Sunday 8 February 2009

Religion and Din

In welcoming newly-born baby, Farzan Esfandiar

Following Huntington’s theory, the core of any civilization is what is recognized as religion,[1] which, without referring to any definition given by scholars, is commonly understood as reference to the Divine. This gives an impression of its primary importance in shaping every aspect of human life. Nevertheless, its meaning is still blurry and this has been more so by globalization which undermines most of traditional values. For religion is determinant part of, broadly put, any social order, it is interesting to find out what religion is, understood within its Latin root and its derivational forms in the Western. As comparison, it will be tried also to examine the concept of din comprehended within Islamic understanding, which is commonly translated as ‘religion’, yet it has different meaning.
A number of difficulties has been felt by scholars who try to define the word religion. Anthony Thiselton identifies obstacles to be, at least, three facts. The first is diversity of what is to be called as religion. The second is the impossibility of value-neutral knowledge used in study of religion. The third is the usage of sociological or ‘ideological criticism’ approach in understaning religion rather than theological or philosophical approaches.[2] In explaining religion, many various definitons show presuppositions marked by background of the person who makes the definition. It is either academic or dogmatic.[3]




As starting point, it is proper to list some meanings offered by dictionary. Funk and Wagnall’s dictionary describe religion as “A belief in an invisible superhuman power” which brings to man responsible and dependent feeling and consciousness, morality and practices, resulting from that belief.[4] Starting from other direction, Nuttall’s Standard Dictionary of the English Language defines religion as “A habitual, all pervading sense of dependence on, reverence for, and responsibility to, a higher power; or a mode of thinking, feeling and acting, which respects, trusts in, and strives after, the Divine, or God, any system of faith and worship”.[5] From these two different definitions, we can understand that religion comprise of some elements, that is, a belief in Divine; from and toward which spring feelings, moralities, and, for some, modes of thinking; all these result in pratices and worships. Therefore, there are two dimensions of religion, namely, exoteric and esoteric. The first is visible and observable to other people; moralities, practices and worships, while the second is concealed; belief and feelings.
Dealing with formal aspect of religion, Kant defines it as “the sum of all duties as divine commands”.[6] From its psychological and anthropological aspect, Schleiermacher offers other explanation of religion as “the highest are unlocked”, and, furthermore, he differentiates between culture and art on one hand and religion on the other, saying that the former is produced by human creativity and the latter sense and taste for the Infinite. From psychological and ontological perspective, it is consciousness encouraging relationality between persons and between them and God. It is “neither a knowing or a doing, but a modification of feeling or of immediate . . . consciousness” and is “more, but not less, than a feeling and immediacy (Gefuhl) of absolute dependence on God”.[7]
As to term din, it has different meaning as its Western counterpart, that is, religion. Since Arabic, as other semitic language, has very structured root system, we have to trace its origin and diverse forms and meanings, from which, then, we can derive its full meaning. Its verb, dana, has three forms in relation to the object. It is self-transitive, which signifies judiciousness, power and its relating meanings. When the word dana is transitive with lam, it indicates submission and obedience. When it is transitive with ba’, it denotes confessing a belief and acting accordingly. These meanings can be summed up as submissiveness, that is, viewing the first meaning, compulsion of submission (ilzam al-inqiyad); considering the second, it is commitment to submission; and the third is the principle by which submission is done.[8]
Similar to the description of din given by Darraz is al-Attas’. He identifies four main significances of din, out of numerous meanings which although seemingly contrary to each other are nevertheless related, constituting one harmonious unity. They are indebtedness, submissiveness, judicious power, and natural inclination.[9] To understand these coherently, we have to go back to the doctrine of primordial covenant sealed by human being in its pre-existent condition elucidated in the Holy Quran.[10]
As a conclusion we may say that concept of religion understood in the West is based on inquiry of the so-called phenomenology of religions, and fails to give full explanation when it comes to speak about divine and metaphysics, since its methodology neither affirms belief in one particular metaphysical system nor regards it as reliable in ‘scientific’ investigation. Whereas the concept of din is grasped within Quranic framework, which can be scientifically proven by examing its semantical interconnection in Arabic language.

endnotes
[1] Samuel P. Huntington, the Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, p. 42.
[2] Anthony Thiselton, A Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Religion, pp. 255-6.
[3] Ibid., p. 185.
[4] Ron Hubbard, Scientology of Religion, p. 8
[5] Ibid., p. 9.
[6] Martin Moors, Kant on Religion in the Role of Moral Schematism, in Philosophy and Religion in German Idealism, p. 28.
[7] Anthony Thiselton, op. cit., pp. 257-8.
[8] Muhammad Abdullah Darraz, al-Din Buhuts Mumahhidah li Dirasah Tarikh al-Adyan, pp. 61-2.
[9] S.M.N. Al-Attas, Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam, pp. 41-2.
[10] Al-A’raf (7): 172. for extensive explanation on din within Islamic context, read S.M.N. Al-Attas, ibid., pp. 41-57.


3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Assalamualaikum

Pakabar Man?

Menarik membaca konklusinya, 1) bahwa definisi "Barat" tentang "religion" didasarkan pada fenomenologi; dan 2) definisi tersebut gagal menangkap dimensi metafisis dari agama.

Rumusan yang menarik didiskusikan lebih lanjut...

Memang benar, fenomenologi berpengaruh besar dalam studi-studi agama di Barat. Terutama kalau membaca pengaruh buku Rudolf Otto, "The Idea of the Holy" terhadap jagat akademik religionwissenschaften di Barat. Pengaruh ini terasa sekali di sekujur buku Karen Armstrong, Sejarah Tuhan.

Tapi, apa bisa diklaim gagal pendekatan fenomenologi dalam menangkap dimensi metafisik? Kalau mengacu pada Otto, alih-alih fenomenologi justru memulihkan kembali metafisika. Metode Otto ini kemudian nanti mengilhami filsafat perenial di Barat lewat Schuon dkk.

Fenomenologi justru sangat metafisis--walaupun metafisikanya kritis. Yang agak anti-metafisik, atau "beyond" metafisika, sebenarnya adalah kritik terhadap fenomenologi yang datang via dekonstruksi Derrida, arkeologi Foucault, atau strukturalisme Bourdieu. Di situ agama masuk dalam problem bahasa, institusi dan sejarah.

Gimana pendapat Antum?

Btw, Farzan putra siapa?

Ayak

Anonymous said...

Interesting. Ive no comment right now. just reading..

keep writing.

Imdad Robbani said...

wa'alaikum salam
@Ayak: yang saya maksud metafisik dalam tulisan ini kurang lebih merupakan padanan kata ghayb bahasa Arab-Islam. karenanya, se"metafisik" apapun fenomenologi Barat tentunya tidak mampu mencapai itu. dan lagi, definisi religion versi Barat yang saya berikan disini masih awal, karena keterbatasan bacaan :-( .
Farzan putranya man Ahmad, dia blogger termuda sedunia karena baru lahir langsung punya blog :-) .
@Dendi: thanks.