Islam and Culture: Differing Islamic Perspectives on Cultural Diversity Bernard Adeney-Risakotta I.

Introduction Islam has a complex relationship with culture. Some people think that Islam is synonymous with Arab culture. Others claim that Islam is universal and not connected to any particular culture. It is acultural, absolute and universal in its pure essence. Some believe Islam has its own culture that should be implemented in all places and times. Still others think that Islam is diverse and relevant to all cultures. Islam appears different in different cultures because Islam can be interpreted differently to answer the different questions that arise in different contexts. Some think that there is no such thing as Islamic culture. Every culture which includes Muslims will create its own transcultural manifestation that mixes elements from Islam with local culture. Some think that, although Islam will always influence culture, no single Muslim group should claim hegemony over culture or try to control it. Culture should be relatively autonomous from religion. In this paper I will explore the complex relationship between Islam and culture through ideal types. Ideal types are not descriptions of the truth; nor are they detailed explanations of the particular views of specific people. Rather they are simplifications (or even over simplifications) of complex phenomena that are reduced to specific types of mutually exclusive perspectives that are contrasted with each other in order to understand the range of possibilities for understanding the phenomena. In real life, most people hold more complex views that may be creative combinations of two or more of the types. Some people fit into several or none of the simplified types. Ideal types, as developed by Max Weber, are conceptual tools to understand complex reality. They are not descriptions of that reality, but rather models of and models for, reality.1 As models of reality, ideal types help us simplify reality so that we can understand the structure of a complex reality, something like a blue print helps us understand the structure of a building. It would be silly to mistake the blueprint for the building itself. Types are models for reality in that they give us guidance on how to interact with the reality. In Christian theology, the most influential theory about Christianity and culture was developed by H. Richard Niebuhr in his book, Christ and Culture.2 This article is an exercise in inter-religious dialogue because I use Niebuhrs theory and method as my starting point. In Christian theology, Niebuhrs classic treatment has drawn many cogent criticisms and many authors have suggested alternative typologies that they think are more useful or fair.3 However in this article my purpose is not to reexamine either Niebuhrs theory or Christian attitudes towards culture, but rather to use Niebuhrs typological method to examine the varieties of Muslim attitudes to culture. Niebuhrs five types are not appropriate to examine Islam. If we try to force Islam into Niebuhrs five types, it would create more confusion than enlightenment. Even to take the
1 2

See Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Culture (New York: Basic Books, 1973). See H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951). 3 See for example, John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus and The Original Revolution. See also, Glen Stassen, Transforming Culture.

Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 1

Niebuhrs types as a starting point risks allowing Christian categories to distort the actual range of Muslim attitudes to culture. Nevertheless I think the value of this approach is worth the risk. Islam is not monolithic and a typological approach enables us to examine a range of Muslim perceptions of culture without judging what is the correct, or normative view of Islam. My approach is profoundly influenced by living in Indonesia and studying Indonesian manifestations of Islam for the past twenty years. I am not competent to judge whether my typology would be useful for examining the range of Muslim views in Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or Iran, for example. Indonesia is notably diverse and tolerates a wide range of viewpoints, far more in fact, than even its close neighbor Malaysia. In Indonesia, six religions are officially recognized and inter-religious dialogue is a normal, everyday experience. As the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia is a useful starting point for examining Islamic diversity, especially in the context of Asia. H. Richard Niebuhrs five types include: 1. Christ against Culture; 2. Christ as the highest manifestation of Culture; 3. Christ above Culture; 4. Christ and Culture in paradox/tension; 5. Christ Transforming Culture. Niebuhr pictured these as a continuum between two polarities: Christ against Culture is at one extreme and Christ as the highest manifestation of culture is at the opposite extreme. In between these two polarities he suggested there are three intermediate types. Christ and culture in tension was closer to the Christ against culture pole, while Christ above culture was closer to the Christ as the highest achievement of culture. In the middle between the extremes was Christ transforming culture. This was the type that H. Richard Niebuhr preferred over the others. None of these five types would have the same meaning if applied directly to the history of Islamic thought. If applied to Islam, they could not be conceptualized as a continuum between two polarities similar to Niebuhrs polar types of Christ against culture and Christ of culture. I have adapted four of Niebuhrs types, changing their content considerably, and replaced one of them. If there is a polarity in my typology, it is a political polarity between degrees of Islamic control of culture. At one extreme is rejection of all culture, to be replaced by unmediated revelation (Syariah), and at the other extreme is cultural autonomy and freedom from religious control of culture. The five types proposed below are not an accurate description of Islamic views of culture. They are a conceptual tool that is more or less helpful for understanding Islam and culture. That is, they are not right or wrong, but rather helpful or not helpful to aid our understanding. If they are considered as a detailed description of the views of Muslims, they will be misleading rather than helpful. The five types are as follows: 1. Islam should replace human culture. This type views all human cultures as the enemy of Islam, which must be replaced by Islam. Islam is Gods teaching, not human culture. 2. Arabic Islam is the highest achievement of culture. The second type views Islam and Arabic culture as virtually synonymous. Other cultures may have positive elements, however

Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 2

Arabic language and culture is the critical standard by which all other cultures may be judged because God chose to give His final revelation through Arabic language and culture. 3. Islam is in tension with all human cultures. Because human cultures tend to be idolatrous, Islam cannot be at peace with human cultures. Human beings cannot live without their cultures and cultures must be accepted and valued, but they are always dangerous. Therefore there will always be tension between Islam and culture. 4. Islam is creating its own diverse cultures. According to this type, the substance of Islam should rule every aspect of life and create Islamic cultures wherever there are Muslims. The substance of Islam is universal, but are embodied in human cultural forms. Cultural influences that are negative or unhelpful (sia-sia) must be left behind. But Islam can transform even negative aspects of culture to become positive and consistent with the spirit of Islam. 5. Different cultures should be respected and allowed to develop by themselves without interference from religion unless they are in clear opposition to religion. This fifth type views human cultures as good and rejects the idea that Arabic culture has priority over other cultures. Muslims will naturally absorb Islamic elements into their culture, but cultures are essentially human creations that should be allowed freedom from control by religious authorities. This typology of five types can be diagramed as follows: Islam should Replace Culture

Arabic Islam is the Highest Form of Culture

Cultures Should be Free of Religious Control Islam is Creating Diverse Islamic Cultures

Islam is in Tension with Human Cultures

In the following sections, this article will discuss these five types in more detail, suggesting examples of Muslim figures who tend to represent each of the five types. This article does not claim to judge between the five types, or state which types are right or wrong. My approach is not normative but rather descriptive. The author does not presume competence to decide which of these types is most consistent with the Al Quran or orthodox Islamic teaching. Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 3

However I will try to show how different Muslim groups and figures exemplify each of the five types. In other words, this article is about historic and current Islamic thought about the relation between Islam and culture rather than about the normative teachings of Islam.4 My particular focus is on how these different types influence the relation between Islam and the pluralistic society of Indonesia, with special attention to how the five types affect educational policies. II. Islam Should Replace Human Cultures According to this view, Islam is the enemy of all human cultures which tend towards idolatry. Islam is not part of human culture, but rather directly revealed by God into a dark world (jahililah). Islam is not the product of cultural development, but rather is based on the actual words of God through the prophet (peace be upon him). The revelation of Allah is not mediated by culture but rather is opposed to human cultures that resist Gods commandments. Human cultures, especially those that are kafir (pagan), are the enemies of Islam. One example of this position is the treatise of Ibn Taymiyyah that proclaims that all areas of the world are either under Islam (Dar al-Islam) or are the enemy of Islam (Dar al-Harb). There should be no compromise between Islam and cultures that developed under the influence of paganism (kafir). Muslims should fight a jihad to eliminate all non-Islamic elements from their faith and practice. The far extreme of this position is that not only are non-Islamic cultures the enemies of Islam, but all people who are kafir should be considered Islams enemies. According to this world view, the converse can also be inferred: human, non-Islamic cultures are the enemies of Islam and of all true Muslims. Even though they may appear friendly and innocent, secretly the non Islamic world is working to destroy Islam. This perception was strengthened by the so called war against terror and President Bushs use of the term crusade to describe it.5 This led to the perception that there is a global conspiracy based on a clash of civilizations that pits the Islamic world against the Non-Islamic world (especially the West), in a fundamental and unavoidable conflict.6 The terms Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb are neither in the Koran nor the Hadiths but rather developed at a time when Islamic civilization (the Ottoman Empire) was under grave threat from the Byzantine Empire. This was a period of time when the conflict between the

See Pengantar oleh M. Amin Abdullah and Pedahuluan Editor in, Metodologi Studi Agama, edited by Ahmad Norma Permata (2000). Amin Abdullah makes an important distinction between historic Islam and normative Islam. In fact the two cannot be separated, but as ideal types, they can and should be distinguished. 5 The use of the word crusade was doubly unfortunate because the word literally means war of the cross. In Indonesian it is translated perang salib (war of the crucifix), with the direct implication that the war against terror is a religious war between Christianity and Islam. This was probably just a very bad lingustic mistake by George Bush, since in English the word crusade is often used to just mean a morally inspired campaign that does not necessarily have anything to do with religion. For example, there can be a completely secular crusade against drug abuse. 6 The well known clash of civilizations between Islam and the West theory was first suggested by Bernard Lewis and popularized by Samuel Huntington. While this theory is rejected as misleading and simplistic by most Western scholars, it still has a popular appeal both in Western and Muslim countries like Indonesia. There have been many responses. For an interesting analysis of a clash of civilizations in India, see, Martha C. Nussbaum, The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence and Indias Future . (Ranikhett: Permanent Black, 2007).

Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 4

Islamic world and the Christian world were conceived as a zero sum game.7 Both sides felt threatened with annihilation. In a situation where survival is at stake, a negative view of the other tends to become absolute. Civilizations and religions that threaten your peoples survival are treated as implacable enemies. The world is divided into black and white categories of us against them. This gives strong support for an Islamic view consistent with the first type, i.e. that Islam is against all non-Islamic cultures. Today, most Muslims who tend towards this first type are not in a context where their physical survival is threatened by non-Islamic cultures and religions. Therefore, not all Muslims who consider Islam opposed to human culture see non-Muslims as enemies. In fact they may be more concerned about the impact of local cultures on other Muslims than they are about nonMuslims. Some people understand Islam as pure revelation that is unaffected by culture. Therefore cultures pose a threat to Islam. Cultures are sinful, human creations that lead people away from following the pure teaching of Islam. Movements to purify Islam from heretical local practices may be influenced by this view, that Islam is the enemy of local cultures which are the sources of idolatry and polytheism (syirik). Nevertheless, it would be a grave injustice to assume that those who see Islam as opposed to human cultures are necessarily hard line jihadists or more prone to violence than other groups. Many conservative religious people from all religions tend towards this first type. They may view their own beliefs as the one and only absolute Truth revealed from God and uninfluenced by human culture. They see all human cultures as in opposition to the pure teachings of their religion.8 However there are at least three reasons why the great majority do not condone violence as a means to defeat pagan (kafir) culture. First of all, most religious communities do not live in a context of war, in which one religious community is threatened with death from another community, culture or religion. Usually a willingness to use violence (kill or be killed) is connected with fear. If people live in a safe environment where they are not threatened with acute danger or extreme injustice, there are not many who want to go to war (kill and be killed), with the possible exception of individuals who feel a high degree of alienation and/or mental illeness. Of course there are still places and periods where different religious communities seem to face each other in a zero sum game, in which they feel threatened with annihilation. Those who advocate violence often cite these cases and the need for global solidarity to justify their resort to violence.9 However the vast majority of believers do not live in extreme conditions where they are dominated by fear. Secondly, most people realize that violence is not an effective way to convert others to your religion. In fact religious groups that feel physically threatened often become stronger in their faith. Of course violence is often used against small minorities (such as Ahmadiyah) who
7

Zero sum game is a term that indicates that there is no possibility that both sides could win through negotiation or compromise. If one side wins it means their enemy must be defeated. The conflict is a matter of life or death for both parties. 8 In America, Fundamentalist Christians who tend towards right wing politics view the culture of Western liberalism as the enemy of true Christianity. Their views of many social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, feminism, sexy clothing and sexual freedom are very similar to the views of conservative Muslims. There are even Christian groups that require women to wear a head covering similar to the jilbab. 9 Examples include specific periods in Ambon, Poso, Croatia, Nothern Ireland, Sudan, Lebanon and Palestine.

Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 5

have no effective way to fight back. However the results of such tactics are not clear. When violence is used against larger minority groups, it rarely brings positive results for anyone. Thirdly, the legal structure of most modern nation states, including Indonesia, recognizes religious pluralism and protects the rights of minority groups. Most countries forbid violence in the name of religion, ethnicity, race or sect.10 Even if a group feels that a religious or cultural group is their enemy, they do not dare attact them physically. In some countries there are small groups who take the risk of taking the law into their own hands. However in most cases they risk arrest and broad social disapproval, including from most fellow believers who tend towards type one, Islam should replace culture. III. Arabic Islam is the Highest Form of Culture In one sense this type seems to be the exact opposite of the type before it. The first type says that Islam is not cultural and in fact is the enemy of human culture. The second type says Islam, particularly Islam as it was practiced by the prophet (pbuh), is the highest achievement of human culture. But in fact, type one and type two are very close to each other. This type does not suggest that Islam is merely the achievement of culture. Like most Muslims, those who might fit within this type also believe that Islam is based on the revelation of God through the last Prophet. It is not just a product of human understanding or just a great cultural achievement. However, unlike those in the first type, this type recognizes that Gods revelation came into a particular time and place, through a particular language and particular cultural forms of life. In short, Islam was and is mediated through human culture, i.e., Arab culture. Allah, through the angel Gabriel, spoke Arabic and addressed human kind through the cultural forms of Arab culture. The conclusion drawn is that Arabic language and culture is the most perfect form of human culture. Since God gave commands that are culturally addressed to an Arabic social, economic and cultural context, and the stories of the Hadiths are also about the Prophets life and actions within Arabic culture, therefore it follows that all those who want to follow the prophet should obey the same instructions and imitate Arabic ways of speaking, dressing, eating, marrying, economic relations and etc.. To be a Muslim implies adopting an Arabic way of life. Those who identify with this position stand out because of their distinctive dress, beards, frequent use of Arab language and other signs that they equate being Muslim with being Arabic. In practice, this group is not very different from the first type that sees Islam as being the enemy of culture. The first type does not consider Syariah to have anything to do with culture. They believe Gods commands are above culture and do not derive from human will. The second type recognizes that Syariah is culturally Arabic and therefore strives to be as Arabic as possible in order to be faithful to the commands of God. The end result is that the behavior of type one and type two is very similar. Differences are more to do with the degree of literalness with which they interpret the text or accept Medieval codifications of Syariah. The key to understanding the second types perspective on Islam and culture, lies in a particular view of history. According to type two, the highest point in human cultural history
10

In Indonesia this is referred to as SARA (Suku,Agama, Ras, Aliran), which means Tribe, Religion, Race or Sect.

Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 6

came during the Prophet Muhammads lifetime. Human civilization reached its zenith with the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophets way of life, his style of government, way of speaking, dress, social organization, economic policies, aesthetic views and cultural outlook are all to be considered, not only the most progressive for their time and place, but as the ideal way of life for all times and all places. In this perspective, the end of history was not the triumph of liberal democracy (Fukuyama), but rather the life of the Prophet. All of the trials and sufferings of the Muslim umat come from deviating from the way of life prescribed by the prophet. Therefore the way to restore the glory of Islam is to return to the way of the prophet. Since the 7th Century, human culture (and especially Western culture), has polluted the pure way of life prescribed by the prophet. Only by returning to the whole (utuh) of the Prophets teaching and following the pure teaching of the prophet, can the Islamic world recover their former glory. IV. Islam is in Tension with Human Cultures Those who follow this third type of perspective on the relation between Islam and culture, believe that Islam is inevitably mediated by culture and do not believe that Islam should be equated with Arabic culture. According to this view, Islam is universal and transcultural. Islam can flourish within many different cultures and it is not necessary for them to become Arabic in order to follow the prophet. In fact, the great majority of Muslims do not live in the Middle East or speak Arabic as their native language. The great majority of Muslims live in Asia and Africa. Islam is also growing rapidly in America and Europe. Islam can adjust to many different cultures without forcing them to become Middle Eastern. Of course the adaptation between Islam and a wide variety of cultures is not easy. If someone accepts that the Koran must be interpreted (itjihad), and that obedience to God and the teaching of Islam is not the same as rigidly following the literal11 meaning of the text (Al Quran or Hadits), then the relation between Islam and culture becomes much more complicated. Social, cultural, economic and political structures in modern societies have changed greatly since the 7th Century. Accurate interpretation requires that the reader understand the context and motivations that lie behind the text of the scriptures, if she or he wants to understand their original meaning. This means that the literal meaning of a text as read today is not necessarily the same as the original meaning of the text in its context. In whatever language they are written, the words of a text do not have an abstract meaning that has no connection with the context and situation in which it was originally written. Words are always written from someone, who has a particular motivation, and addressed to someone real, in a particular context.12 Understanding comes not only from understanding the original context of the text, but also the new context of the reader. The reader may live in Iran, Egypt, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, China, Switzerland, Indonesia or the USA. If the true message of Islam is to be understood in these very different contexts, then it must differentiate between the elements in these different cultures that are compatible with Islam and which are incompatible with Islam.
11

Stanley Fish has shown that the same text can have multiple literal meanings depending on the context in which the text is located. There may be only one legitimate meaning of a text, but it is a different meaning depending on the context of the reader. See Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in the Class? (1980) 12 See Fazlur Rahman, Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982)

Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 7

According to this perspective, there is no ideal Islamic culture in the world. All cultures are mixed, including good and bad elements. Islam must always be in tension with culture, because culture is always changing in relation to changes in society. Cultures are transformed by globalization in positive and negative ways. Cultures adjust to these changes in technology (like computers and the internet), changes in economics (like changes from traditional, rural, agricultural societies to urban, industrial, capitalistic societies), changes in political structures (like changes from a Sultanate to a democracy) and changes in social structure (from hierarchical, patriarchal societies with sharp differentiation between aristocrats and slaves, to more egalitarian societies), and etc.. Islam must be reinterpreted in order to address the good and bad elements in the rapid changes that are all around us. Islam, from this perspective, cannot go back to just imitate the way of the Prophet in the 7th Century, because most Muslims live within societies that have rapidly changing economic, social, political and cultural structures. From this perspective, Islam can neither accept nor reject modernity, but must enter into dialogue with modernity, struggling against the negative and embracing the positive aspects of the modern world. The first and second types are much simpler and appeal to people who are confused and distressed by future shock the sheer speed of radical social change. It is comforting to believe that Islam either is non-cultural and eternal or has its own, unchanging Arabic culture. Unfortunately these types have difficulty in helping prepare people to engage with the modern world. A possible source of violent fringe groups within Islam is the feeling of desperation that comes with being unable to either adjust to or succeed within the competitive marketplace of the modern world. The third type does not provide a simple solution but has the virtue of providing an interpretive method for bridging the gap between the ancient texts of the Koran and Sunnah, and the challenges of living in the modern world. Muslims should not accept the modern world uncritically, but must live in tension, always working to understand the substantive meaning of Islam within the real contexts within which we live. V. Islam is Creating Islamic Cultures all over the World Whereas the third type stresses the tension between Islam and modern reality, the fourth type accepts the diversity of modern life and suggests that Islam is compatible with most if not all human cultures. According to this perspective, there is no reason we must assume that Islam is absolute and acultural (like type one), or unchangeably connected to Arab culture (like type two. Nor should we think of Islam as simply sitting in judgment on all human cultures and living in tension with them (like type three). Rather Islam is creating many different Islamic cultures in different places around the world. Islam in Morocco does not need to be the same as Islam in England. Islam in Qatar need not resemble Islam in India. There is no one Islamic culture, but there are many different Islamic cultures. In fact the overwhelming majority of Muslims live in Asia and Africa. They do not need to become Middle Eastern in order to be good Muslims. Islam is also growing rapidly in Europe and America and adapting to Western cultures. From this perspective, the goal of Islam is not to live in tension with cultures that are more or less kafir but rather to transform them into truly Islamic cultures. In order to be truly Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 8

Islamic, it is not necessary to go back to the culture of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the 7th Century. Nor is it necessary to imitate Arab culture. Cultures are human creations and contain many good elements, as well as bad elements. Islam is not a privatistic religion just for the individual, but rather intends to transform the world. Islamic cultures should never be absolutized, as if there were only one way to be a good Muslim. Since cultures are human creations, they will always be flawed. There is no ideal Islamic society on earth, nor should we expect that there will be one. But Muslims in many different cultures are building human societies according to their understanding of the substantive teaching of the Al Koran and Sunnah. When Islam transforms a culture from a jahililah (pagan) culture into a God fearing Muslim culture, it builds a new culture that is made up of all the good elements and cultural symbols of a particular time and place, combined with the local peoples understanding of the meaning of the Koran and Sunnah as it is applied in their context. An example of this approach is the way the Wali Songo are said to have spread Islam using local cultural art forms like the wayang kulit and the stories from the Ramayana and the Mahabrata.13 The result was the building of a distinctive Indonesian Islam that has been called the Mystic Synthesis.14 Many Javanese saw no contradiction in becoming devout, orthodox Muslims, without giving up many of the beliefs and practices of Javanese culture. According to this fourth type, Islam in Java should not be seen as an inferior kind of Islam that needs to be purified to return to the true Islam of Saudi Arabia. Rather it is a unique and precious kind of Islamic culture that incorporates the substance of Islam with positive elements from the local culture. According to this view, the goal of Islam is not to build one unified Islamic culture all over the world, but to build Islamic cultures wherever there are Muslims. Both Abdurrahmann Wahid and Nurcholis Madjid are examples of Muslims who accepted the positive reality of diversity within Islam, in relation to culture. The Al Quran states that humankind was created as male and female in many different nations and tribes so that they would learn to know each other. One tribe or nation is not better than another but rather is approved by God in relation to their actions. The implication is that God created diversity, not uniformity. If God wanted all people to be alike God would have created just one tribe and nation.15 From the perspective of this fourth type, cultural diversity is the will of God. VI. Cultures should be Free of Religious Control The fifth type of Muslim perspective on cultures focuses on the unfortunate abuses of religion in trying to control culture. According to this perspective, whenever religion, including Islam, tries to transform culture, or change it into a religious or Islamic culture, the result is conflict and the hegemony of a small, religious elite. Efforts to build Islamic cultures end up
13

The Wali Songo where nine, semi-mythical figures who are credited with spreading Islam in Java during the 14th15th Centuries. They used art forms like the Wayang Kulit (shadow puppets), to tell stories from Indian, Hindu, epic literature, that were adapted to bring an Islamic message. 14 See M. C. Ricklefs, Mystic Synthesis in Java (Norwalk: Eastbridge, 2006) 15 Al Quran, Surat Al Hujuraat ayat 13. In Indonesian translation: Hai manusia, sesungguhnya Kami menciptakan kamu dari seorang laki dan seorang perempuan dan menjadikan kamu berbangsa-bangsa dan bersuku-suku supaya kamu saling kenal-mengenal. Sesungguhnya orang yang paling mulia di antara kamu di sisi Allah ialah orang yang paling taqwa di antara kamu. Sesungguhnya Allah Maha Mengetahui, lagi Maha Mengenal.

Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 9

repressing minorities and tend to favor over-simplistic interpretations of Islam. They give too much power to the ulama or the conservative elite in Islam. For example, when Muslims try to transform culture and make it Islamic, they usually try to take power and implement Syariah or Islamic law from above. Muslims become involved in endless power struggles to enforce their understanding of what a truly Muslim culture should look like. If we look at the places where Syariah is implemented in local bylaws, or even in a whole province, like Aceh, the result is not an end to the most serious social abuses, but rather repression of non-conformists and especially of women. Islam is equated with external obedience to certain dress codes and gender roles. Meanwhile the major problems of corruption, violence, poverty, environmental destruction, discrimination against women and minorities, human rights abuses and injustice are ignored. In his famous article on secularization, Nurcholis Madjid provided a theological argument, based on the doctrine of Tauhid, for allowing pluralistic interpretations to flourish.16 Tauhid lies at the heart of Islam and is the doctrine that there is only One God and no one should accept anything other than God (Allah), as God. According to Madjids interpretation, a theological reason for rejecting political parties that are based on religion (Islam), is that they tend to equate their own understanding and agenda with the will of God. In fact, their interpretations of Syariah and their political agenda are human creations that should never be equated with Gods will. Islamic parties are always mixed up with their own interests and struggle for power. To equate human constructions of Truth, with Gods will, is idolatry and contrary to tauhid. Politics and culture are clearly human constructions and should never be confused with God. Similar to the fourth type, Madjid believed that substantive Islam should influence and shape Indonesian society, including its politics. He believed that Muslims have the right and duty to create diverse Muslim societies that are pleasing to God (type 4). But similar to the fifth type, he believed that human institutions and human ideas should have relative autonomy and freedom from religious control. To claim absolute religious authority for a human agenda is akin to idolatry. In a similar vein, Kaled Abou El Fadl argues that Syariah can never be equated with any particular interpretation of it. Syariah includes a conception of the trans-historical will of God. Human formulations of Syariah should always be tentative and distinguished from Syariah itself. El Fadl argues that in the classical history of Islamic interpretation of Syariah there was always room for debate and progressive new interpretations. Those who claim the authority of God for their human interpretations have overstepped their authority and may even be guilty of oppression and injustice in the name of God.17 According to the fifth type, Muslim attempts to control or purify culture often end in repression of artists and loss of basic human freedoms, like freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. One example is the law against pornography. Pornography is clearly immoral, destructive and poses a serious threat to public morality. Those who follow the fifth type are not
16

Find ref. Nurcholis Madjid, El-Fadl, Khaled Abou, Speaking in Gods Name (London: Bell & Bain Ltd., 2001). Another influential Muslim author who takes a similar position is Abdullahi An Naim, Islam & the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Sharia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008).
17

Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 10

necessarily against laws against pornography. But in Indonesia, pornography was already illegal under existing laws and the new law against pornography that was passed under pressure from Islamist political parties does nothing to stop easy access to pornography through the internet or abundant pirated DVD outlets. Instead it threatens the freedom of expression of artists, the expression of diverse local cultures and the freedom of dress of women. This fifth type of perspective on culture regards cultures as human creations, that are Gods gift to human kind. Religion is also a gift, the grace of God to human kind. But religions are led by human beings who are far from perfect and have different understandings of both religion and culture. The diversity of cultures should not be controlled by religious elites unless there is widespread consensus throughout the community. There are many evil aspects to all cultures (including the cultures of corruption and violence). Globalization poses serious threats to the survival of traditional and local cultures. But the answer to this problem is not for a single religious elites to control culture. Religious leaders often disagree with each other about culture. For example, in a recent newspaper account, one of the leaders of Majelis Ulama Indonesia (Council of Indonesian Ulamas, known as MUI), pronounced that the popular, Indonesian, Islam-themed movie with the title ? (Question Mark), was forbidden (haram) for Muslims because it was based on the philosophy of pluralism that has been condemned in a fatwa by MUI. However another, equally distinguished, Muslim leader praised the film because it shows Islam in a very positive light as a tolerant and kind religion (rahmatan lil alamin). Probably the negative pronouncement from MUI helped to sell tickets to the movie! Religiously based criticism of cultural productions, are certainly valid. They are part of the right to critical expression. But according to the fifth type, attempts to ban or forbid cultural productions are mistaken because they do not respect the diversity of opinions. They do not allow free and creative expression based on a wide variety of behavioral norms. Of course all cultural productions are flawed. There are also evil aspects to Arab culture. We live in pluralistic cultures where there are many different cultural norms and values that live side by side. The differences between different streams within the same religion may be as great or greater, than the differences between people from different religious groups. We should seek consensus between different communities on ways to limit the damage done by globalization, rather than asking one religious elite to decide for us what is right and wrong. Sometimes, on pressing real issues, it is possible for extremely diverse religious groups to hold a constructive dialogue on how to overcome our differences and learn from each other. For example, the Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies in Yogyakarta (ICRS-Yogya), held a series of Bridge Building workshops and an international conference in which we invited representatives of sharply different religious groups who seldom communicate with each other. Representatives came from hard line Islamic groups like, Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia, Hizbut Tahrir, Sabili Magazine and Kammi, as well as Christian Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Buddhists, Hindus, representatives of Muhammadiyah, Nahatul Ulama, Ecumenical churches and indigenous religions. They came together to discuss the common problems we face in relation to globalization. If these diverse groups talked to each other about religion they would never agree and might even sharpen their conflicts. But because they recognized that they faced common problems that could only be solved if they learned from each other, the workshops were very useful. The process of dialogue helped us all overcome prejudices and suspicion of other groups. Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 11

This fifth type is similar to the fourth in accepting the great diversity of different cultures and agreeing that there is no single, normative Islamic culture. However, different from the fourth type, the fifth type thinks that in democratic, pluralistic societies, diverse cultures should be permitted to develop without trying to forge a single Indonesian Islamic culture. Of course the values of Islam, as well as other religions and philosophies have an enormous impact on the norms and practices of society. But competitions for power between religious elite who want to impose their own narrow views on everyone, only weakens the true impact of religion on public morality, trading the substance for symbolic signs of the hegemony of a particular group. VII. Synthesizing Perspectives on Islam and Culture In my opinion, there are merits in all five of these types. In fact I think it is possible to synthesize them all into one. Some of them are clearly overlapping, although in their pure form the five types are clearly mutually exclusive. They are meant to contrast with each other to help us understand the variety of views of Islam and culture. If I were to attempt to combine them all into one, it might sound like this: 1. Islam is clearly against certain aspects of modern culture. Modern capitalistic culture is oppressive and unjust. It dominates the whole world with a culture of consumerism and hedonism. Islam is against this modern culture. Islam is one of the most powerful forces for mobilizing people to resist the hegemony of modern capitalist culture. Islam should be critical of all cultures, including Arabic culture (type one). 2. Islam is also tied to Arabic culture. The Koran is written in Arabic and cannot be translated. Arab thought forms and conceptions of the world are embedded in Islam. They cannot be removed without losing some of the essence of Islam. Muslims should appreciate the richness of Arabic culture that is epitomized in the beauty of the language of the Koran (type two). 3. On the other hand, Arab culture should not be absolutized. That is against Tauhid. No human culture is perfect and Islam is not limited to Arab lands. Gods revelation through the Prophet (PBUH), actually begins with a critique of Arabic culture that was full of idolatry and violence. From the very start, Islam was in tension and conflict with the bad elements in different cultures, including Arab culture. In the Koran there are both positive and negative statements about other groups, for example Jews and Christians. This is not a contradiction but rather illustrates how Islam lives in tension with human cultures that sometimes are good and sometimes are bad (type three). 4. Today, most Muslims live outside of Arab countries. Therefore, although Islam will always be influenced by Arabic culture, Muslims in different countries are free to develop their own Islamic cultures. They cannot return to the world of the Prophet, even if they wanted to. The tremendous diversity of Islamic cultures, even within Indonesia, let alone throughout the world, indicates that God allows diversity. Muslims everywhere must struggle to understand how following the way of the Koran (Syariah), can be done within their own cultural context (type four). Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 12

5. Nevertheless, Muslims must be very careful not to over simplify or absolutize the views of any one religious group who claim they have an absolute understanding of what it means to build an Islamic society. Islam is not monolithic and it is dangerous to impose, or use repression to force all people to follow Islam as it is interpreted by a small group. Imposing one groups dogmatic viewpoint on all will not bring uniformity or truth. Rather it is wiser to allow differing interpretations of what it means to be faithful to Allah and allow Allah to decide in the end who is closest to the truth. It is better to allow different groups to compete in doing good,18 rather than to compete in gaining power to impose their view on others. My own attempt to synthesize these five different types reflects my own perspective. It does not mean I think all five are equally helpful. In particular I favor types 3, 4 and 5 over types 1 and 2. Types one and two are dangerous because they do not acknowledge that human cultures are always changing. These types tend to be essentialist, imagining that true religion, in its essence, never changes. Perhaps there is an unchanging, abstract essence to religion, but the empirical reality of religions interacting in societies as diverse as Yeman, Egypt, Singapore, France, USA, Morocco and Indonesia, means that they are always in the midst of change. Attempts to force uniformity can lead to repression and even violence, primarily against other Muslims who do not agree with the interpretation of what is the eternal, absolute will of Allah, according to those who happen to be in power. Those in power tend to mistake their own interests as if they were the will of God. Of types 3, 4 and 5, I favor type five because it seems most appropriate within pluralistic societies where there are not only many different religions, but also many different streams of interpretation and practice within the same religions. Type five does not need to mean the privatization of Islamic faith. Islam should always have a public aspect and help build just laws and political structures that promote justice and the common good. But the interpretation of Justice and the Common Good, should not be trusted to a religious elite. It should be the result of democratic deliberation in which all people from all different groups have a say. Religious elites should not have the power to control public morality or artistic expression. Each society should determine the limits of what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, based on democratic discussion and negotiation. VIII. Educational Implications Clearly there are educational implications connected to which of these five perspectives on Islam and culture is adopted or which is most influential in educational policy. If you accept type one, then the teachings of the Koran and Sunnah will presented as timeless, absolute commandments that should not be interpreted but rather obeyed without question. There will be no distinction between Syariah and fiqh. If type two is favored, then Arab language and culture should become the focus of education. An example of this is a prominent public (government) high school in Yogyakarta where all the girls are required to wear Muslim head covering (jilbab), even those who are not Muslims. Since Arab culture is absolutized, an Arabic form of dress is made a requirement for
18

Al Quran, Surat Al Hujuraat verse 13.

Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 13

all students and faculty. In some Indonesian Muslim universities, even a non-Muslim, foreign researcher is required to wear a jilbab while visiting the school. The educational implications of type three include an emphasis on more sophisticated (halus), methods of interpretation (tafsir) to equip students to understand the actual intent of the text in its original context, so that they can discover how it can address our modern context that is so different. The reality of good and evil in every culture should lead to a critical attitude that does not allow simple acceptance or rejection of modernity, but rather discerning evaluation of the good and evil in every culture. This approach should help overcome misleading dichotomies or polarizations between Islam and the West. Type four should lead to an educational policy that appreciates local culture and teaches tolerance for diversity. Tolerance for diversity does not mean teaching relativism or a weakening of religious conviction. Respect for others does not necessitate agreeing with them. We can disagree and at the same time honor the person with whom we disagree. Although we may each be quite sure we are right and the other is wrong, we should know that none of us is God and God will be our final judge, not each other. In pluralistic cultures, the mixing of elements from different cultures and religions is a common feature. Even the Kabbah of Mecca was at one time a pagan (kafir) symbol. The educational implications of type four would include an attention to how and why certain elements of (for example) Javanese culture, may or may not be combined with Islamic teaching. Tolerance for diversity does not mean uncritical acceptance of everything within a culture, but rather critical appropriation of what can fit, or be made to fit within a harmonious whole. Type five would lead us to be careful of religious indoctrination within schools. Many schools and even universities still permit teaching of hatred and intolerance of those who are from different cultures and religions. Recently CRCS published research on the religious attitudes of Religion teachers in Indonesia. The result demonstrated that Religion teachers (from all religions), were more intolerant of other religious groups than were the general public. We need inter-religious education where students are encouraged to learn about other religions in a respectful way. In Indonesia, religious education is only permitted in your own religion, taught by teachers from your own religion. While I appreciate the intent of this law, that prevents innocent students from being indoctrinated or even converted by someone from another religion, I believe that children and young people should have the chance to learn about other religions in a respectful and objective manner. If not, they may grow up never knowing anything about the most deeply held and important beliefs of their near neighbors.

Bernard Adeney-Risakotta, Religion and Culture, page 14