Kompas, Selasa, 9 Maret 2010 | 01:30 WIB
istimewa

Oleh: Muhammadun AS*

Judul buku : Ushul Fiqh versus Hermeneutika: Membaca Islam dari Kanada dan Amerika
Penulis : Yudian Wahyudi
Penerbit : Pesantren Nawesea Press Yogyakarta
Cetakan : 1, 2009
Tebal : 137 halaman

Selagi manusia masih berpijak di bumi, kompetisi masih akan terus terjadi. Dengan kompetisi inilah manusia mendapatkan spirit hidupnya, karena akan selalu bergerak dalam menemukan tantangan dan hikmah yang terselip dibalik ragam kompetisi. Terlebih lagi dalam soal pemikiran, kompetisi berlangsung sangat seru. Karena setiap faksi akan menguatkan argumentasi yang dilontarkan, dengan dalih dan cara yang sebaik mungkin. Kekalahan dalam kompetisi, walaupun mempunyai hikmah besar, tetapi bagi para pemikir tetap akan dijauhi, karena menjadi “aib” intelektual.

Karena kompetisi keilmuan tak mengenal usai, maka perdebatan akan terus berlangsung tida henti. Tinggal nafas kesabaran yang menentukan masing-masing faksi. Dalam sejarah intelektual dunia Islam, terjadilah dua faksi yang sangat menonjol. Mereka adalah ahli hadits (yang berpegang pada teks) dan ahli ra’yu (yang berpegang dalam rasionalitas). Kedua faksi ini membekas skali dalam gerak sejarah dinamika keilmuan di dunia Islam. Bahkan sampai sekarang, kedua faksi ini masih mempengaruhi cara berfikir intelektual Islam dalam memandang sebuah persoalan.

Penafsiran yang dilakukan ahli hadits sangat terpaku pada kekuatan teks. Kelompok ini sangat berhati-hati dalam menentukan status sebuah persoalan. Kalau teks dalam al-Quran dan al-hadits tidak ada, mereka tidak akan gegabah atau gampangan dalam mengurai persoalan dengan rasio. Karena bagi mereka, kedua landasan tersebut tersebut telah menjawab semua persoalan dalam kehidupan. Cuma manusia masih galau dan bimbang, sehingga tak mampu menggali sumber pengetahuan dari kedua landasan tersebut.

Berbeda dengan ahli ra’yu yang sangat menonjolkan unsur rasionalitas. Dalam menjawab beragam persoalan, analisis rasio menjadi sangat penting bagi mereka. Bahkan ketika dalam menjawab persoalan, mereka berani berbeda dengan apa yang dalam sebuah teks. Mereka bukannya tidak menggunakan teks. Tetapi bagi mereka, teks itu snagt terbatas, sementara fakta social terus berkembang tak terbatas. Maka penggunaan rasio mutlak direalisasikan. Karena kalau rasio tetap berpegang kepada kemaslahatan, maka disitulah rasio sesungguhnya sama dengan maksud yang ada dalam teks. Mereka mencoba melampaui teks.

Apa yang diurai Yudian dalam buku bertajuk “Ushul Fiqh versus Hermeneutika: Membaca Islam dari Kanada dan Amerika” adalah sebuah ijtihad memproklamirkan kembali sebuah kompetisi keilmuan. Yudian mengkritik para propagandis hermeneutika yang dengan serampangan menggunakan hermeneutika dalam menafsirkan kalam ilahi. Kaum hermeneutis mencoba melihat nash sebagai teks yng perlu ditinjau ulang keasliannya. Rumitnya, bagi Yudian, mereka justru terjebak dalam kubangan pengetahuan yang sangat memalukan.

Kaum propagandis hermeneutika ini snagat lucu, karena mereka menguguhkan hermeneutika, ternyata pengetahuannya ihwal hermeneutika masih rendahan. Mereka sekedar comotisme dalam memaknai hermeneutika. Seolah hermeneutika tidak bermalasalah kalau diterapkan begitu saja dalam tafsir al-Quran. Di sisi lain, para propagandis hermeneutika mengkritik teori ushul fiqh. Disini terjadi pendangkalan ganda. Ushul fiqh sebagai metode tafsir belum dipahami, tetapi sudah hendak diganti dengan ilmu baru, tetapi pinggiran. Pendangkalan ini terjadi karena para propagandis hermeneutika umumnya bukanlah doctor hermeneutika, apalagi dotor ushul fiqh.

Terjadilah neo-taklidisme besar-besaran. Pra propagandis hermeneutika hanya mengetahui hermenetika dari sumber sekunder yang kualitas keilmuannya juga masih meragukan. Ironisnya, dengan kualitas pas-pasan, sumber sekunder tersebut dipuja-puji di berbagai tempat, sehingga seolah gagasan tersebut “baru” dan mencerahkan. Para pemikir Indonesia modern yang mereka rujuk tersbut ternyata bukanlah ahli dalam ushul fiqh, paling banter mereka memahami pengantar ushul fiqh. Lihatlah siapa itu HM Rasidji yang ahli kebatinan Jawa. Harun Nasution yang tekun mengkaji teologi Abduh, dan Nurcholis Madjid yang ahli dalam falfasah Ibn Taimiyah. Sedangkan Amin Abdullah adalah pemikir kajian Al-Ghazli dan Immanuel Kant.

Dari sini terlihat, pemikiran hermeneutika yang selama ini disuguhkan hanyalah jurus pinggiran yang masih jauh dibandingkan dengan teori keilmuan dalam ushul fiqh. Yudian sendiri menjelaskan bahwa hermeneutika bisa digunakan untuk menafsirkan kalam ilahi ketika mencapai taraf horizontal. Tidak bisa dilakukan untuk menafsir klam ilahi ketika dibawakan kepada Jibril untuk Muhammad. Kalau digunakan secara vertical, maka kalam ilahi tak lagi asli, tak suci lagi, dan sama saja dengan menyebut Muhammad dan Jibril tidak al-amin. Padahal keduanya dikenal sebagai yang tepercaya dan tidak memaksulkan sedikiptun dalam al-Quran.

Muhammad dan Jibril hanya passive transmitters yang menyempakan wahyu al-Quran apa adanya kepada makhluq. Makanya tidak sedikit dalam ayat al-Quran yang mereka sendiri tidak bisa menafsirkan, seperti Nun. Bahkan Muhmmad sendiri tidak luput dari kritik al-Quran. Lihatlah dalam surat Abasa, Muhmmad benar-benar dihardik oleh al-Quran. Kalau Muhammad ikut campur dalam pewahyuan al-Quran, maka sangat mungkin ayat tersebut tidak akan disampaikan kepada umatnya. Tetapi karena tak ada peran apapun, Muhammad sampaikan apa adanya.

Kritik yang dilayangkan Yudian pada propagandis hermeneutika menjadi bukti bahwa kompetisi keilmun yang dilayangkan Yudian berbasiskan teori yang tidak serampangan. Yudian menyuguhkan dengan penuh percaya diri, sehingga kajiannya lengkap dengan pertanggungjawaban ilmiahnya. Ini menjadi catatan penting bagi propagandis hermeneutika agar mengkaji kembali pemikirannya, sehingga bisa dipetanggungjawabkan secara ilmiah, tidak sekedar comotisme.

*Analis sosial dan buku.

http://oase.kompas.com/read/2010/03/09/01301871/Mengkritik.Para.Pengkaji.Islam.

Pergolakan Demokrasi di Dunia Islam


Kompas, Rabu, 5 Mei 2010 | 04:01 WIB
istimewa

Oleh: Muhammadun AS*

Judul buku : Dinamika Politik “Kembali kepada Al-Quran dan Sunnah” di Mesir, Maroko, dan Indonesia

Penulis : Yudian Wahyudi
Penerbit : Pesantren Nawesea Press Yogyakarta
Cetakan : 1, 2010
Tebal : 154 halaman

Inilah buku pertama kali yang ditulis sarjana Indonesia dalam membandingkan pergolakan demokrasi di Mesir, Maroko, dan Indonesia. Ketiga wilayah dibandingkan untuk melihat secara kritis pergerakan demokrasi dan pergerakan intelektualitasnya. Ketiga wilayah ini dalam dunia Islam mempunyai peran vital dalam arah gerakan demokrasi di dunia Islam. Ketiga wilayah merupakan tumbuh-suburnya pergerakan pemikiran moderat dan kritis yang telah menjadikan watak dunia Islam tak lagi terjebak dalam gerakan ekstrimis. Indonesia paling subur gerak moderatismenya, Mesir subur dengan pluralismenya, dan Maroko kuat dalam gerak inklusivismenya.


Karena besarnya peran ketiga negara itulah, Yudian membandingkannya dalam melihat prospek masa depan demokrasi yang berkembang di dunia Islam. Iya, proses demokratisasi yang berkembang di dunia Islam mengalami beragam pasang surut dan pergolakan politik. Berbagai pergolakan yang terjadi dalam demokratisasi tersebut serringkali berakar kuat dalam pergolakan ihwal teologis. Perdebatan ihwal teologis kemudian memicu beragam perdebatan ihwal politik dan demokrasi. Tak salah kalau pergolakan teologis kemudian menjadikan pemicu paling kuat atas pergolakan demokratisasi yang berkembang di dunia Islam. Tak lain karena masyarakat Islam masih berpijak diri sebagai masyarakat teks . Dari nash mereka menemukan diri dan pergolakan diri. Tanpa pijakan nash yang jelas, mereka akan galau melangkau dan menjangkaukan diri dalam arena kompetisi kehidupan.

Pergolakan teologis yang sangat fenomenal sampai sejauh ini adalah slogan kembali al-Quran dan Sunnah. Slogan ini menjadi sangat masyhur dalam dunia Islam, karena slogan ini mengatasnamakan sumber utama umat Islam, yakni al-Quran dan Sunnah. Keduanya menjadi sumber rujukan utama umat Islam yang diwariskan oleh Nabi Muhammad. Sedikit menyentil kedua sumber rujukan tersebut, pastilah akan muncul pergolakan.

Buku karya Prof Yudian ini mencoba merekam pergolakan demokrasi terkait adanya slogan kembali al-Quran dan Sunnah yang bergema di dunia Islam. Pergolakan politik dikaitkan dengan slogan tersebut menjadi pilihan penulis karena slogan itulah yang telah merubah peta politik dunia Islam bahkan hingga sekarang. Pergolakan dalam slogan tersebut dimulai dengan haidrnya gerakan Wahabi yang dimotori oleh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab (w.1206/1792). Bagi penulis, Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab merupakan pioner gerakan reformasi Islam di era modern.

Alasan penulis memilih Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab sebagai pioneer gerakan Islam modern adalah dikarenakan gerakan wahabi mempunyai pengaruh yang sangat besar dalam gerakan reformasi islam yang berkembang di Mesir, Maroko, dan Indonesia. Dan ketiga Negara inilah yang dijadikan objek penelitian penulis dalam mengkaji dinamika dan respon para aktivis dan tokoh ketiga Negara tersebut dalam menyikapi lahirnya slogan kembali al-Quran dan Sunnah. Namun demikian, sesuai dengan latar belakang sejarah masing-masing gerakan tersebut, hanya konsep dasar setiap gerakan yang akan dibandingkan dan dianalis sejalan dengan teori tantangan dan tanggapan (challenge and response), teori kesinambungan dan perubahan (continuity and change) dan teori konflik pusat lawan pinggiran (center versus periphery). (hal. 5).

Gerakan wahabi melihat dunia islam sedang terjangkit penyimpangan moral dan kebusukan spiritual. Makanya mereka menggelorakan kembali kepada al-Quran dan sunnah sehingga bisa keluar dari penyakit tersebut. Dalam konteks politik, mereka bukan mengakui imperium Turki Usmani sebagai kesatuan politik islam masa itu. Tetapi malah sebaliknya, mereka menganggap dukungan terhadap Turki Usmani sebagai bentuk bid’ah (penyimpangan). Umat islam bagi Wahabi jangan sampai menyimpang dari rencana suci, karena akan mengakibatkan kemunduran.

Untuk itulah umat islam harus kembali kepada sumber primernya al-Quran dan Sunnah sehingga bisa menggapai kembali kemajuan dan kegemilangan. Yakni dengan meniru kaum salaf yang telah menjalankan perintah-perintah Allah SWT dan Rasullallah SAW. di samping itu Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab juga menawarkan model politik yang sempit kepada pengikut-pengikutnya, yakni politik arab sentries. Muhammad bi Abdul Wahab mengambil pernyataan dari hadis bahwa imam (pemimpin) adalah dari kaum Quraisy, ini berarti yang berhak memimpin dinasti islam adalah kaum Quraisy. Untuk itu Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab melancarkan gerakan protes dan menyerang terhadap Imperium Turki Usmani.

Ada banyak tokoh yang dikaji penulis buku ini terkait pergulatan demokratisasi akibat dari slogan kembali al-Quran dan Sunnah. Di Mesir ada Muhammad Ali Pasha, Jamalusin al-Afghoni, Muhammad Abduh, Rosyid RIdho, Hasan al-Banna, Sayid Qutub. Di Maroko ada Sultan Abdullah, Sultan Hasan 1, Sultan Abdul Aziz, Sultan Abdul Hafidz, Al-Dukkali, Allal al Fasi. Sedangkan di Indonesia ada gerakan Padri, Sayid Usman, KH. Muhammad Dahlan, Ahamd Surkati, Ahmad Hasan dan Kartosuwirjo.

Ketiga Negara yang dikaji Yudian ini memperlihatkan perkembangan gerakan Wahabi berpengaruh besar terhadap peta politik islam di zaman modern. Slogan kembali al-Quran dan Sunnah dijadikan sebagai alat politik menuju pusat kekuasaan. Walaupun awalnya mereka merupakan gerakan politik pinggiran (periphery), tetapi slogan politik yang mereka gelorakan membuahkan sukses politik sehingga mereka menuju pusat (center). Mereka berjuang keras merubah peta politik yang menurut mereka menyimpang menjadi jalan politik yang menurut mereka diridhoi oleh tuhan. Walaupun gerak politik yang mereka lakukan dalam mensukseskan slogan tersebut bersifat monolitik maksudnya hanya menafsirkan slogan tersebut satu arah saja dan menolak tafsir yang lain.

Dinamika politik dan pergulatan demokratisasi yang berkembang di dunia islam, bertolak dari kajian buku ini, memperlihatkan masih kuatnya arus agama dalam peta pergolakan politik yang terjadi. Walaupun terjadi sekularisasi politik yang dibawa para sarjana dari barat, tetap saja arus teologis masih begitu mengental dalam jalan peta politik islam. Tak salah kalau Abid al-Jabiri begitu yakin menilai masyarakat islam sebagai masyarakat teks.
*Analis buku

http://oase.kompas.com/read/2010/05/05/04015384/Pergolakan.Demokrasi.di.Dunia.Islam

Sunday, March 28, 2010

LAWH AL-MAHFUZ AND UMM-UL-KITAB

Retrieved from: http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Endless_Bliss_Third_Fascicle/bliss3_36.htm

The booklet titled Lawh al-Mahfuz wa Umm-ul-kitab by Allama Ahmad bin Sulaiman bin Kamal Pasha, the booklet titled Ihtiyar-i juzi by Muhammad Akkarmani and the booklet titled Qada-Qadar by Abussuud Effendi were gathered together and were published in one single book in Turkish in Istanbul in hijri 1264, during the reign of the Ottoman Sultan Abdulmajid Khan. We have deemed it suitable to simplify all three and write them.

The ayat, "Allahu ta'ala erases what He wishes. And He does not change what He does not wish to. Umm-ul-kitab is kept by Him," which is in Rad Sura, denotes Lawh-i mahfuz. Umm-il-kitab is the name of the Kalam-i ilahi (Divine Word), which is eternal. Angels cannot understand it. It is not with time. In other words, time is not recorded in it. No one but Allahu ta'ala knows it. It never ceases to exist. As for the Lawh al-Mahfuz, there are changes in it. Angels see it. A person's lifetime and sustenance may be changed on account of his deeds. The good may be changed into evil and the evil into good. Accordingly, He may make a person perform good deeds towards his death, thus sending him as a Believer to the next world. And He may make some other person commit an evil deed, and, thus, He may send him without iman. For this reason, Rasulullah 'sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam' would often say the Arabic prayer, "Allahumma, ya muqallibal-qulub, thabbit qalbi 'ala dinik" [O Allah! Thou alone canst change our hearts from good to evil, from evil to good. Make my heart fixed in Thine din, do not ever let it turn away from or abandon it!]. Upon hearing this, the Sahaba 'alaihimurridwan' said, "O Rasulallah 'sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam'! You, too, are afraid of turning renegade?" "Who on earth could ensure me from makr-i ilahi?" was his answer. [Makr means trick. Lexically, makr-i ilahi means divine trick.] For, a hadith al-qudsi states, "Men's hearts are in the power of Rahman. He changes hearts as He wishes." That is, He changes them to evil or to good with His Attributes of Jalal and Jamal. The first thing written in Lawh-i mahfuz was: "There is no Allah besides Me. Hadrat Muhammad 'sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam' is My Messenger and My beloved one, and all are My creatures. I am the Rab, the Creator of everything." Then prophets and all the people that will come to the world until Doomsday were registered, the good ones as Said and the evil ones as shaqi.

Qadar does not change. Qada happens compatibly with qadar. Qada changes a number of times every day and is created when it is suitable with qadar at last. Something which was recorded to be created as qada-i muallaq is changed on account of the slave's good deeds and is not created. The Awliya have compared qadar to a granary and qada to a scale.

[The (celebrated grand dictionary titled) Qamus writes in the entry 'qada': "Qada is a special section of qadar. Qadar is like the wheat stocked in a granary. And qada is like giving it in measured amounts. Hadrat 'Umar 'radiAllahu anh' came to Damascus. But when he heard that there was plague in the city, he did not enter the city. When he was asked, 'Are you running away from Allah's qada?' he said, 'I am running from Allah's qada to His qadar. For qadar may change unless it turns into qada." Qadar is like a salary list (payroll). And qada is like the distribution of the salary. Ibni Asir said, "Qada and qadar do not part from each other; for qadar is like the foundation of a building and qada is like the building itself." It is written in the entry 'qadar': "Qadar is Allah's knowing in the eternal past all that will happen. Qada is His creating the things in qadar when the time comes."]

Imam-i Ghazali says in his book Ihya-ul-'Ulum, "Qada-i muallaq is recorded in Lawh al- Mahfuz. If a person performs good deeds and his prayers are accepted the qada will change." A hadith ash-Sharif states, "Qadar does not change by taking precautions or avoiding. But a prayer that is accepted protects one against an approaching catastrophe." The prayer's repelling the catastrophe is also within qada and qadar. As a shield is a rampart against arrows, and as water causes grass to grow on earth, [and as the air's oxygen gas causes heat by burning the food substances in the cells of the living], so prayers cause Allah's compassion. A hadith ash-Sharif states, "Nothing can change the qada-i muallaq. But prayers only can change it; and favors, goodness only can lengthen one's lifetime." The recording of Allah's predestination, that is, qadar, in Lawh al-Mahfuz is qada. If the disaster predestined for a person is qada-i muallaq, that is, if it has been predestined also that the person would pray, he prays and, when the prayer is accepted, it prevents the disaster. Doing favors delays the ajal-i qada. But the ajal-i musamma does not change. The ajal-i qada is a person's lifetime which, for example, was predestined as sixty years if he performs some good deeds or gives alms or performs hajj (pilgrimage) and forty years if he does not do these. When the time is up, his death is not delayed even for one moment. While a person has, for example, three days left to live, thirty years may be added to his lifetime when he visits one of his relatives for Allah's sake. Another person may have, for example, thirty years more to live, but the rest of his lifetime may be reduced to three days because he neglects his relatives. It is written in the book Lubab-ut-tawil [alias Tafsir-i Hazin], that predestination was recorded in the Lawh al-Mahfuz in the eternal past. Nothing is recorded afterwards. In other words, the changes that would happen in Lawh al-Mahfuz, the lengthening or shortening of lifetimes, were recorded in eternity; this case is called qada-i muallaq. The changes in Lawh al-Mahfuz take place suitably with Allah's qadar, that is, His knowledge in eternity. When 'Umar 'radiAllahu anh' was wounded Qa'bul-akhbar said, "If 'Umar 'radiAllahu anh' wanted to live more he would pray, for his prayer would certainly be accepted." Those who heard this were surprised and said, "How dare you say so? Allahu ta'ala declares, 'Death is never late, nor does it come before time is up.' " Upon this he said, "Yes, death is not delayed when the time is up. But before the time is up, one's lifetime is lengthened owing to one's alms, prayers or pious deeds. For the sura of Fatir purports, 'Lifetimes of all and the shortening of lifetimes are all recorded.' "

Every year [on the Barat night, which is the fifteenth night of the month of Shaban], the happenings of the coming year, deeds, lifetimes, causes of death, promotions and demotions, and everything, are recorded in the Lawh al-Mahfuz.

Two people came to Dawud 'alaihissalam' and complained about each other. He listened to them, settled the matter and they went off; Hadrat Azrail (Angel of Death) came to him and said, "One of these two people has one week before his death. The other's lifetime was over a week ago, but he did not die." When Hadrat Dawud was astonished and asked the reason why, Hadrat Azrail said, "The latter had a relative who was offended with him. He visited him and reconciled himself with him. For this reason Allahu ta'ala decreed to add twenty years to his life-time." [It is written in the sixty-second couplet of Qasida-i-Amali: "The lifetime of a person killed is not cut." In other words, his life has not been cut in the middle at that moment. Ahmad Asim Bey, translator of Qamus, explains the couplet as follows: "According to the Ahl as-sunnat, the time of death of a person killed is the moment when he is killed. His lifetime has not been cut in the middle. Each person has one time of death."] As it is seen, it is strongly necessary to visit your relatives if they are Muslims and obey the Shariat. You should visit them at least once a week or month, not more rarely than every forty days. If he lives far away, you should please their hearts with letters. You should not neglect this though you may be offended with them or cross with them. Even if your relatives do not visit you or answer your letters, you should not give up visiting them in person or by sending presents, regards or letters. Allahu ta'ala commands visiting the relative who is Muslim and pious. The command will have been carried out by doing as we say now. It is written in the books Al-Bariqa and Al-Hadiqa, "It is a grave sin to break off relations with relatives. It is wajib to visit a relative who is zi rahm-i mahram, whether it is a man or a woman. It is not wajib to visit a relative who is zee rahm, but na-mahram, e.g. the daughter of one's uncle, or a relative who is not zee rahm. But it is mustahab to send them presents or regards." Also, we should pity orphans and should not hurt them. A person who fondles an orphan on the head will be given the thawab of hajj. If Allahu ta'ala loves a slave of His, He makes him do pious deeds that are good for the Hereafter. If a person is not blessed with Allah's hidayat he does not come round to the right course even if he reads hundreds of books or listens to lots of sermons. In other words, to advise a person who is not prone to being trained is like teaching tajwid to an ox. [Tajwid is the branch of knowledge teaching how to read the Qur'an correctly.]

[Also, it depends on the predestination to find a doctor or to find medicine. Allahu ta'ala creates causes suitably with His predestination, decree. As has been known for a very long time, if a person has not completed his lifetime, when one of his limbs is cut his vein will be bound, or he will be given medicine, and will not die. If his lifetime is completed, someone to bind the vein will not be found, he will lose blood, the blood will be infected, and he will die. Also, it depends on whether the time for death has come or not if the healthy heart of a person who is about to die will or will not be transplanted on a severely ill person whose heart muscles do not function. Heart transplantation does not certainly cure the ill person. It has caused death to many people.

On the Rising Day everybody will be resurrected from his grave with the same figure, stature and sizes of limbs as he had when he died. Each person's coccyx will not change but his other limbs will be recreated on this bone, the souls will find these new bodies and enter them. The souls' entering these new bodies is not metempsychosis. Metempsychosis is a concept that can be thought of in this world. There cannot be metempyshosis in the next world. Man's body, limbs change in the world, too. The flesh, the fat, the skin, the bones of a forty year old person are different from those which he had when he was a child. But he is the same person. For, man means soul. The body changes, but the soul does not. A person's finger-prints never change. No person's finger-prints are like another's. The shape of the lines on a person's finger- tips form before he is born, while his soul enters his body. They never change until the person dies and his body decays. It has been observed that they have remained the same on five-thousand year old mummies. Each of the lines on the finger-tips is made up of holes arranged side by side. Each tiny hole leaks sweat. When a person holds something, the sweat that leaks out sticks to it and remains there in the shape of the lines. When some chemical that can color the sweat is put on that thing the person's finger-prints are seen on it. In the eightieth page of the Persian book Kimya-yi Se'adet, Imam-i Muhammad Ghazali, a great scholar, says, "As the bodies which a person has at various ages are different from one another, so he will be resurrected from the grave with a body which has the same shape and stature but which is made up of different motes. When this writing of ours is understood well, there will no longer be need for questions such as: if a man eats another man, on which man will the eaten limb be recreated, on the man eaten, or on the one who ate him? For, not the limbs themselves but their copies will be created."]

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Liberal Qur'an: Reading List on Fazlur Rahman

Liberal Qur'an: Reading List on Fazlur Rahman

Primary Sources

Fadl al-Rahman. 1965. Islamic methodology in history: Fazlur Rahman. Karachi: Central institute of Islamic research.

Rahman, Fazlur. 1979. Islam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rahman, Fazlur. 1980. Major themes of the Qurʼān. Minneapolis, MN: Bibliotheca Islamica.

Rahman, Fazlur. 1992. Islam and modernity: transformation of an intellectual tradition. Chicago [u.a.]: University of Chicago Press.

Rahman, Fazlur, and Ebrahim Moosa. 2000. Revival and reform in Islam: a study of Islamic fundamentalism. Oxford: Oneworld.


Secondary Sources

Armajani, Jon. 2004. Dynamic islam: liberal muslim perspectives in a transnational age. Dallas ;Oxford: University Press of America.

Berry, D. L. (1990). The thought of Fazlur Rahman as an Islamic response to modernity. Thesis (Ph. D.)--Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1990.

Berry, Donald L. 2003. Islam and modernity through the writings of Islamic modernist Fazlur Rahman. Islamic studies, v. 1. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press.

Foster, Adelaide Ellen. 1988. Complexities of change in the Muslim world: theories of the social order by Maulana Maududi and Fazlur and Rahman. Thesis (A.B., Honors)--Harvard University, 1988.

Hewer, Christopher Thomas Radbourne. 1998. Fazlur Rahman: a reinterpretation of Islam in the twentieth cenutry. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

Husein, Fatimah. 2000. Fazlur Rahman's Islamic philosophy. Ottawa: National Library of Canada = Bibliothèque nationale du Canada.

Iqbal, Aliya. 2000. Never quite at home: the mystery of Fazlur Rahman's anonymity in Pakistan. Thesis (A.B., Honors in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations)--Harvard University, 2000.

Jesse, Mary Catherine. 1991. A modern Muslim intellectul: the thought of Fazlur Rahman with special reference to reason. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Regina, 1991.

Kurzman, Charles. 1998. Liberal Islam: a source book. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mathee, Mohamed Shaid. 2004. A critical reading of Fazlur Rahman's Islamic methodology in history: the case of the living Sunnah. Thesis (M. Soc. Sc. (Religious Studies))--University of Cape Town, 2004.

O'Sulliva, Doctor P. 1998. "The Comparison and Contrast of the Islamic Philosophy, Ideology and Paradigms of Sayyid Qutb. Mawlana Abul A'la Mawdudi and Fazlur Rahman". The Islamic Quarterly. 42 (2): 99.

Rahman, Yusuf. 2004. The hermeneutical theory of Nasr Hāmid Abū Zayd an analytical study of his method of interpreting the Qur'ān. Ottawa: National Library of Canada = Bibliothèque nationale du Canada.

Rasyid, Amhar. 1994. Some Qurʼ ̃anic legal texts in the context of Fazlur Rahman's hermeneutical method. Thesis (M.A.)--McGill University, 1994.

Taji-Farouki, Suha. 2004. Modern Muslim intellectuals and the Qurʼan. Qurʼanic studies series. Oxford: Oxford University Press in association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies, London.

Waugh, Earle H., Frederick Mathewson Denny, and Fazlur Rahman. 1998. The shaping of an American Islamic discourse: a memorial to Fazlur Rahman. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press.

Liberal Qur'an: A Reading List

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Abu Zayd, Nasr. 2000. The Qurʼan: God and man in communication. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden].

Abū Zayd, Naṣr Ḥāmid. 2004. Rethinking the Qurʼân: towards a humanistic hermeneutics. Utrecht: University of Humanistics.

Abū Zayd, Naṣr Ḥāmid. 1993. Mafhūm al-naṣṣ: dirāsa fī ʻulūm al-Qurʼān. [al-Qāhira]: al-Hayʼa al-Miṣriyya al-ʻĀmma li-al-Kitāb.

Abū-Zaid, Naṣr Ḥāmid. 1995. an- Naṣṣ, as-sulṭa, al-ḥaqīqa: al-fikr ad-dīnī baina irādat al-maʻrifa wa-irādat al-haimana. Bairūt u.a: al-Markaz at̲-T̲aqāfī al-ʻArabī.

Abū-Zaid, Naṣr Ḥāmid. 2006. Reformation of Islamic thought: a critical historical analysis. WRR verkenningen, 10. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Arkoun, Mohammed. 1994. Rethinking Islam: common questions, uncommon answers. Boulder: Westview Press.

Arkoun, Mohammed. 1987. Rethinking Islam today. Washington, D.C.: Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University.

Arkoun, Mohammed. 1987. The concept of revelation: from the people of the book to the societies of the book. Claremont, Calif: James A. Blaisdell Programs in World Religions and Cultures, Claremont Graduate School.

Arkoun, Mohammed. 1982. Lectures du Coran. Islam d'hier et d'aujourd'hui, 17. Paris: G.-P. Maisonneuve et Larose.

Arkoun, Mohammed. 1997. Berbagai pembacaan Quran. Seri INIS, 29. Jakarta: INIS.

Arkoun, Mohammed, and Mohammed Arkoun. 2006. Islam: to reform or to subvert? London: Saqi Essentials.

Arkoun, Mohammed. 2002. The unthought in contemporary Islamic thought. London: Saqi.

Jābirī, Muḥammad ʻĀbid. 2009. The formation of Arab reason: text, tradition and the construction of modernity in the Arab world. London: I. B. Tauris.

Rahman, Fazlur. 1992. Islam and modernity: transformation of an intellectual tradition. Chicago [u.a.]: University of Chicago Press.

Rahman, Fazlur. 1979. Islam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rahman, Fazlur. 1980. Major themes of the Qurʼān. Minneapolis, MN: Bibliotheca Islamica.

Rahman, Fazlur, and Ebrahim Moosa. 2000. Revival and reform in Islam: a study of Islamic fundamentalism. Oxford: Oneworld.

Shaḥrūr, Muḥammad, and Andreas Christmann. 2009. The Qur'an, morality and critical reason: the essential Muhammad Shahrur. Leiden: Brill.

Shuḥrūr, Muḥammad, Dale F. Eickelman, and Ismail S. Abu Shehadeh. 2000. Proposal for an islamic covenent. Damascus: Al Ahali.

Shuḥrūr, Muḥammad. 2004. Dasar dan prinsip hermeneutika Al-Quran kontemporer. Yogyakarta: Penerbit eLSAQ Press.

Ṭāhā, Maḥmūd Muḥammad. 1987. The second message of Islam. Contemporary issues in the Middle East. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.

Wadud, Amina. 1999. Qurʼan and woman: rereading the sacred text from a woman's perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.


Secondary Sources

Arkoun, Mohammed. 1998. "Literature and Society - From Inter-Religious Dialogue to the Recognition of the Religious Phenomenon". Diogenes. (182): 123.

Arkoun, Mohammed. 2007. "The Answers of Applied Islamology". Theory, Culture & Society. 24 (2): 21-38.

Armajani, Jon. 2004. Dynamic islam: liberal muslim perspectives in a transnational age. Dallas ;Oxford: University Press of America.

Ichwan, Moch. Nur. 1999. A new horizon in Qur'anic hermeneutics: Naṣr Ḥâmid Abû Zayd's contribution to critical Quránic scholarship. Leiden: Leiden University.

Kurzman, Charles. 1998. Liberal Islam: a source book. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lee, Robert D. 1989. Arkoun and authenticity. Middle East Studies Association of North America.

Najjar, Fauzi. 2000. "Islamic Fundamentalism and the Intellectuals: The Case of Nasr Hāmid Abu Zayd". British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 27 (2): 177-200.

Nederlands Instituut voor Voortgezet Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek op het Gebied van de Mens- en Maatschappijwetenschappen. 1997. Islam and Europe in past and present. Wassenaar: Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Rahman, Yusuf. 2004. The hermeneutical theory of Nasr Hāmid Abū Zayd an analytical study of his method of interpreting the Qur'ān. Ottawa: National Library of Canada = Bibliothèque nationale du Canada.

Sukidi. 2009. "Nasr Hāmid Abū Zayd and the Quest for a Humanistic Hermeneutics of the Qur'ān". Die Welt Des Islams. 49 (2): 181-211.

Taji-Farouki, Suha. 2004. Modern Muslim intellectuals and the Qurʼan. Qurʼanic studies series. Oxford: Oxford University Press in association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies, London.

Wadud, Amina. 2004. "Qur'ān, Gender and Interpretive Possibilities". Hawwa. 2 (3): 316-336.

Wahyudi, Yudian. 2002. The Slogan :Back to the Qur'an and the Sunna" a comparative study of the responses of Hasan Hanafi, Muhammad "Abid al-Jabiri and Nurcholish Madjid. Ann Arbor, MI.: UMI Proquest.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Interview with Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd

Interview with Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd
Yoginder Sikand

Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd is a well-known Egyptian Islamic scholar. In 1982, he joined the faculty of the Department of Arabic Language and Literature at Cairo University. In 1995, he was promoted to the rank of full professor, but controversies about his academic work led to a court decision of apostasy and the denial of the appointment. A hisbah trial started against him Islamist groups and he was declared a heretic (Murtadd) by an Egyptian court. Consequently, he was declared to be divorced from his wife, Cairo University French Literature professor Dr. Ibthal Younis. This decision, in effect, forced him out of his homeland and seek refuge in the Netherlands, where he now works. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he speaks about his work and reflects on his efforts to promote a humanistic reading of the Islamic tradition.
Sikand: You have been writing on the question of human rights in Islam for a long time now. What are you presently working on?
Nasr Abu Zaid: I am presently working on a project that explores and develops the notion of the rights of women and children in Islam. The aim of the project is to promote knowledge of the traditional sources of Islam, such as the Qur'an, the Sunnah or practice of the Prophet and fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence, within Muslim communities so as to help promote general awareness of these rights. Alongside this, the project also seeks to critically look at aspects of tradition that might appear to militate against these rights.

In the course of your work how do you relate to those aspects of the historical Islamic tradition which you think might be opposed to the notion of women's and children's rights?

Every tradition has both negative as well as positive aspects. The positive aspects are to be further developed, while the negative aspects need to be discussed closely, to see if they are indeed essential elements of the faith or are actually simply human creations.

How does this work relate to what you have been previously engaged in?

I see it as part of my long interest in Islamic hermeneutics, the methodology of understanding the Qur'an, the Sunnah and other components of the Islamic tradition. Of particular concern for me are certain assumptions in popular Islamic discourse that have not been fully examined, and have generally been ignored or avoided. Thus, for instance, Muslim scholars have not seriously reflected on the question of what is actually meant when we say that the Qur'an is the revealed 'Word of God'. What exactly does the term 'Word of God' mean? What does revelation mean? We have the definitions of the Word and revelation given by the traditional 'ulama, but other definitions are also possible. When we speak of the 'Word of God' are we speaking of a divine or a human code of communication? Is language a neutral channel of communication? Was the responsibility of the Prophet simply that of delivering the message, or did he have a role to play in the forming of that message? What relation does the Qur'an have with the particular social context in which it was revealed? We need to ask what it means for the faith Muslims have in the Qur'an if one brings in the issue of the human dimension involved in revelation.

Are you suggesting that the Qu'ran cannot be understood without taking into account the particular social context of seventh century Arabia? In other words, are there aspects of the Qur'an that were limited in their relevance and application only to the Prophet's time, and are no longer applicable or relevant today?

What I am suggesting is that in our reading of the Qur'an we cannot undermine the role of the Prophet and the historical and cultural premises of the times and the context of the Qur'anic revelation. When we say that through the Qur'an God spoke in history we cannot neglect the historical dimension, the historical context of seventh century Arabia. Otherwise you cannot answer the question of why God first 'spoke' Hebrew through his revelations to the prophets of Israel, then Aramaic, through Jesus, and then Arabic, in the form of the Qur'an.

In a historical understanding of the Qur'an one would also have to look at the verses in the text that refer specifically to the Prophet and the society in which he lived. Some people might feel that looking at the Qur'an in this way is a crime against Islam, but I feel that this sort of reaction is a sign of a weak and vulnerable faith. And this is why a number of writers who have departed from tradition and have pressed for a way of relating to the Qur'an that takes the historical context of the revelation seriously have been persecuted in many countries. I think there is a pressing need to bring the historical dimension of the revelation into discussion, for this is indispensable for countering authoritarianism, both religious and political, and for promoting human rights.

Could you give an example of how a historically grounded reading of the Qur'an could help promote human rights?

Take, for instance, the question of chopping off the hands of thieves, which traditionalists would insist be imposed as an 'Islamic' punishment today. A historically nuanced understanding of the Islamic tradition would see this form of punishment as a borrowing from pre-Islamic Arabian society, and as rooted in a particular social and historical context. Hence, doing away with this form of punishment today would not, one could argue, be tantamount to doing away with Islam itself. By thus contextualising the Qur'an, one could arrive at its essential core, which could be seen as being normative for all times, shifting it from what could be regarded as having been relevant to a historical period and context that no longer exists.

If one were to take history seriously, how would a contextual, historically grounded understanding of the Qur'an reflect on Islamic theology as it has come to be developed?

As I see it, Sunni Muslim theology has remained largely frozen in its ninth century mould, as developed by the conservative 'Asharites. We need to revisit fundamental theological concepts today, which the Sunni 'ulama, by and large, have ignored, for there can be no reform possible in Muslim societies without reform in theology. Till now, however, most reform movements in the Sunni world have operated from within the broad framework of traditional theology, which is why they have not been able to go very far.

How would this new understanding of theology that you propose reflect on the issue of inter-faith relations?

When I suggest that we need to reconsider what exactly is meant by saying that the Qur'an is the 'Word of God', I mean Muslims must also remember that the Qur'an itself insists that the 'Word of God' cannot be limited to the Qur'an alone. A verse in the Qur'an says that if all the trees in the world were pens and all the water in the seas were ink, still they could not, put together, adequately exhausted the Word of God. The Qur'an, therefore, represents only one manifestation of the absolute Word of God. Other Scriptures represent other manifestations as well. Then again, many Sufis saw the whole universe as a manifestation of the 'Word of God'. But, today, few Muslim scholars are taking the need for inter-faith dialogue with the seriousness that it deserves. Most Muslim writers are yet to free themselves from a rigid, imprisoning chauvinism.

How does this way of reading the Qur'an deal with the multiple ways in which the text can be understood and interpreted?

The Qur'an, like any other text, can be read in different ways, and there has always been a plurality of interpretations. The text does not stand alone. Rather, it has to be interpreted, in order to arrive at its meaning, and interpretation is a human exercise and no interpreter is infallible. As Imam 'Ali says, the Qur'an does not speak by itself, but, rather, through human beings. True, Muslims from all over the world, do share certain rituals and beliefs in common, but their understanding of what Islam and the Qur'an are all about differ considerably. It is for us to help develop new ways of understanding Islam that can promote human rights, while at the same time being firmly rooted in the faith tradition.



-----

Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy at the National Law School, Bangalore



23rd Jan 2010, 01:00 am.
Retrieved in Feb 16, 2010 from: http://www.unnindia.com/english/story.php?Id=5909

Jangan Terjebak dalam Aksiomatika Parsial


Kompas, Selasa, 2 Februari 2010 | 18:40 WIB

Oleh: Siti Muyassarotul Hafidzoh*

Judul buku : Hermeneutika Al-Quran?
Penulis : Prof. Hassan Hanafi
Penerbit : Pesantren Nawesea Press Yogyakarta
Cetakan : 1, 2010
Tebal : 116 halaman

Kajian keilmuan selalu menghadirkan perspektif baru dalam memandang persoalan. Kemajuan kajian terindikasi dengan semakin beragam perspektif yang tampil dengan kebebasan akademik yang otonom. Semakin banyak bersemai berbagai pandangan yang menyemarakkan ritual diskusi. Semakin tinggi sebuah ide bertebaran dengan berbagai tanggapan yang mengitari. Dan semakin begairah manusia untuk selalu berfikir dan mendiskusikan hal-hal substansial untuk menyegarkan ide kemanusiaan di tengah kemelut isu kemanusiaan yang tak kunjung usai.

Dalam kajian keislaman (Islamic studies), kajian keilmuan memakai berbagai aksioma dengan beragam sudut pandang. Kajian banyak berkisar di ulum al-quran, ilm al-hadits, ushul fiqh, qowaid fiqhiyyah, ilm tarikh (ilmu sejarah), dan sebagainya. Karena banyaknya kajian inilah maka dikenal istilah ijma’ (konsensus) dalam kajian Islamic studies. Ijma’ ini biasanya akan menyatukan beragam pendapat yang silang-sengkarut, sehingga ditemukan sebuah kesepakatan. Ijma’ ini kemudian menjadi salah satu sumber penetapan hukum atas sebuah persoalan setelah Al-Quran dan Hadits.

Beragam pendekatan dalam Islamic studies merupakan indikasi bahwa intelektual Islam mempunyai cara pandang sendiri dalam menafsirkan kalam ilahi. Mereka (intelektual Islam) tidak mau terjebak dalam aksiomatika yang parsial, karena hany akan mengahdirkan tafsir yang parsial juga. Konsep ijma’ menjadi bukti bahwa cara ilmiah yang digunakan intelektual Islam tidak sekedar “semau gue”, “sesuai pendapat gue”, dan “sesuka pikiran gue”, tetapi melalui kajian dan perdebatan yang serius, sehingga menghasilkan consensus yang rasional dan diterima semuanya.

Karena tidak berangkat dalam ruang dalam ruang hampa dalam kajian keilmuan, maka intelektual Islam merumuskan teori keilmuannya juga didasarkan pada aide-ide yang rasional. Bukan sekedar asal-asalan saja. Termasuk dalam mengkaji hermeneutika dalam kajian ilmu Al-Quran. Menyematkan kajian hermeneutikan dalam kalam ilahi bukanlah dengan asal saja, tetapi harus melalui perdebatan yang serius, sehingga tidak menghasilkan hasil rumusan yang srampangan.

Perlu ijma’ dalam menetapkan hermeneutika dalam kajian ilmu al-Quran. Makanya perlu perdebatan panjang, tidak dengan menyuguhkannya dengan asal saja, dan marah ketika ada yang mengkritiknya. Inilah yang coba diurai Prof Hassan Hanafi, guru bisar filsafat Islam di Universitas Cairo. Hassan Hanafi dikenal sebagai penggagas Kiri Islam yang mencoba melakukan gerakan kritis dalam mendobrak kejumudan intelektual di dunia Islam. Kiri Islam yang diusung Hassan Hanafi bahkan menjadi isu yang seksi yang sejak awal tahun 90-an menjadi isu paling menarik umat Islam di Indonesia. Bahkan Al-Marhum Abdurrahman Wahid menjadi pendukung kuat Hassan Hanafi, terbukti dengan pengantar Gus Dur dalam buku “Kiri Islam”.

Dalam buku ini, Hassan Hanafi “unjuk rasa” dan “urun rembug” ihwal gagasan hermeneutika yang banyak dibicarakan dalam kajian Islamic studies. Terlebih ketika kajian hermeneutic disematkan dalam kajian ilm al-Quran. Sebagai intelektual Islam di masa kontemporer, Hassan Hanafi bukanlah serampangan untuk “menjatuhkan” hermeneutika dalam lapangan kajian Islamic studies. Dia tetap merespon kajian ini secra serius, bahkan oleh dia dikatakan menarik, karena memberikan angina penyegaran dalam lanskap pemikiran.

Tetapi bukanlah Hassan Hanafi menerima begitu saja hiruk pikuk hermeneutika yang sedang menggejala dalam dunia keilmun. Bukan pula alergi dengan semangat hermeneutika dalam melakukan proses pembebasan dlam berfikir. Tetapi buku ini menjadi sikap Hassan Hanafi dalam memahami secara kritis hermeneutika, sehingga tidak menyilap dan menyulap masyarakat Islam secara taken for granted, tetapi harus melalui kajian keilmuan yang diskursif.

Sebagai sebuah aksioma dalam traktat pengetahuan, Hanafi menerima hermeneutika sebagai salah satu aksioma, yang dalam buku ini dia jelaskan dalam tinjauan Islam. Dalam lapangan kajian keilmuan, sah-sah saja hermeneutika menjadi traktat keilmuan yang digunakan dalam menganalisis beragam fakta social. Tetapi kalau dilekatkan dalam al-Quran, atau menjadi hermeneutika al-Quran, maka tunggu dulu. Dalam pandangan Hanafi, penggagas hermeneutika al-Quran sebenarnya kehilangan kesadaran sejarah jika: menggunakan hermeneutika al-Quran tanpa menyadari konsekuensi teologisnya. Jauh-jauh hari, Hanafi sudah menegaskan bahwa teori kenabian membahas proses penerimaan wahyu secara vertical dari Allah kepada Nabi Muhammad melalui malaikat Jibril.

Dalam proses vertical ini, Malaikat Jibril dan Nabi Muhammad bertindak sebagai penerima yang passif. Mereka berdua sepenuhnya bertindak sebagai recorders, sehingga wahyu Allah bersifat verbatim. Dengan kata lain, Nabi Muhammad dan malaikat Jibril tidak menafsirkan pikiran Tuhan. Setelah wahyu verbatim dicatat, berulah proses hermeneutika dapat berfungsi. Jadi, hermeneutika bersifat horizontal, yakni menafsirkan al-Quran setelah wahyu ilahi ini dicatat secara verbatim. Di sini, berulah Muhammad bertindak sebagai active interpreter, yakni menafsirkan al-Quran sesuai dengan konteks.

Dari sini terlihat sekali bahwa Hanafi melihat hermeneutika dalam al-Quran tidaklah srampangan. Hanafi tetap bergerak dalam prinsip bahwa wahyu Tuhan tetaplah terjga keasliannya, tidak bisa asal “diutak-atik gatuk”, tanpa landasan pemikiran yang rasional. Ini bukti bahwa pemikiran Hanafi yang tetap teguh dengan prinsip kajian Islamic studies, tidak asal-asalan menerima pemikiran secara membabi buta.

Sikap kritis dan independent inilah yang perlu menjadi pelajaran intelektual Islam di Indonesia dalam menanggapi beragam persoalan, khususnya terkait dalam Islamic studies. Tidak asal saja menyuarakan kebebasan dan pembebasan, juga tidak asal saja dalam mengkafirkan pendapat orang lain.

*Penikmat buku


Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2010/02/02/18405531/Jangan.Terjebak.dalam.Aksiomatika.Parsial.