Religion, Reason and Liberty

An impression has been growing among some people that the terms “liberal” in Liberal Islam means a boundless liberty, or even is equivalent to the permissive outlook, ibahiyah; an attitude to tolerate everything without knowing the certain limit. By that such point of view, Liberal Islam is observed as the threat toward the institutionalized religiosity.

In Islam, the matter of “limit” (hadd) between the allowed (mubah) and the non allowed (mahdzur), place a very central position. Each Muslim always cares toward what he did, is it allowed or not. It delivers an affluent study field and leave thousands sophisticated literatures, in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) subject. Every discussion regarding the law always refers to fiqh. When a crowded discussion regarding the implementation of Islamic law emerges, fiqh turns to be the attention focus, since the majority of Islamic law is formulated in the fiqh.

In those discussions, it’s clearly observed that the highlight is on the “obligation”, a Muslim’s obligation toward Allah, toward the human fellows, and toward him. The obligation idiom is more apparent, covers the idiom of rights and human’s liberty. Liberal Islam emerges in the light of balancing “the scale” between this idiom of obligation and liberty/rights. Therefore, let’s come to a basic issue which is always debatable in the classic Islamic thoughts: about the human’s action (af’alul ’ibad).

Autonomous or not?

Let’s start with a simple question: could the human, with his logic, intuition and nature, reach the profound comprehension regarding goods and evils? Should human wait for the revelation from “the sky” in order to know those things? What is the use of religion, if eventually human could reach alone the comprehension regarding “the goods” and “the evils”? Is the human morally autonomous at identifying the goods and the evils, or does he depend on the entity out of him?

In this matter, there are two answers in the classic Islamic thought literatures. There was a dominant Sunni group, with the main view that goods and evils should be determined by religion. Human would know whether the action is good or evil only after achieving the religious instruction. The second group is Mu’tazilah who observed that human with his own reason could identify the limit of good and evil, the limit of adequacy. Of course, if it is said that the human reason could determine those limits, it doesn’t mean that the whole limit is already known by the reason since the very first minute. The human reason is developing, undertaking evolution, and growing to be mature.

I tend to the Mu’tazilah group’s view. But, it must be realized that by accepting the Mu’tazilah view, it doesn’t mean that I deny the role of revelation in inspiring the human reason’s insights to comprehend those limits. Each revelation carries a certain insight regarding “the good” and “the evil”. Revelation could lift the human reason’s degree to the higher and more qualified level in order to understand more about the limits. But, the revelation could decline the human reason, whenever that revelation undertakes a “vulgarization” that the revelation has been hijacked by a moment worldly interests. In order that the revelation could convalesce and recapture its integrity as the source of morality, then the responsible and full integrity raison d'être is required. We have known that the revelation is like a boundless horizon. It’s almost impossible for the limited human reason to reach the entire revelation horizon. Because of that wide-spread revelation horizon, everyone could say anything in the name of revelation. Guarantee that the revelation could be accurately understood is the integrity of the human reason itself.

One prophetic tradition (hadits) said, "al itsmu ma haka fi nafsika wa karihta an yath-thali'a 'alaihin naas". Sin is something incite the twitchy and turmoil in your heart and you don’t like other people see you do it. This hadits emphasizes firmly toward the human’s capability, based on his intuition, to reach the right comprehension regarding sin. Why so? It should be notice that religion since the very first minute is a matter of private consciousness; religion is not an objective regulation which could be forced from the outer. That’s why, a hadits said "innamal a'malu bin niyyaat", verily all action would not be a “genuine” action without the intention and the accountable motive. Other hadits said "niyyatul mu'min khairun min 'amalihi", intention and the subjective emotional support is nobler than the action. The scope of intention exists in the human’s subjectivity domain; that domain has the liberty characteristic. So, the objective regulations determined by the religion, is meaningless in the religiosity frame if it is detached from the human’s subjective motive.

I don’t see any idea in Islam where the human is positioned as the passive moral object. The human reason is an active participant in interpreting the divine notions contained in the revelation. I have never imagine that revelation in Islamic view observes the “human’s world” as the dirty, brutal, tentative and cruel Hobbesian world and therefore revelation reveals as a cruel “leviathan”. Islam placed the human in the full dignity position, as “the caliph” who fulfills the divine task to restore the life on earth. The popular Islamic views often illustrate revelation as that sort of “leviathan”. Human, in that sort of popular view, often positioned as “goods” that is empty at all from the free motive. It is the Islamic vulgarization process as ever pointed by Prof. Khaled Abou El Fadl.

In that “vulgar” circumstance, the first point that should be restored is the human’s dignity itself. If the human as the free moral subject is not present anymore or denied, what is the use of a religion? Qur’an often tease the Jews as “donkey carries bundles of books”, matsalulladzina hummilut Taurata kamatsalil khimari yahmilu asfaara. Donkey would never benefit anything from its load. Revelation would be useless for a donkey. And there’s no point in explaining the profundity and the perfection of the revelation upon the donkey. If the human is emptied of the motive, and his autonomy as the moral subject has been denied, what is remain from that sort of human except a passive “body’. Prophet has said, "ad dinu huwal 'aql, la dina liman la 'aqla lahu", religion is reason, there’s no religion for those who haven’t reason.

Therefore, the human’s liberty is a principle matter that couldn’t be bargained anymore. Many people think that sort of liberty leads the human to rebel toward religion and revelation. Some of them think that by limiting that liberty, they have protected the revelation. It’s obviously a wrong opinion. Because whenever the liberty is limited, the deepest and subtle dimension of the revelation would be hard to be exposed by human, since to comprehend the revelation’s complexity, a mature human’s reason is required. A hadist qudsi (God’s revelation in prophet’s words) which is popular among the Sufi said, “I am (Allah) is 'kanzun makhfiyy’, a hidden treasure. I want to be recognized, therefore I create humans”. This hadits give an important affirmation that human is created to “excavate” the hidden dimensions in God’s revelation and truth. That is impossible to occur except by supposing the existence of the human as the free and autonomous subject.

People who said that by giving liberty, you have dropped people to the depth of astray, they have denied the humanitarian value from the very first minute. Donkey always afraid of the freedom, and always look for the master who could guide it. Islam indeed doesn’t require those kinds of people. Islam’s brightness is even possible because of the existence of the humans who think freely and then capable to disclose the deepest secrets of revelation.

Worship as “I-Thou”

The main objective of the religion is lifting up the humanitarian dignity. Revelation is merely the medium toward it. The main focus in religion is the human itself, not merely the God. A popular claim which said that the main task of human is “worshipping” God is a big mistake. This view is originated from the mistaken comprehension over the verse "wa ma khalaqtul jinna wal insa illa liya'budun," and I have not created the human except to worship me. This verse, if comprehended in the popular framework which tends anti-humanistic, might means that religion is no other than the human subjugation. Human is like a threat for the God so he should be subjugated toward His will. There is no dirtier comprehension regarding the God’s reality except this kind of comprehension. The view regarding human as Prometheus who fight with God is present only in the ancient Greek myth. I notice, the popular view which develops within the Muslim community regarding that verse tends toward the human’s image as promethium. The different is, Islamic version of Prometheus is Prometheus who defeated by the God’s will. I don’t agree with the translation of the word “Ibadah” as worship, since worship have negative meaning in several things.

Worship supposes that the object which is “worshipped” is a “died” object, reified, fixated. Worship is always a one-sided process, not a dialogic process live between subject and object. If it is positioned in the framework of Martin Bubber regarding the inter-human relation, worship is a form of relation between Allah and human as the relation of “I-it”. Allah, in that sort of worshipping frame, has been “materialized”. The worshipped Allah is the idolized Allah, fixated in the illustration like an “idol”. I see that the human should keep in touch with God not in that way. The proper relation between human and Allah is relation in the frame of “I-Thou”. Religion based on the worship in the relation of “I-it” would only decline the human’s and Allah’s dignity. The verse is more proper understood as the relation of Allah-human in the model of “I-thou”; not worshipping, but a creative dialogic process.

Worship toward God has no meaning if it is not positioned in the frame of human as the free subject, with the reason that works freely. Qur’an said, "qad tabayyanar rushdu minal ghayy", the way of goods and evils has been clear. "Fa man sya'a fal yu'min wan man sya'a fal yakfur," if only human desires, he could believe in that way, and if he desires, he could deny it. These facts are obviously written in the main source of Islam, Qur’an and Hadits. But, the historical processes in Islam has transformed the religion as the law-religion based on the force, and emphasized more on the obligation idioms. Nothing is more dangerous for Islam unless the views that attempt to alter that religion’s character as the nature (fitrah)-religion, to be the law-religion which is endorsed over the force.

The conclusion I intended from this little bit “complex” and long explanation is that by adding the word “liberal” to Islam, indeed I want to verify back the liberty dimension in Islam which its anchor is “intention” or emotive-subjective motive of the human. The word liberal in “Liberal Islam” is better comprehended in this sort of framework. The word “liberal” here has no relation with the boundless liberty, with the permissive attitudes which against the “intrinsic’ tendency inside the human reason. By re-emphasizing the human’s liberty dimension, and position the human at the focus of religious comprehension, hence we have improved the integrity of revelation and Islam.

Once more, Islam is worthless for the people who denied the humanity itself, since religion is not presented for the donkey. (Ulil Abshar-Abdalla - www.liberalmoslem.blogspot.com)