Democracy and Religious Radicalism

The radical religious movements in Indonesia are being born at the same time as the democratisation process is emerging. For instance, regional autonomy as the reflection of democracy, has resulted in the revival of the will to implement Islamic Sharia. In several regions such as West Sumatera, Aceh, Makassar and Cianjur, a number of regional regulations (Perda) have been arranged for implimenting Islamic Sharia. The emergence of the radical Islam social organizations on a massive scale as the part of a social movement has also occurred in tandem with the democratisation since May 1998, although its seeds were sown long before.

John O Voll, Professor of history at Georgetown University US, has an interesting conclusion regarding the relation between Islam, democracy and terrorism He conveyed this in a discussion about ‘Democracy and terrorism in Muslim countries” at Jakarta several days ago. According to him, the relation between democracy and terrorism in the Muslim countries indicates a paradox. On one hand, the absence of democracy leads to the emergence of terrorism, but on the other hand, the presence of democracy could deliver terrorism as well. Even though it is admitted that terrorism is not an Islamic characteristic and can be performed by anyone besides Muslims, but the assumption that democratization process could eliminate the religious radicalism such as terrorism is invalid in the Muslim countries, because the democratization process in Muslim countries does not eliminate terrorism automatically. (Kompas, 15/01/2002)

John O Voll’s thesis is based on a deep understanding of democratic developments in various Muslim countries. Therefore his conclusion’s offer important truths. The democratisation process has not eliminated terrorism automatically, and has even been used as the inspiration for the resurgence of religious radicalism. In many Muslim countries, the religious radical movements are born during the democratisation process and Indonesia might become a good example of this.

The radical religious movements in Indonesia are being born at the same time as the democratisation process is emerging. For instance, regional autonomy as the reflection of democracy, has resulted in the revival of the will to implement Islamic Sharia. In several regions such as West Sumatera, Aceh, Makassar and Cianjur, a number of regional regulations (Perda) have been arranged for implimenting Islamic Sharia. The emergence of the radical Islam social organizations on a massive scale as the part of a social movement has also occurred in tandem with the democratisation since May 1998, although its seeds were sown long before.

How could this be explained? Democracy ought to make the social order more liquid, egalitarian and inclusive, but the facts show the contrary. Democracy in Indonesia is even congealing tribal and religious identities, religious diversity is being exploited, religious exclusivism is emerging. Surely this is counter-intuitive to the expectations of the democratisation. This phenomenon is like the “illicit child” whose birth is unexpected and cannot be prevented. Even killing the “illicit child” would be considered as a crime. The “illicit child” of democracy in the form of religious radicalism will become a threat to democracy.

A democracy that protects freedom of speech, thought and expression cannot impede society’s aspirations whatever the form. Like it or not, democracy cannot stifle thoughts that are themselves against democratic values, because stifling them is against the meaning of democracy itself. The mature democratic countries show that the full variety of ideologies and thoughts are protected by the state. But here is the problem, because democracy is impotent in facing religious radicalism. The democratic mechanism can only allowing radicalism to compete with other notions and ideas.

The fact that religious radicalism’s revival is often wrapped in democratic cloth is unsurprising though it is actually paradoxical to the democratic spirit. The struggle of enacting Islamic Sharia in some regions, the spirit to revive Jakarta’s Charter for instance, emerged in the name of democracy and liberty. Democracy could even be swallowed by its own freedom such that there is possibility that a nation could even fall into new forms of authoritarianism. This obviously is very dangerous because the new authoritarianism wears a democratic cloth.

From this perspective we can explain why the development of democracy in the Muslim world is always deficient as shown in the survey performed by Freedom House, a research institution at the United State. The survey at the end of 2001 concerning the freedom score for many countries showed that freedom and democracy in the Muslim countries scores very low. Out of the 47 Muslim majority countries, only 11 countries have governments that have been elected democratically. Meanwhile, in the 145 Non-Muslim countries, 110 of them have joined the electoral system. Freedom House’s score issued every year shows little significant change in the Muslim countries.

***

There is a significant questionat hand: Is there something “wrong” in the Muslim countries, so that democracy and freedom is always stagnant or non-existent? Even while democracy develops, radicalism off all sorts emerge, especially religious radicalism. Why so? There is a good explanation from Samuel P Hutington (1991) . Beside the economic and political factors, cultural and traditional factors become the most important obstacles for the democracy’s growth in a country. Society’s culture and tradition – regarding attitude, value, trust and behaviour influence democratic development. A society’s culture which is undemocratic, originating in cultural as well as religious understanding, blocks the spread of democratic norms in the society and does not give legitimacy to democratic institutions and their function.

At least there are two versions regarding this culture. Firstly, a restrictive version, which declares that it is only the western culture which is the appropriate context for the dissemination of democracy. Countries, which have no western culture, are not able to become democratic. This argument emerges due to the fact that modern democracy started in the west; hence since the beginning of the 19th century, the biggest democratic states are the western states.

Secondly, there is a less restrictive version which states that it’s not only specific cultures that uphold the democracy. Confucianism and Islamic culture in the East could become fields of democracy. Confucianism was considered as anti-democratic and anti-capitalist in the 1980’s, yet Confucianism has been able to support democracy and also the tremendous economic growth in East Asian society. Similarly Catholicism as compared to Protestantism was seen as an obstacle to democracy and economic growth. But in the 1960’s and 1970’s Catholic states become democratic and achieved higher economical growth than the Protestant states.

Observing those facts then, as far as it regards religious teaching and tradition, the conditions for the emergence of democracy cannot be see as black and white, “appropriate” and “inappropriate”. Culture and tradition, trust, doctrine, assumption, behaviour and etc., all are very complex phenomenon.

Besides, the culture that later delivers tradition is not something finished, but always in transformation. Therefore, a tradition that is claimed formerly as democracy’s obstacle, in the next generation could be the opposite. Spain is a good example of this. In the 1950’s, Spanish culture was illustrated as traditional, authoritarian, hierarchical, and very religious. But in the 1970’s those values lost their place in Spain. Therefore culture is always evolving and its most determinant factor is economic development. With this explanation obviously the factors of culture and tradition factors cannot be used as permanent arguments to justify the retarded democratic level of certain states.

***

The emergence of religious radicalism is caused by three factors. Firstly, disappointment toward the democratic system considered as secular, where religion has no space in the state. Religion is a private matter that cannot be interfered in, while the state is a public matter. The democratic teaching that placed the people’s voice as the God’s voice (vox populi vox dei) is considered to be subordinate to God. Therefore, religious radicalism movements usually take the form of Islamic state struggle, theocracy or Theo-democracy in al-Maududi’s terms. Although the radical group are disappointed with the democratic system, they utilize democratic momentum to struggle for their political aspirations.

Secondly, disappointment toward the social system’s collapse is caused by the state’s powerlessness to manage society’s life religiously. In the Islamic context, this kind of religious radicalism usually take the from of Islamization of social systems by enforcing strict controls over social activities considered as maksiat (sinful) or as violating religion. This kind of radicalism can be expressed in the form of the destruction of places destruction, prostitution, gambling etc.

Thirdly, political injustice. Religious radicalism can appear as a form of resistance toward political systems which are oppressive and unfair. In the case of a group which is incessantly oppressed and treated unfairly, its internal solidarity allows for a militancy to emerge. This kind of radicalism usually takes the form of opposition toward the government in the name of religion.

Religious radicalism emerged in Indonesia as a variation and mixture of these models considered above. In a democratic state, religious radicalism, as long as it does not result in social anarchy, should be given a space of expression. Therefore, the question of the role of the state is not about how to stifle that radicalism, but how to channel it through political institutions. If that is done, religious radicalism can still be be controlled within a democratic frame.


BY: Rumadi
MORE.....

Colorful Islam

The message called on the Muslim community to reject the idea of a single view of Islam because this belief can be used to justify certain groups actions while denying other groups the right to hold their own views. The idea of a many-faceted Islam was designed to encourage pluralism and social diversity.

The public service advertisement “Colorful
Islam” which was prominently displayed several weeks ago on Indonesia’s two
biggest national television stations, RCTI and SCTV, suddenly disappeared. As
communicated through the media, those in charge of both television stations
declared that they had decided to withdraw the advertisement because of threats
from the Majelis Mujahidin, an Islamic organization taking a hard line in the
campaign against Islamic reform.

Many people have criticized this. They
argue that the attitude of Majelis Mujahidin is one of arrogance. How can one
group claim the sole right to interpret Islam? Thus many parties feel that RCTI
and SCTV have been “irresponsible” especially in that they simply withdrew the advertisment
without discussing the retraction with Utan Kayu’s Islamic community (KIUK),
the group which sponsored the advertisement.

Widespread objection to this event has been
expressed amongst members of the group Liberal Islam. I don’t want to prolong
the debate about the anxiety and the reactionary nature behind this decision by
both televisions. In this limited space, I just want to explain the origin of
the advertizing slogan and to what extent the term “Colorful Islam” phrase can
held accountable for being offensive to anti-reformist Islamic groups. I was
involved in the preparation of the advertisement with other members of KIUK. We
discussed and thought over every word deeply and why such ideas should have
been advertized. The phrase “Colorful Islam” was the final option we came up
with after very careful consideration.

The message conveyed through that
advertisement was that Islam is not a single monolithic entity but a religous
belief open to different interpretations. The message called on the Muslim
community to reject the idea of a single view of Islam because this belief can
be used to justify certain groups actions while denying other groups the right
to hold their own views. The idea of a many-faceted Islam was designed to encourage
pluralism and social diversity.

In the modern world, slogans are essential.
They are not simply effective phrases for transmitting messages but serve as
psychological jargon for the audience as well. The KIUK staff, who work with
the mass media, obviously understood the psychological significance behind the
choice of the slogan. “Colorful Islam” is not just an exotic selection of
words, but a slogan based on theological (kalamiyyah), Islamic
jurisprudential (fiqhiyyah), and sociological (ijtimaiyyah) arguments
as described in the plan for the advertisement. The slogan was the result of
careful contemplation over Islamic doctrine and history.

Theologically, Islam has many forms. Since
the death of Prophet Muhammad, Muslim communities have always held a variety of
beliefs (Aqeeda) regarding divinity, prophecy, revelation, and other
immaterial matters. Islam is by its nature diverse, for example, in the forms
of Murjiah, Syiah, Khawarij, Muktazilah, and Ahlussunnah. The Fiqh tradition in
particular highlights diversity in endorsing the doctrine of aktsaru min qaulayn
(to hold more than two opinions). This means that there is always a
possibility of other’s truth outside of our own beliefs of what constitutes
truth.

One Prophetic tradition says: la yafqahu al-rajulu
hatta yara fi al-qur’ani wujuhan katsiratan (someone is not considered as faqih
until he observes many aspects of the Qur’an). Accepting different views is
at the core of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) teaching. ThusAziz Azmah, a
Syrian intellectual, writes that: “sociologically we cannot talk about the one
Islam, but Islams” (Islams and Modernities, 1996). Indeed, there are many forms
of Islam in the modern world: NU Islam, Muhammadiyah Islam, FPI Islam, Wahaby
Islam, Laskar Jihad Islam, Liberal Islam, and so on.

Ever since the time of the Prophet, Islam
has existed in the form of many beliefs, or symbolically speaking—in many
colors. This colorfulness in Islam is not a problem which should be regretted
or criticized. But, on the contrary, as said by the prophet, it must be
appreciated because it is part of Allah’s blessing (ikhtilafu ummati rahmah).

Al Qur’an itself reminds us clearly that
the diversity in Islam was deliberately made by Allah. In sura Hud (11) verse
118-119 and sura al-Ma’idah (5) verse 51, Allah clearly denies the unitary view
(wahidah) and on the contrary emphasizes diversity (mukhtalifin). Thus denying
a colorful Islam involves the denial of the sunnah given by Allah in the Al Qur’an.

BY: Luthfi Assyaukanie
MORE.....

Why Anti-Americanism?

Bush’s response fails to explain the anti-Americanism that is growing in Arab countries. Bush statement even confirms one belief is frequently affirmed about America that it is increasingly inwardly oriented. Moreover their mass media is parochial rather than global, it is not sensitive to the outside world, especially the Islamic world. When they were attacked, their myth of isolation was destroyed. Subsequently, their comprehension of global anti-Americanism remains insufficient as seen in George W. Bush’s response.

A year after the 11th September tragedy, anti-American sentiment within Arab and Muslim countries is on the increase. For example, in The Jakarta Post several days ago, a report claimed that although many Muslim societies have conveyed their sympathy towards the victims of the WTC tragedy, hatred towards the US is escalating. Large numbers of Egyptian people, for instance, are expressing their rage toward the US due to its policy regarding Israel and Iraq. In Syria, the newspaper Tishrin has even claimed that it is Arab nations who have paid “the highest price” for the 11 September, while Israel is free-riding the campaign against terrorism by unjustifiably comparing the Palestinian struggle with terrorism. Even in Kuwait, which in 1991 crowned the US as the liberator in the Iraq invasion, people now take Osama bin Laden for a hero.

Where does this anti-Americanism come from? Why do people hate America? A year ago, following 9-11, many Americans ask themselves these questions. As President George W. Bush, in his statement before the congress on the 20th September 2001 said: “Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate our freedom—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” According to Bush, the hatred towards the US is a hatred of freedom. Others would argue that the terrorists hate the US because of their jealousy of America’s wealth and supremacy.

This kind of answer might partially explain why the flames of American patriotism have burnt so brightly over the last year during the war against the international terrorism’s network. Indeed for the US, the idea of freedom is at the heart of their identity, so when it is attacked the spirit of patriotism becomes inflamed.

Bush’s response fails to explain the anti-Americanism that is growing in Arab countries. Bush statement even confirms one belief is frequently affirmed about America that it is increasingly inwardly oriented. Moreover their mass media is parochial rather than global, it is not sensitive to the outside world, especially the Islamic world. When they were attacked, their myth of isolation was destroyed. Subsequently, their comprehension of global anti-Americanism remains insufficient as seen in George W. Bush’s response.

The anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is not in the main generated by an abhorrence of American freedom, and not by jealousy towards American prosperity, but due to the deep frustration toward the US policy over the Middle East, which is constantly based on short-term American interests.

US policy in the Middle East is based on access to 2/3 of the world’s reserves of oil and natural gas. At the same time, minimal attention is given to the democratization process there. The US frivolously supports the secular authoritarian regimes that are corrupt and repressive as long as they can maintain stability and sustain production. Islamic regimes that are undemocratic and oppress human rights but maintain American interests such as Saudi Arabia are considered as partners. In other words, what matters are US interests, and not democratization or human rights.

Another feature that decreases US honor in the Muslim world is the lenient and passive attitude toward the Palestiain affair. The state terrorism that is practiced by Israel upon the Palestinians is obvious but the US seems to merely understand the Israel’s justification for state terrorism that it is a form of self-defense. Meanwhile, the US agrees with Israel’s view that Palestine’s resistance is terrorism.

I think the Palestinian affair is one of the main reasons driving anti American sentiment. This sentiment has deepened particularly after the Arab defeat in the six day war against Israel in 1967 in which the US supported Israel. This defeat was the lowest point of Arab dignity in recent history.

This anti-American sentiment could have been hardly imagined as emerging in the 1950s or beginning of 1960s because at that time the US was a model for Arab nation’s progress. A famous Egyptian journalist Mohammad Heikal illustrates the mood of that period very well: “The total picture of the United States of America… is a glamour world… British emporium and France has been faded and hated. The Soviet Union is so far away, and the communism ideology is anathema for the Muslim. But America after the Second World War appear as the more prosperous, more powerful and more attractive than before.”

The re-evaluation of US policy in the Middle East, especially in regards to Palestine should be reconsidered if they want to fight terrorism. The US should ask itself, using the title of Bernard Lewis latest book “what went wrong?” Lewis also suggests that the Muslim world should similarly ask themselves “What went wrong?” How could the 9-11 terrorists have been born among them?

It is unnecessary for the Muslim to deny that there is something pathologically wrong with the Muslim community as exemplified by the Al-Qaida network, Abu Sayyaf Group and etcetera. These terrorist groups have hijacked Islam for their own objective by impressing the world that they are the true bearers of the face of Islam. To cure this kind of disease, resorting to ideas of a Western conspiracy against Islam is contra productive. The right attitude is admitting to the pathology and healing it by promoting an alternative image of Islam as friendly, pluralist and inclusive.

Nevertheless, Muslim introspection should be matched by American introspection regarding its attitude to the Middle East affair. America should have been supporting the democratic and pluralistic regimes and upholding civil society in the Middle East. Secondly, America should be more open to the suggestions of Arab society concerning Israel and be more emphatic toward Palestinan suffering.

These two preventive actions would be effective in the long-term in reducing terrorism. Through committing themselves to democracy and the freedom of expression, the Islamic movements could moderate their views and by entering into a dialectic with democracy reject terrorism. If they could gain support democratically, the terrorists would find themselves alienated.

That sort of alienation is what is happening now within the al Qaeda network. On this point, Gilles Kepel’s analysis is enlightening. In his latest book, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, this French sociologist reverses the public assumption that the terrorist attack on America last year represents a growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism. According to Kepel, that attack is instead a sign of the bankruptcy of the radical Islam movements, that such acts are “symbolic of the despair due to the isolation, fragmentation, and the declination of the Islam movement, and not the sign of its power and greatness.

Ironically, the US is not asking, “what went wrong. Their approach against terrorism is unilateral and works on the principal that “whoever is not with us is our enemy.” The US also insists on categorizing Iraq and Iran as the axis of evil and subsequently planed the invasion of Iraq even though none of the WTC terrorists came from either country. Saddam Hussein is certainly a repressive tyrant but attacking Iraq now would only uphold its position. Moreover everyone knows that Iran, through the leadership of moderate president Khatami is clearing a path towards democracy. History does not side with the Mullah as in Iran now. But what can be done about it? The US has been blind on this matter.

Whereas the US has been working out a more romantic relationship with Saudi Arabia even though the fact is that 15 out of 19 of the WTC terrorists were identified as Saudi nationals. The US does not want to damage their relationship with the Saudis because their interests are being fulfilled there.

The excessive fear of terrorism has also led the US to give priority to security issues above everything else, even at the risk of sacrificing civil liberties and human’s rights. In the name of the fight against terrorism, thousands of people could be arrested and interrogated secretly without any access to legal assistance. In the name of the fight against the terrorism, hundreds of Taliban captive have been brought to Guantanamo without sufficient human rights safeguards. And in the name of the truth, the US supports the third world’s military including the Indonesian military despite their human rights problems as long as they are capable of arresting anyone accused of being a terrorist.

In conclusion, this campaign against terrorism ends up being used by authoritarian rulers to suppress political pposition. So the government of China for instance, dares to prosecute the Uighur Muslim resistance in Xinjiang province. The government of Singapore is using ISA to arrest anyone considered as terrorist and Mahathir in Malaysia as well as president Nursultan Nazarbaev in Kazakhstan and Askar Akaev from Kirgizstan are using it to suppress the opposition. Last but not least, in the name of anti terrorism, Ariel Sharon has used it to increase the intensity of the attack on Palestinians.

If America continues down this road, the chain of terrorism will not be cut, instead, its seeds will find fertile ground to grow in. Don’t be surprised then if anti Americanism doesn’t vanish but grows instead.


by: Ahmad Sahal
MORE.....

Islam is a hybrid religion

There is also no such thing as a pure Arabic language and the Qur’an’s language is itself a hybrid of many languages. According to an Arabian ulama who lived 1100 years ago, in his book Al-Mu’arrab, there are many central terms derived from other languages. For instance the word and term shirath; al-shirath al-mustaqim (the straight path) is derived from the Latin language strada. Al-qisth (justice) is derived from the Greek Qisth which in the English language became just. Qishtash is justice. In short, the Arabic language of the Qur’an is not pure Arabic.

I have just come from Los Angeles
and Berkeley to join an activity regarding Indonesia at both universities, Berkeley
and UCLA. There is a mixed feeling from the outsiders’ point of view toward the
diversity of Indonesia. On one hand there are hopes, on the other hand there
are worries. The problem now is to manifest and increase those hopes and reduce
the worries, and to eliminate it at all if we could.

For example concerning Islam. Indonesia
now is hit by several symptoms that are identified by the westerners as
extremism or fundamentalism. They are very worried of these symptoms. But
whenever we remind them that those all are occurring in the civil liberties
arena, their worries decreased. All the appeared symptoms recently are a part
of the freedom of discussing or liberty discourse. By these liberty discourse,
its not only the clarities which is achieved, but also the process of
relativisation, and even the process of devaluation.

For example: Jihad. Nowadays
jihad becomes a word that is a part of common discourse. In the discussions
about jihad, the productiveness to make an argument belonged by them who are
reading. For who are not, even if they regularly use jihad as rhetoric, sooner
or later lose its base and balance. Then, the word jihad that had been
terrifying formerly, now undertaking the clarifications. By that clarification,
the devaluation upon the meaning of jihad occurred as public rhetoric, and
therefore become merely daily issues.

During the ‘eighties there was an
Islamic revival. Today however the Islamic world is experiencing a crisis. Part
of this lies in its confrontational attitude or feeling towards the West. I
call this a “feeling”, because the actual confrontation does not exist. What
exists is the perception as the result of historical experience, which is
rhetorically repeated: the crusades, invasion, etcetera. So that matter
precipitates within the Muslim’s consciousness and what emerges is a symptom
that appears as anti-Western.

Actually it is an anomaly,
because the Qur’an itself indicates that when the world was divided into Rome
(west) and Persia (east), the Muslims sided with Rome, and not with Persia.
Similarly the surah Al Rum, which delivered the news to the prophet Muhammad’s
followers about the defeat of Rome by the Persians, made the people of Mecca,
the prophet’s enemies happy. Although geographically Arabia was connected with Persia,
much of Arab Jazeera endured Persianisation. Nevertheless, the heart of Muslim
is actually closer to that of Rome because of the connection with the
Christianity.

That potential for conflict is
conveyed by scholars like Simon van Den Berg, the interpreter of the polemic
book of Averroes, Tahafut al-Tahafut, which is so famous and which has
influenced the ways of thinking of many Muslims. In the preface, van Den Berg
said that this connection is one important feature of Islam that Westerners do
not understand. He said: “if it is true that we could say the western culture
is actually Maria Sopra Minerva –the Christian religion adapted to local
cultural conditions — then the Islam is also built upon Greek culture. So, what
is called as Kalam science (logic), theologia, is an adaptation –at
least from the methodological side- of the Greek philosopher’s Aristotlean way
of thinking.

The people called ahlussunah
waljama’ah were followers of al-Asy’ari whose definition of God is very
Aristotelian. For example, we have the sayings of wajib, mubah (allowed),and mustahil (impossible) and think of God as eternal (qadim).
Logically God must be qadim which must be alpha, meaning having
no beginning and making it impossible for God to be jadee (new) or
preceded by his non-existence. So the words wajib and mustahil, which
are central to the kalam discourse among the ahlussunah, are based in
Aristotelian logic.

According to Ibn Taimiyah, God’s
20 Aristotlean attributes are bid’ah. It is true that God is qadim, but,
Ibn taimiyah said, “so what?” rationally it is true, but what is the
function? In those 20 attributes, ghafur (the merciful) and wadud (the
lover) are excluded. The reason is because it is impossible to formulate
through Aristotelian logic that “God rationally must be merciful” though
that God exists without beginning can be understood rationally.

Islamic culture is an amalgam, a
hybrid of several cultures. Consider the mosque as the most basic example. At
Pondok Indah there is a mosque called the blue mosque. There is no mihrab
(chamber) and no small place for an imam in the front. Why? Because its architect,
Ismail Sufyan, believed that the mihrab imitates the structure of churches.
But if he is to take this to its logical completion, there should be no minaret
or tower because the minaret is an adaptation from Persian Zoroastrian
architecture. “Manarah” means the fireplace, because the Zoroastrians understand
God as a substance that cannot be illustrated. So they symbolized him in terms
of fire as fire is a substance that is beyond description. That is why Zoroastrians
are often thought to be fire worshippers. To strengthen the holiness of fire, the
fire is kept in a high building, called manarah, the fireplace, thus the
derivation of the word “minaret”. This explanation has been completely
distorted in the popular saying: when the baby prophet Muhammad was born, the
minaret of the Zoroastrians fell.

So, when the Islamic ummah
developed and the sound of the azan (call to prayer realted to azan meaning
in the high place)was intended to reach the widest radius as possible,
the architects borrowed this feature of Zoroastrian architecture. In the
prophet’s time, azan’s simply used the roofs, for example as in the case
of Bilal, the muezzin of the Prophet. Thus the story of how the minaret became part
of Islamic culture is another example of the hybrid nature of Islam as well as
the fact that culture is not an exclusive and monolithic phenomenon but complex
and constantly changing.

There is also no such thing as a pure
Arabic language and the Qur’an’s language is itself a hybrid of many languages.
According to an Arabian ulama who lived 1100 years ago, in his book Al-Mu’arrab,
there are many central terms derived from other languages. For instance the
word and term shirath; al-shirath al-mustaqim (the straight path)
is derived from the Latin language strada. Al-qisth (justice) is
derived from the Greek Qisth which in the English language became just.
Qishtash is justice. In short, the Arabic language of the Qur’an is
not pure Arabic.

There is also Malay language
Inside the Qur’an: kafur. In an illustration “we would be given in heaven
a beverage of kafur.” (wayusqauna biha ka’san kana mizajuha kafura).
Kafur was at that time an important commodity in the Middle East,
possibly even so in the age of prophet Solomon. The term kafur barus was
not used for bedbug as we use it nowadays, but as a word for an expensive
beverage imported from Barus. “Kafur” thus served as a symbol of luxury in the
Qur’an. Thus you can see that words and their meanings can even dramatically change
over time and that culture is definitely not monolithic and static. Everything
is hybrid.

by: Nurcholish Madjid
MORE.....