Intercultural Marriage

The title may resemble some discourse years ago on inter religion marriage. Many scholars have examined, discussed and had done some works on the latter, especially in Islamic perspective, but none of them talking of intercultural marriage.

However, current writing is in no way a serious examination on this topic. Therefore, do not look up for something fully academic in it  It may merely contain my own accounts on this.

In many essays today on intercultural marriage, it is often understood as a marriage held by two persons from completely different cultural background. This is not what I am concerning about in this, but in narrower sense of the phrase, that is, marriage between two with different cultural backgrounds. In Indonesian context, it is like between Javanese and Manadonese, which are geographically and culturally distant. Or in another case, like that between aristocratic (whatever it might mean) family and not. Tough the latter become rarer to happen today, but in some families, mainly in traditional family, it sometime becomes serious consideration to think.




I have no idea about the exact definition of marriage. But we may understand it as “unifying of two persons agreeing to live together until the end of their life”; and we must add “in accordance with their official religion or other institution regarded as the same”. It sounds like a simple thing. But, in fact, it is not even it is more complicated than that.
In traditional society, a marriage means not only unifying of two persons, but more intensely, as the case in many traditional societies in Indonesia, of two families, or even more between of two tribes.

As it can be predicted, unifying of two personalities, however different they might be, easier and simpler than that of two families, and two clans. For, a simplest family order must consist of, at least, three persons, two parents and one son or daughter. This means a more difficult reconciliation of diverse concern from those people involving in that unifying.

But I am sure with conviction from the couple wanting to get married; it becomes easy to overcome problems they might face. Therefore, before they go so far, they must first have agreement on how they should go through this long journey of life. And in traditional society they need to consider their family, since in that kind of society we will interact more with our family.

There are many barriers to occur before and during such marriage. These could be language barrier; differences in values; religious conflicts; sex role expectations; economic adjustments; fear of abandonment by family, friends, spouse; political issues; and legal complications.

To overcome these, the spouse should learn about one another's cultures; communicate well in at least one language; be open and honest with their families; accept that cultural roots go deep and that people don't change easily or quickly; Focus on the positives.

Read More...

Greek Philosophy: Origin of Philosophy or Stolen Legacy

INTRODUCTION

It is commonly accepted that Greek philosophy is the first attempt in human history to think of things philosophically, however blurry this word means. Is there something born out from what is called Greek Miracle and what had distinguished them from other people? In this paper we try to re-examine the originality of Greek philosophy. To ask whether its originality was based on their distinguished talent so they could innovate something new altogether or they merely continue what they inherited from civilizations before them or even worse they stole knowledge without acknowledging those to whom they was deeply indebted.

In first chapter we seek to describe pre-philosophical thought as known—or more exactly written—by Western historians, historical and sociological background around Greek environment in brief, and some thinkers generally considered as earliest philosophers. In the second chapter, we attempt to ask the originality of Greek philosophy in which there are—at least—two perspectives, i.e., conservative and revisionist. We try to use both two views contradictive each other, first of which says that the Greek philosophy is the origin of philosophical thinking and that it occurred because their special talent not being indebted to any other civilization.
The second viewpoint is critical to this conventional opinion. One of which says that Greek philosophy is no more than continuation from human thought prior to them, and even more dramatic some revisionist says that Greek had stolen philosophy from ancient Egypt without admitting their indebtedness to them, then there was nothing to be regarded as Greek philosophy other than Stolen Egyptian Philosophy.
We do hope that this paper will be useful and constructive, especially not to idolize Greek philosophers—and thus Western—as the only models of intellectual greatness without considering contributions of other civilizations. Since, we know that almost every discussion of philosophy, in IAIN particularly, starts with history of Greek philosophy while ironically forgetting Islamic philosophical discourses.
Citing sources from the internet is unavoidable in this paper, for we know that satisfying sources for pre-philosophical and early Greek philosophy are hardly found in our library. And some sources are cited from the book excerpted from the internet.

THE BEGINNING OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Human ‘thought’ in pre-philosophical can be characterized from what would then come as “mythopoeic,” “mythopoetic,” or “mythic” thought. “Mythopoeic” means “making” (poieîn, from which the word “poet” is derived) “myth”. It differs from philosophical thinking in, at least, five characteristics. First, myths are stories about person, where they may be gods, heroes, or ordinary persons. Things—including natural events—were associated with persons whether they be gods or not. In philosophical thought, so to speak, there was change in way of explanation of, for instance, natural disaster. Thales explained that earthquakes are just when a wave in the cosmic ocean rocks the earth. This explanation eliminated the actions or intentions of the gods. But this does not mean a complete departure from thought of gods’ role even in the so-called philosophical age. Thales, to give an example, was to be said that everything is full of gods.
Secondly, myths possible multiplicity of explanation which are not logically exclusive (can contradict each other) and are often humorous. The theories of the earliest Greeks philosophers, especially those about whom we know the most, like Anaximander and Heraclites, are systematic and internally coherent. Thirdly, mythic traditions are conservative; they hardly change their view and do not accept drastic divergence. On the contrary, philosophical thought, notably Greek philosophy as recorded in Western philosophical history, allow rapid and essential differences. Thales’ view on water had been superseded by several theories only within 80 years. Fourthly, myths are self-justifying. There was no other explanation for creativity of poets, seers, and prophets than inspiration of the gods. Consequently myths are not argumentative. On the other hand, Parmenides offers substantive arguments for his views written in his The Way of Truth. Fifthly, myths are morally ambivalent. The gods and heroes in mythical stories do not always do what is admirable and thus their stories do not teach moral lessons, as to be found in the story of Achilles. As reaction to this moral ambivalence, Xenophanes criticizes the poets for ascribing shameful acts to the gods.

There were many civilizations known to history before Greek. One of the most ancient civilizations known is Egypt civilization. It is said that Egyptian people has recognized art of writing for about 4000 B.C. It also invented what is known afterward as the Mysteries, a very complex religious system, which later some identify it as the genuine origin of Greek philosophy, as to be discussed in next part of this paper. The other big civilization is Babylonia. The oldest law code known to this day is that of Hammurabi, king of Babylon, about 2100 B.C. The others are Phoenician and Lydia from whom Greek had learned their alphabet and using of money. These civilizations around Greek, in one and another way, had influenced Greek civilization and thus their so-called philosophy—to use revisionist’s term.

The environment in which Greek philosophy is said to be born had hot dry summers and cool rainy winters, and hence Greece could not possibly be as agriculturally productive as Egypt or Mesopotamia. Agriculture is the vital aspect in traditional livelihood. To have a good agricultural environment means to be wealth nation. However, at that time Cities like Miletus and Athens were wealthy. They achieve it with other mean; trade. This puts Greek in an open dialogue with other civilization to do what we may call it now as cultural exchange. Trade and wealthy are not a complete explanation as to why did philosophy emerge in cities like Athens and Miletus, for Phoenician preceded Greek in trade and Egypt and Babylon are wealthy as well. The added reason for that as proposed by Kelley Rose is the fall of kingship institution in cities such as Athens and Miletus. In 510 B.C. Cleisthenes led Athens into essentially pure democracy.

SOME EARLY GREEK THINKERS

In this part we would like to sketch three early philosophers, who, we consider, can represent others and have important role in early development of philosophy. The first to be called as philosopher is Thales of Miletus. He lived between ca. 624-546 B.C. He is known so because his attempt in explanation events happening to this world naturalistically, as noted earlier. His famous dictum is that all things originate from water. Many philosophers followed Thales's lead in searching for explanations in nature rather than in the supernatural; others returned to supernatural explanations, but couched them in the language of philosophy rather than myth or religion. He learned from Babylon and Egypt. He had predicted sun eclipse occurring in 585 B.C., as Herodotus cites. He was said to have been of Phoenician ancestry.

The other important philosopher is Pythagoras. According to Diogenes Laertius, “Pythagoras was the first person who invented the term philosophy, and called himself a philosopher”. He was born in Samos island in ca. 580 B.C. and died in 500 B.C. According to Aristotle and others' accounts, some ancients believed that he had the ability to travel through space and time, and to communicate with animals and plants. He is best known for the Pythagorean Theorem which bears his name. He is often revered as a great mathematician. However, he is also known as the founder of religious movement, called Pythagoreanism.

The philosopher who is considered to be the turning point in development of Greek thought is Parmenides. He was born in Elea, Hellenic city on the southern coast of Italy, in ca. 510 B.C. and died in ca. 450 B.C. He was remembered for his two major innovations; dialectics and metaphysics. To the Greeks, the first word simply meant logical argumentation. It ended the domination of mythical thought within Greek philosophical thinkers. The second word did not have the same meaning as it has now, it is rather to be understood as “After the Physics” relating Aristotle’s book of physics (On the Heavens, On the Soul, The Parts of Animals, etc). Therefore, in this context metaphysics must be understood as whatever contained in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. It is more appropriate in modern context to alter word metaphysics, in Parmenides thought, with ontology, i.e., the theory of what is real, since he talked being qua being. These two innovations are recorded in his only work remaining to this day the Way of Truth.

ORIGIN OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Bertrand Russell, who is considered as one of authoritative author so far as Western Philosophy is concerned, starts first chapter of his History of Western Philosophy by noting that nothing is the most astonishing and unexplainable other than the emergence of Greek philosophy. He, while not denying existence of other civilizations, argues that it was the Greek who arrange the legacy of those civilizations in a ‘perfect’ manner.
Such notion is common to the Western historians writing history of philosophy. They emphasize the Greek internal capacity to introduce something that radically changes the history of humanity. Like Julian Marias notes that “This new perspective emerged in Greece for the first time in history, and since then appear something totally new in the world; something that had produced philosophy”. Some scholars call this viewpoint as Eurocentric or even Hellenocentric. The other scholar who holds this opinion is Frederick Coplestone. He is convinced that Greek has no idea about other civilization, say Egypt or Babylon. Greek philosophy originally comes from their extraordinary intelligence, stressing their internal superiority.
This view impacts widely on scholarship and discourses on philosophy—IAIN is not an exception—and consequently reveals the superiority of Western people. In many writings of history of philosophy, Greek philosophy is considered as the first philosophy, denying the fact it is only a continuation of human thought throughout history. And in the IAIN case it is very strange to see many discussions on philosophy talking much about Western philosophy while disregarding Islamic philosophy. They simply follow western syllabus which judges golden era of Islamic philosophy as dark ages.

REVISIONIST VIEWPOINT ON EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

In tracing the origin of philosophy, some scholars, in various disciplines, criticize the mainstream tendency to highly stress the internal factors within Greek civilization. Some have read this tendency as a consequence from European imperialism. Scholars regarded as revisionist use many approaches to prove that Hellenic ability is not the only reason for emergence of the so-called Greek philosophy. Instead, to describe what has mistakenly been considered as Euro-Greek legacy, they generally propose a new explanation; intercontinental influences. This in general suggests that Greek is just one chain of human thought history among other civilizations.
Here are some of their arguments and approaches excerpted from ISLAMIA, Islamic quarterly journal:
1. Arguments based on ancient sources. George G. M James in his outstanding book Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is stolen Egyptian Philosophy summarizes his view in opening statement of his book. He writes: “The term Greek philosophy, to begin with, is a misnomer, for there is no such philosophy in existence.” By analyzing ancient Greek texts, such as Phaedo and Timaeus of Plato, Life of Eminent Philosophers of Diogenes Laertius, and Histories of Herodotus, he suggests that Greek philosopher; Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato—to name some—had learned or borrowed thought from Egyptian priest. And then they re-write what they learned from Egypt without citing sources from which they got. It can also be proved by examining Egyptian ancient inscriptions. They show that some ancient Egypt believes are that water is origin of everything; that nature creation was planned within Ptah’s (highest god in Egypt belief) reason; that basic elements of nature are fire, water, earth, and air; and so on. There is clear conceptual affinity between Egyptian believes and theories to come in Greek philosophy age.
2. Archeological and socio-intellectual history arguments. Martin Bernal shows that there was firm link culturally and intellectually between Semite (Jews), Greek, and Egypt civilizations. This connection gave birth to parallels and similarities between those. “No man ever lives in a social vacuum”, George Sarton say in his Ancient Science and Modern Civilization. Furthermore, Bernal is successful to prove that Greek had much been influenced by Phoenicia and Egypt who had occupied Greece ca. 1500 B.C. This explanation, called Ancient Model, was broadly accepted in Europe academically and has no internal weakness scientifically. But it is then replaced by Aryan Model, in mid-nineteenth century during which European countries started colonizing non-European countries, which instead proposes the superiority of Greco-based-Euro civilization.
3. Historical arguments. In comparative study of history of world philosophy, it is found that rationalism in other ancient civilization, like Egypt, Babylon, India, and China, preceded far before the time of Greek. In this context it is not surprising to find that what Heraclites and Ephesus said, that “Wisdom is to know thought that determine position of all things”, had been written in Memphis theology thousand years before Heraclites born. Benjamin Schwartz writes “Comparative world history approach will show that, in first millennium B.C., the emergence of creative groups, who think deeply and critically to their own civilizations…like many historical changes, there is no absolute beginning for these progress”.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

It is no longer useful to refer Greek philosophy as the first and origin of philosophy, for:
1. Many people, who are conventionally regarded as earliest Greek philosopher, have been proven to be taught, or at least get lessons from ‘outsider’, notably Egypt civilization.
2. The emphasis to the unique genius of the Greeks and other internal factors sounds like racism more than as result of scientific study, since it highlights the superiority of Aryan race, as noted in point two.
3. If we use the first meaning of philosophy, which entails what is today understood as science, we should not refer only to the Greek as the first to invent that, because it has been proven that long before them, other civilizations had the same or even more sophisticated system.
4. If we understand philosophy as understood today, that is to think of things rationally, systematically, and abstractly, we would refer more appropriately to ancient civilizations like Egypt, Babylon, India, and China, since they preceded Greek and they already had systematic thought far before Greek did.
5. It is intellectually inevitable to assume that all human thought, including that of Greek, is a continuation of human thinking from all human civilization, it does not belong exclusively to one civilization; the West or Greek. All has its role in human history.


REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS:

The list below is references cited in this paper directly or through other references. However, it is strongly recommended to read books mainly relating with revisionist viewpoint.
Bernal, Martin. Black Athena: the Afro-Asiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. 1987. (Trenton, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press).
Coplestone, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. 1946. (London: Search Press).
Huffman, Carl. Pythagoras (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras.
James, George G. M. Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy. 1992. (Trenton, New Jersey: Africa World Press).
Karam, Yusuf. Tarikh Al-Falsafah Al-Yunaniyah, Fifth Print. 1970. (Cairo: Mathba’ah Lajnah al-Ta’lif wa al-Tarjamah wa al-Nashr).
Marias, Julian. History of Philosophy. 1967. (New York: Dover Publications).
Rose, Kelley L. 2007. Parmenides of Elea and the Way of Truth, (Online), http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides.
Rose, Kelly L. 2007. The Origin of Philosophy: The Attributes of Mythic/Mythopoeic Thought, (Online), http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm.
Rose, Kelly L. 2007. The Origin of Philosophy: Why the Greeks?, (Online), http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Philosophy:Origins_of _Philosophy.
Russell, Bertrand. Sejarah Filsafat Barat dan Kaitannya dengan Kondisi Sosio-Politik dari Zaman Kuno Hingga Sekarang. Trans. Sigit Jatmiko, et, all. Second Print. 2004 (Jogjakarta: PUSTAKA PELAJAR).
Sarton, George. Ancient Science and Modern Civilization. 1959. (New York: Harper Torchbook).
Schwartz, Benjamin. the World of Thought in Ancient China. 1985. (Cambridge, New Jersey: Harvard University Press).
Setia, Adi. 2006. Melacak Asal Usul Filsafat dan Sains Yunani. ISLAMIA. Volume III, Number 1.

ENDNOTES:

Kelley L. Rose in http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm
Ibid.
Bertrand Russell, Sejarah Filsafat Barat, trans. by Sigit Jatmiko et. all., p. 33.
Kelley L. Rose, op. cit.
Bertrand Russell, op. cit, p. 4.
George James, Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy, p.1.
Kelley L. Rose, op. cit.
Kelley L. Rose, ibid.
Yusuf Karam, Tarikh al-Falsafah al-Yunaniyah, pp. 12-4 and Kelley L. Rose, op. cit., http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Philosophy:Origins_of_Philosophy
Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum VIII (Lives of Eminent Philosophers), c. 200 AD, which in turn reference the lost work Successions of Philosophers by Alexander Polyhistor) — Pythagoras, Translation by C.D. Yonge, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras
Carl Huffman, Pythagoras (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras
Kelley L. Ross Parmenides of Elea and the Way of Truth in http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides.
Bertrand Russell, op. cit , p. 3
In his “History of Philosophy”, ms. 4.
Frederick Coplestone, a History of Philosophy, I/11.
ISLAMIA, Islamic quarterly journal, pp. 105-15
From George James’ book review by Femi Akomolafe in http://yeyeolade.wordpress.com/2007/09/17/the-greeks-stoled-greek-philosophy-from-black-egypt/
In his book Black Athena: the Afro-Asiatic Roots of Classical Civilization.
P. 4.
In his book the World of Thought in Ancient China, pp. 2-3.

Read More...

A Brief Exposition of Sunna Position toward Al-Quran

As we know some scholars hold that Prophet’s Tradition is in the second status under al-Quran regarding with Islamic law. This can be accepted so far as theological position is concerned in the sense that Al-Quran has higher position from theologian (mutakallimun) viewpoint—as Shathibi describes. But, in practice, to deduce law from both is inevitable. Both are inseparable in the domain of law.


Traditionally, it is widely understood that Muslim scholars have different opinion about this matter, i.e. the position of Prophet’s tradition in deducing laws. Some of them are said to have opinion that Sunna is “secondary” compared to al-Quran. Still, we should to know what they mean by this secondary. We can take an example from an eminent scholar of Granada, al-Shathibi, who argues in his book that Sunna is in second position after Al-Quran. He proved this with several arguments. The first is that while Al-Quran is wholly and particularly definitive (maqthu’ jumlatan wa tafshilan), Sunna has no such certainty as Al-Quran does. It is definite in general not in particulars (maqthu’ jumlatan la tafshilan). Secondly, Sunna is either explanation to what is contain in Al-Quran or addendum to it. In first case Sunna has to be considered in second place. For, if what is explained is gone, the explanation would be gone not vice versa. In the second, where Sunna does not explain Al-Quran, Sunna should not be taken into account unless we do not find answer within Al-Quran. The other arguments Shathibi used are derived from Sunna itself, like hadith reported from Mu’adz when he was asked by the Prophet, “With what will you judge?”, “With Al-Quran” he replied, “If you do not find?” the Prophet asked for second time, “With the Tradition of the Prophet of Allah”, he replied, “If you do not find?” the Prophet asked, “I will strive my opinion”. But Shathibi’s viewpoint about Sunna regarding, especially, laws does not mean that, as he then explained , we abandon it if we already have an answer within Al-Quran. On the contrary we remain use it as one of unavoidable sources in deriving laws—and understanding Islam generally.
The other opinion about Sunna’s position with Al-Quran says that Sunna as long as law is concerned is the same as Al-Quran in the sense that we have to refer to both in deducing laws. We cannot deny the role of Sunna together with Al-Quran.
I argue, based on these, that there exists no intrinsic difference between scholars. In fact, either they talk Sunna as secondary in theological perspective or if they put it in juridical matter, they merely put Sunna secondary theoretically in the sense they first refer to Al-Quran and then to Sunna, but both remain inevitable in inferring laws. Essentially, they hold the same idea that Prophet’s Tradition has essential role in deriving laws. waLlahu a’lam.

Read More...

Some Intellectual Positions and Roads Ahead

Several years ago we heard shocking incident in Bandung where some students openly do some acts to be considered as insulting religion, particularly Islam. For some, it is ironic to see such acts happen in UIN (formerly IAIN) Bandung in which students are hoped to learn more and in-depth about religion. It happened to new students in campus introducing and study orientation (OSPEK). The old students, the committee of the program, demonstrated things which may be regarded as violating Islam. Some of them said “Welcome to the free-God campus”, other said “Let’s recite together ‘anjinghu akbar’” which to them it was an expression of free-speech, though, even for average Muslim, it sounds like trivializing sacred symbols of Islam. It is not interesting to talk about something in past, but it is widely perceived within society, at least for some, that IAIN is no longer a representative institution to learn Islam in Indonesia. Several books have been written concerning this very fact, to remind society of, to say, dangerousness of inappropriate using of freedom in understanding Islam.



In IAIN Surabaya we have nothing with what happened in Bandung. But to some extent, several cases do happen. If we go to any IAIN (or UIN), we will find the same pattern of thought. We see in Jakarta, Jogjakarta, and Surabaya—to name some axis—domination of, say, “liberal” or “rationalist” reformism—to use Tariq’s mapping of trends of thought.[1] I would like to use this typology used by Tariq in his book Western Muslim and the Future of Islam to read phenomenon in IAIN particularly in Surabaya.
According to him, there exist, at least, six tendencies within Muslim world today relating with how to read the Two Sources. It implies that what we are talking about is relating to those who remain concerned to involve the Sources in their way of thinking. It has nothing with people who deliberately put aside the role of Al-Quran and Prophet’s tradition in their thought.
Here are those tendencies in turn. The first of these is scholastic traditionalism. This bears the restricted understanding of Islamic scriptural Texts. People who uphold this tendency read the Texts by the mean of classical Muslim scholars. The extent to which to interpret the Text is very limited and, therefore, not enabling further elaboration. Even, they do not dare to read books written by classical Ulama but in literal way. For many of them, Islam is recognized by religious practices more to which they emphasize their concern. In Indonesia we may find this trend in some Pesantrens which insist on maintaining the old-tradition.
The second trend is salafi literalism. Apparently it seems to be the same with scholastic traditionalism, for they too give emphasis to religious practices. But while the first read the Texts in mediated way, they reject this kind of reading and stress on reading the Texts immediately and, as the name implies, literally. The word salafi refers to the first generations, as mentioned in Prophet’s tradition[2]. It is found in Wahabism in Saudi Arabia and its affiliates around the globe. These two emphasize more on religious practices and tend, with rare exception, to forget the social plane. In the West they are marked by alienation from the society to protect Muslims from Western cultural influences.
The third is political literalist salafism. As the name expresses, it has similarity with the former in the method of reading the Texts. However they differ in their stressing on social and political activities. Their literal reading of the Texts and their inclination to interpret the Text in political connotation place those in difficult situation where they have to face the reality, which is opposite to their ideal, while remain faithful to their literal reading. It gives birth to radical and revolutionary activism against all they consider violating to their values. Typically the goal of this movement is to establish what they call Islamic state; the caliphate. The representative of this movement can be found in secular circumstances, such as in Europe, as well as in religious one, such as in Indonesia. One of which popular example is Hizb al-Tahrir.
The next is Sufism which gives emphasis to spiritual reading of the Sources. They, to me, rather represent the practical aspect of Muslim community. But, to the extent that they have different behavior toward the Texts, it is possible to consider them as one of the approaches by which Muslims think of their scriptural Texts.
The following trend is salafi reformism. They are attached to the first generation as well, but they differ from ‘other salafism’ in contextualized reading to the Texts. Although the Texts remain inevitable for them, they avoid strictly literal interpretation of the Texts and, furthermore, try to read it in the light of context in which they live. Taking example from the Prophet, they also concern more with social issues within Muslim community, not forgetting religious matters—in the sense understood in the West.
The last is “liberal” or “rationalist”[3] reformism. In various degrees, they limit the function of the Texts which at most they reduce them into mere spiritual and ethical matter. It is also valid to call this way of thinking as secular, since, like showed by some scholars, it originates from Western experience of secularism. Within Muslim society, they suggest that the Texts can only be recognized as long as ethical norms are concerned, or at best they consider them merely as inspiration to derive laws relating with social affair. In the matter of daily life, i.e. cases connecting with humanity, they, in different degrees, disregard the Texts, elevating the role of reason over them. Most of them are in opposition to any utterances, actions or even clothing they consider identical to exclusivism and fundamentalism. Sometimes they judge such aprioristically as irrational seclusion.
In the light of this typology, we find the same trends in IAIN. Nevertheless, there is one dominant thought that is the last, almost in major IAINs (or UINs). It is noteworthy to recall this fact, since IAIN foremost is aimed to be centre for Islamic studies at high education level. Many lecturers say that, in IAIN, all Islamic schools of thought should be treated equally. But the fact that almost nothing of Islamic schools—to say the least—are studied deeply and comprehensively and that thought resulted from the West dominates make us have to think more deeply. It is not the question of being fundamentalist, but rather of intellectual balance and, for some, of identity.
On the other hand, the so-called Western thought is widespread consequently. This statement should not be read politically; one dominates other, but intellectually. Not only is it not desirable to reject any of Western stuffs blindly, but it is a matter of being more fair to the society we live in and, in academic sphere, to offer more various discourses both from West and East; Islam and secular, Left and Right—to say so. It is important to underline this, for, here, in IAIN Surabaya, as I feel, there is too hegemonic discourse, while other discourses are marginalized and cannot compete fairly intellectually. The fact becomes like what G. W Bush said when declaring war against terrorism “Either you are with us or with terrorist”.[4]
To build a healthier intellectual sphere, we need to free any discourses, to use more diverse reading ranging from Left to Right, and more important not to discriminate any of these readings. To make an example, here, we hardly find discourses offered by majority, and indeed, many lecturers, which is not identical to liberal. There is no room for other thought that is opposed to it, or if any it is very limited to those who hold it, no common ideology but liberalism and its descendants. We need to be more open, more pluralist, and more tolerant. Moreover if we recall that we are Muslims—whatever it implies for you. We must have differences, but with an open dialogue we can acquire better understanding. “Acknowledged differences may create mutual respect, but hazy misunderstandings bring forth nothing but prejudice and rejection”[5], said Tariq Ramadan. We need to get closer each other for the future of humanity. We hope together next we will be able to see a discussion involving leftist, salafist, liberalist, fundamentalist, atheist, and traditionalist where all are able and will to respect others no matter how sharp divergences they have.

endnotes:

1.Tariq Ramadan, Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, pp. 23-30.
2.See, for instance, Al-Bukhari. Al-Jami’ Al-Shahih, XI/481.
3.These labels should not be understood that other trends have no liberal or rational tendency.
4.In this context we can paraphrase this sentence to: “Either you become liberal or you will be marginalized from campus intellectually and socially”. This, of course, is to say the least.
5.Islam, the West and the Challenges of Modernity, pp. 3.

Read More...

Secularized Muslim

Secular, which can be described briefly as a worldview that emphasizes the meaning of life on a particular time or period in the world viewed as a historical process, has influenced many Muslims, in their way of wearing, judging, believing, and thinking. And because of their influential positions in Muslim society, as scholars and intellectuals, they become consciously or not disseminators of unnecessary confusion and ignorance spread by Western civilisation.



The process of making secular is called secularization. This contains three things: disenchantment of nature, desacralisation of politics, and the deconsecration of values. By first, secularist mean the freeing of nature from its religious overtones, separating it from God, so that man may no longer regard nature as a divine entity, which allows him to act freely upon nature according to his needs and plans. By the last they mean the rendering relative all cultural creations and every value system including religion and worldviews having ultimate and final significance, so that the future is open to change, and man is free to create and immerse himself in the revolutionary process.
With secularized Muslim, I refer to those who has been influenced by Western viewpoints and civilisation, who choose to deny Islam’s values and behave as if they have nothing with Islam in spite of their identity of Muslim. However it is still debatable to define precisely who they are and their position among Muslims.

Source: Al-Attas’s books
Written in my first year in campus

Read More...

Islamization of Knowledge

Islamization—mainly in the field of knowledge and sciences—sounds a bit strange, and for some it reflects fundamentality of those who uphold it. To me it deserves to be considered as an implication of Islam itself. For Islam is a religion governing all aspects of human being, including knowledge and sciences. Furthermore the first verses revealed to the Prophet—upon whom be peace and God’s blessing—are concerning of reading, which may be understood rightly that the first and most important duty in Islam is to read, means to attain knowledge in the way governed by God’s guide as it is implied in those verses. Read in the name of your Lord Who created!



Written in my first year in campus

Read More...

OSPEK

These last three days my sister joins OSPEK (campus introducing and study orientation) for new students in IAIN Surabaya. It is when they are introduced to new environment different from what they have in intermediate school, namely to a more free educational atmosphere. In this new environment they’re free from many things they must do before.


Basically it is intended to make a campus life more familiar to them. But then the way the committees carry out makes some of its basic aim unclear, and in some ways against the core aim of it. What makes me write is while IAIN is a so-called Islamic educational institution there are some things possibly considered by some as ‘deviations’ from what it should be.

Last year when I was joining OSPEK, I experience many new things, some of which to the some extent are surprised. There was a presentation from a speaker spending time up to when afternoon prayer time will soon end. For most of us, new students at that time, it makes us irritated since IAIN is an Islamic institution.

Although it is not as terrible as what happened in IAIN Bandung years ago, when in OSPEK some of the committee did something considered insulting some vital Islamic symbols, there remain some actions not reflecting Islamic values, practice, and spirituality, such as when in gathering to eat the committee deliberately decide to make man and woman eating face to face, which by some of students is considered as embarrassing. Maybe it sounds like a fundamentalist voice, but what I want to say here is about freedom.

If one have a conviction, say, for instance, to make distance between man and woman—which for some Muslim it is important value to fulfill—but he/she is not able to do in such situation, what do you think should he/she do? Should he/she become stranger in his/her location. I don’t think so. I believe it’s going to be better if one keep participating in one’s daily life while continue to hold what one believe in, in this case, to make distance.

It’s a matter a choice I think. If one chooses to do whatever he thinks it’s better for him, no one is to forbid him, for everybody has his own choice. However when you have no room for choices you’d better do things you consider nearer to your ideal, like what’s happening in OSPEK and, to some degree, remains in day-to-day campus life where in some places a majority oppresses to make its value accepted.

It become more unacceptable in IAIN for it claims to be an Islamic institution but somehow, in some aspects, seems to be contradictive to the values Islam promotes, not only in visible things but also, more tragically, in ‘invisible area’ like corruption which is clearly against Islamic values.

Read More...

International Research Association

It remains a hard thing; to fully forget her. But I still insist at least not to always remember her all times, as happened along these two semesters. Actually problems risen in those times was not because of her. It is all about me; my mistake. More exactly I am rather an easily-obsessed man.


When I like something or someone I without difficulty become very devotee of that. Except I can forget it, I will always associate almost everything I can with what I like. And sadly or happily what happened to me was related with someone in very long term relationship. It is a relationship not to be done immediately now for many reasons one of which is culture surrounding me. It relates, as in many other Indonesian cultures, with my parents and of course her parents. But for now all I want to do is how to make myself not always think of her and ideally speaking to make my study better. It does not mean that I want to leave her in contrast I want to keep our relationship purified and hence successful. Nothing in this world can you suppose to be separated from God’s power. It means we have to go through this path in accordance with Divine Law. There was, and still is a guarantee from the Prophet that whoever pray to Allah surely He will response his/her prayer.
As long as you walk on and do everything rightly, by referring back to rules within the Two Sources. Without any doubt if you enter the house through the doors available you will get in successfully. But, as usual, problems in reality is not so simple as you find it in literature books, you need your best effort to achieve what you want to. There are so many cultural walls we have to face. However we can overcome them; referring to the Two Sources nothing is able to hamper. We can discuss all rationally, and I am convinced to do it.
Although basically I want to discuss this with my family about whom I must concern, prejudices soon emerge and make me have to hide my problem from them. It is hard to do so, yet I have no other options.
I am sure one cannot be in eternal happiness if one does not refer to It. Certainly I want to tell my parents about her, because I live in a tradition not allowing

Read More...

Rianti and Headscarf

It was little bit surprising when I read in Jawa Pos dated August 15 2007 in entertainment page. There was a news about Rianti Cartwright MTv’s VJ and an actress. What made me surprised is, projected to portray a woman with veil, when he said that someday she will wear the jilbab and that this must please her mother. This reveals something in her deep under-conscious she has will to wear and therefore a conviction that it is a good thing to do. It seems to me as something borne in mind that it...


to be continued

Read More...

What Should I Do?

In these last two semesters I get more convinced of one thing I hold on, that is, man and woman should not associate freely, at least not in IAIN—where I am studying—or more specific not for me. Of course this must not be confused with freedom of every single person to do what he/she wants.

On the contrary what I propose here is more related with freedom of each to perform his/her best without being pressured by any psychological burden which usually happens among of which is not to make a man’s appearance look bad in front of her and so does to a woman.
Let I try to elaborate this more clearly. Man and woman are created with an inherent instinct to like—or to love—their opposite sex. This is not a problem in itself but the problem may exist in how-to like and certain processes after it. More exactly problems seem to appear if, firstly they associate so freely to the extent that is unlawful and/or secondly they are too young to be full-aware of what they do.
Actually man and woman are free to relate each other as long as they fulfill at least two conditions. Firstly, they must be within law limits as described in Quran and by examples from the Prophet. So many examples from the Prophet obviously show that limitation of man-woman associating should not less freedom of both to perform whatever they want, to the extent that I myself sometime feel surprised.
Secondly, therefore they must be full-aware of every consequence they might face after it. I mean to still be in light of Quran and Hadith. Consider one case in which someone loves other. In such this there may be two possibilities; one loves the right person by whom I mean it is lawful to propose to marry that girl, i.e., not being engaged yet and so; or he loves the wrong person, i.e., having been betrothed by someone else and to whom then become unlawful to get engaged.
In both cases someone have to solve his problem. In the first case one should still strive not to commit unlawful deeds. But it is something very hard to do perfectly, as I experienced mainly in first days of July this year in spite of our commitment. Yet there remain possibilities to keep the rule of divine laws if both have consciousness of them. To say so in ordinary student’s daily life might sound problematical. Experiencing by my self, to me and perhaps for some similar to me it is far more effective if you study without being disturbed by any such problems. And it hardly happens in situation like that. However it must not make things lost their order as they are, that is, revolution, in contrast, it seem more accepted to exchange the opposite ideas toward more comfortable learning environment. All I want to say here is to discuss more deeply regarding this problem within which I am sure we are being involved, or at least we have friends involving. Just to make a more comfortable academical sphere.

Read More...

Should Western contemporary sciences be Islamized?

Islamization—mainly in the field of knowledge and sciences—sounds a bit strange, and for some it reflects fundamentality of those who uphold it. To me it deserves to be considered as an implication of Islam itself, for Islam is a religion governing all aspects of human being, including knowledge and science. Furthermore the first verses revealed to Prophet Muhammad—upon whom be peace God’s blessing—are concerning of reading, which is may be understood that the first and most important duty in Islam is to read, means to attain knowledge in the way governed by God’s guide as it is implied in those verses.

To talk about islamization of knowledge is to talk something in middle term. For it is between islamization of language by which it is begun and islamization of mind and thought of which it is end.

It is important to talk about the topic which is—at least in some Muslim scholar point of view—the core of problems being faced by Muslim society. The problem argued to be the core is problem of knowledge, that is, (1) misunderstanding of knowledge and science as projected in Islamic worldview, caused by (2) considering modern sciences as something free-value, which, in fact, it is not; therefore (3) Muslims need to Islamize modern and so-called Western sciences by Islamizing of their linguistic symbols of reality and truth.

The first of these, as explained by Al-Attas, is the most serious problems amongst Muslim brought about by ignorance and confusion. From this standpoint, the economic, social, and, political problems are merely derivative problems which are for some scholars look the most fundamental.

Such ignorance and confusion produced by misadopting happen as result of Muslims’ being unduly influenced by Western civilization.

Read More...

On Loving Emotionally and Rationally

Few days back I read small book talking about love. In the book loving is divided into two ways, to love someone emotionally and rationally. The first means you can’t predict and control what you feel. It’s just like in a proverb flow as the wind blows. But there are two signs inherent in this kind of love, passion and egoism. Further the author writes that passion makes someone falling in love is only able to think of his/her couple, but it can be a kind of egoism as well because he/she think of his/her couple only as far as he/she idealize his/her couple and such idealizing makes them satisfied and happy.

That’s why when their couple are not like what they idealize, they feel sad and possibly the love could even change into hatred. Usually this unpleasant condition is caused by something unreal rather than real condition, because both sides aren’t available to talk what they feel and become in their own selfishness. According to what the author writes this love is incomplete love or we may possibly call it as childish love (but it’s what happens most J). To make this love complete we need to the other type of love which is by the author called rational love. Referring to Erich Fromm’s well-celebrated book, The Art of Loving, such love is dominated by reason instead of dominance of passion and it can lead the lover to do full-awareness actions. The rational love needs four factor to fulfil; care, responsibility, respect, and knowledge.

When you love someone you need to give attention to him/her sincerely, in his/her life, personal progress, and happiness.

When you love someone you must have responsibility of yours, of his/her life, you are always available for yours, for his/her difficulties and problems. But this doesn’t necessary mean you dominate him/her, because…..

When you love someone you have to admire yours, not to adore him/her like a king or a queen but to respect him/her (from Latin respicere means to see or to look at). You shouldn’t see yours like what you ask, you have to see him/her as the way they are.

Gestalt Prayer

I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,

And you are not in this world to live up to mine

(Frederick Perls)

In my opinion instead of dominating two people loving each other have to adapt with his/her couple.

And when you love someone you should know yours, his/her personality, his/her background shaping him/her so you can understand him/her well. You are obliged to know that his/her personality is always in progress. Someone who doesn’t understand his/her pair can’t love him/her honestly, which frequently happens in young people relationship. That’s why it had better to feel love in a good, proper, correct way according to Syariah.

March 21, 2007. 4:20 pm
P.S. to me love seems to be more relating with feeling rather than reason, so what is so called rational love is just an organized love, it means, that is, it is love governed by reason not to destroy both sides.

Read More...