Bambang Subandrijo
Christian-Muslim relations in Indonesia
Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. They form about 88 percent of the whole of Indonesia’s population (around 240 million people),1 whereas Christians (consisting of several denominations) make up about eight percent of it.2 The remaining four percent comprises some other such as Balinese Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and various ethnic religions. Living in heterogeneity is supposed to be a blessing for the people of Indonesia. Yet, relations among adherents of various religions, especially between Muslims and Christians, have often slipped into a tense situation. Generally, the pattern of their relationship was more dominated by separation, suspicion, and mutual exclusion, than friendship and mutual understanding.3 The tension between the two communities has for some while been getting worse, and has even produced violence over the centuries.
Some factors have aggravated Christian-Muslim relations in Indonesia. Firstly, since the coming of Christianity to Indonesia in the sixteenth century up to the present, it can be said that there has never been any official Christian-Muslim dialogue organized deliberately and intentionally to foster mutual understanding between their adherents. In the course of the Dutch colonialism, the government practiced the principle of separation of religion and state.4 The colonial government required religious institutions not to practice political activities, but to be merely in charge of only religious affairs. The most important concern of the government was to keep social stability for the benefit of its commerce and political interest. Therefore, evangelization areas for Christian missionary institutions were regulated as such in order to prevent religious rivalry that could trigger the outbreak of horizontal conflict within society. Social instability would damage the commerce and political interest of the colonial government.5 In such a condition, in fact, both the government and the religious institutions did not pay attention to official interfaith dialogue and never held dialogue as such.
As a result, institutionally, Islam and Christianity remained alien to one another. Even if there was any strong relationship among individuals within society, it was not the result of good interfaith relationship, but driven by ethnical and cultural commitment that works locally instead. Such a condition persisted until Indonesia got its independence. From the very beginning, the founding fathers of this country who were secular nationalists intended to build Indonesia as a modern state, not as an Islamic state based on Islamic shari’a. Compromising, they accepted Pancasila (the Five Principles of National Ideology proclaimed by President Soekarno on June 1, 1945)6 as the national principle of the new republic. Each social group either religiously or politically then established their respective organizations. Steenbrink, therefore, delineates the people of Indonesia in the early years of its independence until the sixties as a ‘compartmentalized society’ or ‘society of groups,’ although they all agreed to take shelter under the national principle, Pancasila.7 However, it does not mean that with the Pancasila authentic interfaith dialogues among the people of Indonesia will occur automatically. Each religious group remains a foreigner for the other, and they do not know each other rightly.
During the New Order there was a little change in policy. In those days, for the sake of development, mainly economic development, religious institutions were depoliticized. Their role in political affairs was cut as much as possible. Under Soeharto there was indeed little change in socio-religious life. In 1967, Indonesia’s government made an effort to organize an interfaith dialogue by holding a meeting, the so-called Konsultasi Antaragama (Interfaith Consultation), which was in 1980 endorsed as the Wadah Musyawarah Antarumat Beragama (Inter-religious Communities Meeting Forum).8 In fact, however, rather than promoting mutual understanding among religious communities, this effort was more political. The intention was to prevent the rise of various social problems, frictions, divisions, and disputes in society that had the potential to disturb political stability and the performance of state-led development. Such an official government policy is nothing more than to make the static distance among religions unchanging.
This interfaith alienation is worsened by their adherents’ unfavourable prejudices against one another. On the one hand, Christianity, at least until the end of the twentieth century, still inherited the traditional arrogance, which regarded itself as superior over other religions or cultures. With such an attitude, non-Christian religions or cultures were seen as unequal partners of dialogue. In a fragmented way, later studies of religions and theological reflections of some Indonesian Christian theologians focused their attention more on Kejawen and pre-Islamic development in Indonesia than on Islam itself.9 Thorough and free of prejudice study of Islam in order to understand its truth objectively has not been done seriously. On the other hand, some Muslims see Christianity as a religion that stands close together with colonialism, so that it is viewed as infidel. Some writings of Muslim scholars tend to continue the old debate with Christianity about controversial issues such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and his death and crucifixion. The different theological viewpoint on those issues shares in deepening the doctrinal gap between Islam and Christianity more and more.10
Secondly, both religions are missionary in character. Their adherents feel they are obligated to pass around and to spread their religion. From a Christian point of view, based on traditional interpretation of the gospel of Matthew 28:16-20, evangelization of all nations is for Christians understood as ‘the Great Commission’ God has thrust upon them. More or less, this awareness of their mission leads to self-superiority, that Christianity surpasses all religions and cultures. All people and all nations are regarded as the target of evangelization. For centuries, evangelization was understood as a movement of Christianization that makes every endeavour to bring others by conversion to Christianity. Perception of Christian superiority over Islam has also coloured the motivation of evangelization in Indonesia, since the period of Dutch colonialism, perhaps to the present.11
There is also for Muslims a duty to undertake missionary works, the socalled syi’ar Islam (spreading the truth of Islam) and da’wa (inviting others to Islam). According to QS Āl ‘Imrān 3:19, Islam is the only system of life or way of life that is obligated for all humankind. Allah has declared that He would not accept any way of life (ad-Dien) but Islam (QS Āl ‘Imrān 3:85). Islam is the final religion God sent down, and therefore, the previous religions are not valid anymore and all men are obliged to be followers of Islam until the coming of the Judgment Day. Islam is the straightway that must be followed by humankind, whereas the other ways (religions), on the contrary, separate man from the way of God (QS Al-An’ām 6:153). Muslims believe that Islam is an integral system that is able to lead humankind to material and spiritual well-being, and earthly and heavenly welfare. This welfare can only be reached through two kinds of victories: personal victory (futuh khassah), i.e. individual devotion, and political victory (futuh ‘ammah), i.e. collective devotion. In order to reach the two victories Muslims should carry on a systemic da’wa continuously. Da’wa, which is actually a process of transformation and reformation heading toward Islamic rules of life, has a function to bring humankind back to God’s guidance.12 Therefore, syi’ar Islam and da’wa for all people and all nations must be conducted continuously.
Some adherents, especially the leaders, of both religions feel they carry out a task to spread their respective religion. They, therefore, consider all who belong to another faith as not having been on the right way, and make them the target of their missionary endeavour. Without openness to recognize the other’s truth or, at least, to understand the other’s faith correctly, each tends to place the other unequally, and sees the other only as an object of da’wa or evangelization. In other words, more or less, every effort to spread religion is usually accompanied by self-arrogance and, at the same time, the humiliation of the other. Because of their missionary character, clashes occasionally arise among their adherents in various levels.
Thirdly, theologically each claims that its faith is the only way to the ultimate truth. The result is that the path towards a better relationship between them is narrowed down. Christianity claims to be the owner of the way of salvation, whereas Islam claims to be the way of truth or the true way of life. Their opinion and attitude to one another are often justified by some verses of their respective Holy Book, which they use for certain purposes (e.g. John 14:6 for Christians, and QS Al-Tawbah 9:29 for Muslims). Official teaching of the church, at least until the 1960s, Catholic or Reformed, claimed that Christianity had a monopoly of truth, and there was no salvation outside the church. With such an understanding, missionaries were sent to save the souls that had lost their eternal life. The assumption was that Christianity should be spread to the whole world in order to substitute for all non-Christian traditions.13 In the past, Christian leaders generally thought of the non-Christian world as potential recipients of the divine grace that was coming through the evangelists the church sent out to them.14 Therefore, Missiology was often defined as a branch of theology which in encounter with other faiths has a task to show the excellence of Christianity as the Way, Truth, and Life, a branch of theology which attempts to annul non-Christian faiths and to instill the evangelical faith and Christian life.15 In fact, such a claim still haunts most Christians and colors the outlooks of many churches, including those in Indonesia. According to John Hick, Christian absolutism has much poisoned the relations between the Christian minority and the non-Christian majority by sanctifying exploitation and oppression on large scale.16 We should have understood that Christianity is not a set of beliefs or an ecclesiastical organization, but a response of discipleship to Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, the primary task of Christians is not to argue about theological ideas, but to try to relay to others the impact of Jesus of Nazareth.17 Without saying whether John Hick’s opinion is right or wrong, it cannot be denied that the Christian feeling of superiority has contributed to the lack of harmony in Muslim-Christian relations. Superiority feeling, however, is not only found among Christians. There is also the exclusive claim among Muslims that Islam is the good authority of truth that prevails universally. They believe that the Qur’ān is a book containing the literal Word of God. It covers a wide variety of human affairs.
Thus, Islam as a complete way of life rooted in the Qur’ān is the only guidance to truth. In other words, the source of Islam is Allah, the Creator of everything known and unknown to humankind. Allah has taught man about Islam via the Qur’ān and the Sunnah, which were transmitted to humanity via His messenger, Muhammad bin Abdullah. Allah states in the Qur’ān that the way of life called Islam is for all people [QS Al-Anbiyā 21:197 reads:“And We (Allah) have not sent you (Muhammad) but as a mercy to the world,” and QS Saba’ 34:28 states, “We have not sent you but as a universal (messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings, and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not”]. Thus, Islam is a universal appeal to Arabs and non-Arabs.
If each claim is made absolute, then there will be no space for recognizing or accepting the other’s truth. There will be no possibility for holding authentic dialogue, which helps humankind to develop an adequate way of thinking and a religious attitude that provides true guidance for dealing with the world problems of today. The sense of togetherness among different religious communities will be segregated and there will be no authentic harmony among them. In order to head for peaceful coexistence in the future, it requires great courage to cut the obstacle of absolute exclusivity.
Fourthly, Christianity and Islam have different understandings of God and Christ, which theologically often trap them in a strained relation. Besides, there are internal differences of Christological thought within Christianity itself that often cause disputes. These doctrinal differences are one of the theological obstacles for Muslim-Christian relations, which more or less share in increasing hatred to one another. On the one hand, ‘the doctrine about God in the Qur’ān is rigorously monotheistic: God is one and unique; He has no partner and no equal. Trinitarianism, the Christian belief that God is three persons in one substance, is vigorously repudiated.’18 Islam, therefore, questions Christian belief in the deity of Jesus Christ. From its perspective of tawhīd (the doctrine of the oneness of God), Islam finds it hard to understand Jesus as God. If he is God, then there is more than one God. It is contrary to the tawhīd. For Islamic believers, the doctrine of tawhīd, or affirming the oneness of God, is a major theological expression of belief in the Divine unity. The Qur’ān explicitly states that God is transcendent and beyond the sense of perception: nothing is able to represent him (QS Al- Shura 42:11) and no vision can grasp Him, although His grasp is over all vision and He is above all comprehension [QS Al-An’am 6:103].19 The Qur’ān understands God as the Exclusive and Absolute Being, Who has no equal fellow.20 “He is Allah,21 the One and Only; …. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him” (QS Al-Ikhlās 112:1-4). This Sura states clearly that God has no son and that no son can be God, although in the Arabic language of the Qur’ān ‘son’ needs not mean only a direct male issue or descendant. “How can He have a son when He hath no consort …?” (QS Al-An’am 6:101). There are many verses of the Qur’ān that, directly and frankly, state its objection to the Christian faith that Jesus is divine and the Son of God. Those verses suggest that imagining God having a wife and sexual intercourse with her will be absolute folly. Besides, its Scripture, the Qur’ān, denies Christ as a divine Son of God, but He was a prophet for the Israelites.
On the other hand, the doctrine of the Trinity is the core of the Christian faith. We may even say that Christian religion is the Trinitarian religion. The doctrine of the Trinity is dealing with the Christian faith in the incarnation, the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God incarnate. John Hick describes Christianity as the ‘incarnation faith’ and even regards both as synonymous.22 ‘Incarnation’ is a technical term used by the early church to express her understanding about Jesus as ‘the Word, who became flesh and made His dwelling among us’ (Jn. 1:14) or ‘He, who appeared in a body’ (1 Ti. 3:16).23 The very core of the church’s confession is that the true God became the true man in Jesus Christ. She confesses that her Christ is the real Jesus, who is the Son of God, man and God at the same time. The official statement of the early church (Nicaea 325) stated that the second person of the divine Trinity had assumed human nature, but it did not mean that God turned into a man or a man turned into God. In order to clarify this statement, she developed the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus, divine and human, which were combined unmingled and inseparably in one person (Chalcedon 451).24
Fifthly, there is the possibility of distortion of the historical facts. It is important to keep in mind that historical fact can indeed be interpreted differently. It can be distorted to yield more than one interpretation and can be given particular constructions to perpetuate attitudes totally at variance with another view of reality. From the Christian point of view, although Christianity came to Indonesia via missionaries who came from the state of colonizer, it does not immediately mean that it is identical with the colonizer itself, or that Christianity is the religion of the colonizer. One’s religion or faith should be treated differently from his government policy. Christianity that was brought in by missionaries should also be treated differently from the political policy of the state they came from. It, indeed, cannot be denied that religion or faith can influence one’s way of thinking, including the manner of exercising the power of the one who is in charge. Nevertheless, it is going too far to naively identify the citizen’s faith with its government political policy. Christians in Indonesia, therefore, reject the opinion that Christianity is the religion of colonizer.
This is different from some Indonesian Muslims’ view that sees that the spread of Christianity in Indonesia in the past was walking side by side with the expansion of colonialism. They consider Christian zending as one of the important factors of the process of colonialism. They are even of the opinion that colonialism and religious expansion showed a symbiotic tendency that supported one another. The government of the Netherlands East Indies thought optimistically that they could contain the influence of Islam on its colony through the effort of Christianization.25 Historical interpretation of some Indonesian ‘ulamā concerning the relation between the Dutch colonialism and the growth of Christianity in Indonesia led them to hatred of Christians. According to Muhammad Damami, the Dutch colonialism in Indonesia was motivated by the ‘three Gs’: ‘Gold,’ ‘Glory,’ and ‘Gospel,’ or ‘three Ms’: ‘Merchant’, ‘Military’, and ‘Missionary.’ In addition to political motivation to dominate their colony (Glory), and economic motivation to exploit and extort the wealth of their colony by trading (Gold), there was also religious motivation of the colonialists to pass their Christian faith around the people of the colony, for converting them to Christianity (Gospel).26 The arrival of colonialism has also destroyed the bases of culture, civilization, and religiosity, especially Islam in Indonesia.27 Such a view aroused suspicion and became one of obstacles for Muslim-Christian relations in Indonesia. Moreover, no doubt, there are other historical experiences and inheritances, which have harmed the harmony of relation between Muslims and Christians in Indonesia.
Sixthly, those previous five factors are often used by certain individuals or groups as instruments for their own objectives and political interests. They provoke confrontation; even spark bloody fighting among their adherents. As a result, potential tension within Christian-Muslim relations often ignites, and costly clashes break out (such as the riots of Situbondo-East Java and Tasik Malaya-West Java in 1996, Rengasdengklok-West Java in 1997, and the religious conflicts, which occur in Moluccas and Poso, Central Celebes since the end of the twentieth century until today). It is indeed difficult to confirm who are responsible for those riots and conflicts, and what their political motivation is. However, one of the clues that there is a political background behind those incidents is the fact that up to now, very few has ever been brought to court for the many casualties and material damages that have been resulted, and there is no law enforcement and exhaustive legal resolution of those conflicts. We have in this writing no intention to find a solution to this problem, because it is not the purpose of this study. Further investigation of who are responsible for those riots is properly executed by a neutral and independent investigator who does not take the side of any (political or religious) group; and the task to settle those conflicts and to find a durable solution of the problem is the right and authority of the law enforcement officials.
Besides political objectives, heterogeneity of ethnicities, cultures, and regionalisms are also often triggering conflicts among society, which eventually also come to involve religious conflicts. This could happen because the people of Indonesia tend to be segregated into religious entities. For example, the Eastern Region of Indonesia and Tanah Batak – North Sumatra are often associated with Christian population as majority, whereas the rest of Sumatra, particularly Nangroe Aceh Darussalam and West Sumatra, South Celebes, and Java are associated with Muslim areas.
Doctrinal obstacles
Considering the various factors above, we realize that the causes of the strained relation between Muslims and Christians in Indonesia are complicated, and every effort to improve this condition is impossible if it is referred to only one single factor, but all factors must be considered comprehensively. Without ignoring the other factors, this study deliberately tries to focus the attention only on doctrinal differences between the two faiths, especially concerning the doctrine of God and Christology. For Christians, on the one hand, Christology is the very core of the Christian faith. It is the specialized doctrine developed over the course of church history to answer Jesus question to his disciples in Caesarea Philippi: ‘Who do you say that I am?’28 The most primitive confession had been ‘Jesus is Lord’ (Ro. 10:9; Phil. 2:11). On the other hand, however, for Muslims, the general Christian conviction that Jesus was divine as well as human is a denial of the belief in the oneness of God. Deifying Jesus is mushrik,29 a fundamental and unforgivable sin in Islam.
As said before, these doctrines more or less contribute to the theologicaltension between Muslims and Christians in Indonesia, because each grounds their view on verses of their respective Scripture, which is believed to be the inerrant source of truth. Unfortunately, this issue is almost never discussed, because of its sensitivity. Talking about doctrine can easily hurt other’s feelings easily, because doctrine is related to faith. However, avoiding discussing it can bring about misunderstanding that will never be cleared up. In my opinion, therefore, Muslims and Christians must have the courage to carry out doctrinal studies on some of their teachings that are under dispute. In this way, some doctrinal misunderstanding between the two faiths, especially concerning God and Christology, may be cleared up.
Notes
1 It is an estimation based on the 2000 population census of Indonesia (which at that time was 206,264,595 people) with a birth rate 1.26% per year. See the statistics of Indonesian people of the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) of Indonesia.
2 Publication of Department of Human Resources of the Republic of Indonesia.
3 Alwi Shihab, “Hubungan Islam dan Kristen Memasuki Abad 21” in Komaruddin Hidayat and Ahmad Gaus A.F. (eds.), Passing Over, Melintasi Batas Agama (Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama bekerjasama dengan Yayasan Wakaf Paramadina, 1998), pp. 317-318.
4 Actually, Islam does not recognize separation of religion and state, because for Islam, the Creator is very much concerned with all aspects of human life, including political, social, economic, and other aspects of life. For Muslims, Islam is a complete way of life. Muslims prefer to call Islam a way of life rather than a religion, in order to avoid the non-Islamic concept that among others separates religion and state.
5 Cf. Jan Sihar Aritonang, Sejarah Perjumpaan Kristen dan Islam di Indonesia (Jakarta: BPK Gunung Mulia, 2004), pp. 79-80.
6 These are the English version of Five Principles according to the official Ministry of Information: (1) Belief in the one and only God; (2) A just and civilized humanity; (3) The unity of Indonesia; (4) Democracy guided by the inner wisdom in the unanimity arising out of deliberations among representatives; (5) Social justice for the whole of the Indonesian people. See Alan M. Stevens and A. Ed. Schmidgall-Tellings, A Comprehensive Indonesian-English Dictionary (Athens-Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2004), p. 700.
7 Karel Steenbrink, Dutch Colonialism and Indonesian Islam, Contacts and Conflicts 1596-1950 (Amsterdam-Atlanta, Rodopi B.V., 1993), p. 144.
8 Steenbrink, Dutch Colonialism and Indonesian Islam, p. 145.
9 For examples: J.W.M. Bakker (he used the pseudonym Rahmat Subagyo for a different book about Javanese mysticism) with his book Agama Asli Indonesia (Jogjakarta: Pro Manuscripto, 1969); Fransz Magnis Suseno with his work Etika Orang Jawa (Jakarta: Sinar Harapan, 1984); Y.B. Banawiratma with his book Yesus Sang Guru (Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 1977); and Harun Hadiwijono with his work Man in the Present Javanese Mysticism (Baarn: Bosch & Keuning, 1967).
10 Steenbrink, Dutch Colonialism and Indonesian Islam, p. 148.
11 Cf. Aqib Suminto, Politik Islam Hindia Belanda (Jakarta: LP3ES, 1985), p. 18.
12 See the Principle Policy of the Prosperous Justice Party (Partai Keadilan Sejahtera, PKS; i.e. one of Islamic parties, which supports Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration).
13 John Hick & Paul F. Knitter (eds.), The Myth of Christian Uniqueness (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1987), p. vii; cf. Paul J. Griffiths, “The Uniqueness of Christian Doctrine Defended”, in Gavin D’Costa (Ed.), Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1990), pp.157 ff.
14 John Hick, “Whatever Path Men Choose is Mine” in John Hick and Brian Hebblethwaite (eds.), Christianity and Other Religions (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), p. 171.
15 Julius Richter, “Missionary Apologetics: Its Problems and Its Methods,” International Review of Mission, 2 (1913), p. 540.
16 John Hick, “The Non-Absoluteness of Christianity,” Hick and Knitter (eds.), The Myth Of Christian Uniqueness, pp. 16-17.
17 John Hick, Christianity at the Centre (Macmillan: SCM Press Ltd., 1968), p. 17.
18 “Doctrine of the Qur’ān” in Philip W. Goetz (Editor in Chief), The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 22, Macropaedia, Knowledge in Depth (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 15th Edition, 1985), p. 6.
19 Adnan Aslan, “What is Wrong with the Concept of Religious Experience?” in Christian-Muslim Relationship, Vol. 14, Number 3, July 2003, p. 303.
20 Kenneth Cragg, The Christ and the Faiths, Theology in Cross-Reference (London: SPCK, 1986), pp. 13-14.
21 “Allah” is an Arabic word that means “the One True God”. The word “Allah” is used for God not only by Muslims, but also by all Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians in the Orient. [Samuel M. Zwemer, The Muslim Doctrine of God (New York: American Tract Society, 1905), p. 19]. In pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah had been a supreme deity but not the only one. In the Qur’ān Allah is portrayed as the sole, unique God as in the basic Muslim statement of faith. His unity (tawhīd) is stressed over the ultimate deviation of polytheism (shirk). Allah is omnipotent and dominant but also compassionate. [Rosemary Goring (ed.), The Wordsworth Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions (Hertfordshire: W & R Chambers, 1995), p. 16].
22 John Hick (ed.), The Myth of God Incarnate (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1997), pp. 1-2.
23 Oskar Skarsaune, Incarnation Myth or Fact? (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1991), p. 12.
24 Chester L. Gillis, Pluralism: A New Paradigm for Theology (Louvain: Peeters Press, 2003), p. 73; Skarsaune, Incarnation, p. 14.
25 Suminto, Politik Islam Hindia Belanda, p. 18.
26 Mohammad Damami, Akar Gerakan Muhammadiyah (Yogyakarta: Fajar Pustaka Baru, 2000), pp. 72-73; cf. Aritonang, Sejarah Perjumpaan, p. 21.
27 Musthafa Kamal Pasha and Ahmad Adaby Darban, Muhammdiyah Sebagai Gerakan Islam (Yogyakarta: LPPI, 2000), pp. 71-72.
28 John Norman Davidson Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine (New York: Harper & Brothers Publisher, 1958), p. 138.
29‘Mushrik’ is one who involves in ‘shirk’ (a polytheist). ‘Shirk’ means considering a non-divine being as divine or identifying God with non-deity, so it is heretical rather than polytheistic. Shirk is a Muslim term meaning ‘association’ in the sense of associating anything with God. It is the fundamental sin in Islam. Insofar as God is one, absolute, perfect and complete, nothing can be added to him or set beside him. To associate anything with God, to commit shirk, is the one sin that cannot be forgiven (Sura Al- Nisā 4:116). Shirk is the opposite of tawhīd, the notion of the oneness of God. It is also in opposition to ‘Islam’, which means literally ‘surrender to God’. See Goring (1995), Dictionary of Beliefs, p. 480.
No comments:
Post a Comment