RELIGIOUS MODERATION vis-à-vis WASATHIYAH

/1 Comment/in /by

Religious moderation consists of two words: “moderation” and “religious.” The word “moderation” comes from the Latin “moderatio,” which means “in the middle,” not excessive, and not lacking. In a more technical or operational definition, “moderation” is an attitude and self-control that is neither excessive nor deficient. However, many people are more familiar with the English noun “moderation,” which signifies being in the middle and not excessive.

In the Islamic tradition, the term moderation is known as “wasathiyah,” referring to attitudes and actions that are neither excessive nor biased. “Wasathiyah” implies fairness, balance, and proportionality. As expressed by Ibn Faris Al-Qazwaini in Mu’jam Maqayisi Al-Lughah:

“بِنَاءٌ صَحِيْح يَدُلُّ عَلى الْعَدْلِ وَالنِّصْفِ”

“The correct construction of language shows the meaning of justice and the middle.”

Ibn Faris’ definition is concise, simple, and easy to understand compared to those of other Arabic language experts like Ibn Manzhur. Over the last 14 centuries, the definition of “wasathiyah” has not changed significantly, as the term is enshrined in the Quran and has become a foundational teaching concept with its own terminology. Thus, the concept of “wasathiyah” serves as a principle and standard of behavior that every Muslim must adhere to. Every Muslim is required to adopt a moderate stance, free from intolerance and discrimination. As stated in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:143):

وَكَذٰلِكَ جَعَلْنٰكُمْ اُمَّةً وَّسَطًا لِّتَكُوْنُوْا شُهَدَاۤءَ عَلَى النَّاسِ وَيَكُوْنَ الرَّسُوْلُ عَلَيْكُمْ شَهِيْدًاۗ وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الْقِبْلَةَ الَّتِيْ كُنْتَ عَلَيْهَآ اِلَّا لِنَعْلَمَ مَنْ يَّتَّبِعُ الرَّسُوْلَ مِمَّنْ يَّنْقَلِبُ عَلٰى عَقِبَيْهِۗ وَاِنْ كَانَتْ لَكَبِيْرَةً اِلَّا عَلَى الَّذِيْنَ هَدَى اللّٰهُۗ وَمَا كَانَ اللّٰهُ لِيُضِيْعَ اِيْمَانَكُمْۗ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ بِالنَّاسِ لَرَءُوْفٌ رَّحِيْمٌ

“And it is thus that We appointed you to be the community of the middle way so that you might be witnesses to all mankind and the Messenger might be a witness to you. We appointed the direction which you formerly observed so that We might distinguish those who follow the Messenger from those who turn on their heels. For it was indeed burdensome except for those whom Allah guided. And Allah will never leave your faith to waste. Allah is full of gentleness and mercy to mankind.”

Additionally, in Surah An-Nisa (4:171):

يٰٓاَهْلَ الْكِتٰبِ لَا تَغْلُوْا فِيْ دِيْنِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُوْلُوْا عَلَى اللّٰهِ اِلَّا الْحَقَّۗ اِنَّمَا الْمَسِيْحُ عِيْسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُوْلُ اللّٰهِ وَكَلِمَتُهٗۚ اَلْقٰهَآ اِلٰى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوْحٌ مِّنْهُۖ فَاٰمِنُوْا بِاللّٰهِ وَرُسُلِهٖۗ وَلَا تَقُوْلُوْا ثَلٰثَةٌۗ اِنْتَهُوْا خَيْرًا لَّكُمْۗ اِنَّمَا اللّٰهُ اِلٰهٌ وَّاحِدٌۗ سُبْحٰنَهٗٓ اَنْ يَّكُوْنَ لَهٗ وَلَدٌۘ لَهٗ مَا فِى السَّمٰوٰتِ وَمَا فِى الْاَرْضِۗ وَكَفٰى بِاللّٰهِ وَكِيْلًاࣖ

“People of the Book! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to Allah nothing except the truth. Isa Al-Masih, son of Maryam, was only a Messenger of Allah, and His command that He conveyed unto Maryam, and a spirit from Him. Believe in Allah and His Messengers, and do not say: (Allah is a) trinity. Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. Allah is indeed just one God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. Allah is sufficient for a guardian.”

The views and attitudes of moderation in Islam have been taught since the Quran was revealed and practiced by the Prophet Muhammad SAW, 14 centuries ago. As a concept, moderation in Islam has undergone significant development since the Science of Kalam flourished in the second and third centuries Hijri, followed by discourses on Tafsir, Hadith, Fiqh, Usul Fiqh, Sufism, and Maqashid Sharia until the eighth century Hijri, at the end of the Classical Islamic era.

Various sects within the science of Kalam have developed their own theories of moderation, such as Mu’tazilah, Ash’ariyah, and Shia. These three sects have played a crucial role in transforming Kalam into a philosophical discourse within Islam. This indicates that individuals who mature in the science of Kalam will adopt a wise approach to differences. Conversely, those with a superficial understanding of Kalam may display intolerance, as evidenced by the Khawarij group in the early Islamic era, who assassinated Ali bin Abi Thalib on January 27, 661 AD, for opposing their views. Similarly, contemporary Salafis often misinterpret rationalist Islam as dogmatic, treating religion in a rigid, mathematical manner. Intolerant groups such as Khawarij, Salafi, Taliban, and extremist organizations like ISIS, Boko Haram, and Al-Qaeda view religion dogmatically, interpreting Quranic verses in a narrow, normative sense. They consider all Jews and Christians as eternal enemies based solely on the linguistic construction of the text, neglecting the context of the verses’ revelation.

This extreme reliance on translated versions of the Quran, particularly those disseminated on social media, often results in a limited understanding. Translations can narrow readers’ comprehension, especially for fundamentalist and extremist groups lacking proficiency in Arabic. This restricted understanding complicates the acceptance of moderate religious perspectives. Additionally, these groups often reject interpretations from outside their own circle, labeling dissenters as liberal and contrary to Islamic teachings.

If left unchecked, attitudes opposing moderation can pose significant dangers to Indonesia’s diversity. Such views may foster “tatharruf,” or extremism, also known as Ghuluw in Shia tradition. Non-moderate attitudes can lead to intolerance and ultimately to extremist behavior, potentially inciting violent acts against those who oppose them.

Moderate attitudes, on the other hand, position religion as a subject requiring in-depth study, allowing for perspectives grounded in rationalism. For moderates, religion encompasses not only transcendental faith but also rational understanding.[]

RELIGIOUS MODERATION IN ISLAM: An Introduction

/0 Comments/in /by

When discussing Islam, we can view it from various perspectives, including a doctrinal one that pertains to monotheism. The doctrinal area refers to faith or belief held transcendentally, accepted without rationalization. However, in subsequent stages, we can rationalize this belief when transitioning from the realm of monotheism to theological-kalam discourse, a process known as rationalizing dogma. The potential risk associated with this discourse is the possibility of societal division, especially when theological-kalam discussions intersect with political ideologies. Historical instances, such as the Muktaziliyan, Asy’ariyan, Maturidiyan, Khawarij, and Shia sects, illustrate the intolerance faced by earlier generations, beginning with Washil bin Atha (700-748 AD). Theological-Kalam reached its maturity in the 2nd century Hijri through constructive scientific debates, unlike the deconstructive debates observed in contemporary Indonesian issues, such as the persecution related to the Ba’alawi lineage, where fanatical supporters targeted Ki Imad’s group.

Returning to the discussion of doctrine, scholars define Islam as a monotheistic religion that teaches the oneness of Allah SWT and acknowledges the Prophet Muhammad SAW as the final Prophet and Messenger, with the Qur’an revealed through His Prophet’s Sunnah. As quoted from Tafsir Ath-Thabari:

“Allah SWT revealed the Qur’an to the Prophet Muhammad SAW through the Angel Gabriel. It is said, ‘wa Ma Yanthiqu ‘An Al-Hawa’ – with ‘hawa’ meaning lust.”

In the context of doctrine, religion as a belief system is grounded in holy books. For Islam, this belief system is constructed based on the Qur’an and Sunnah. The Sunnah represents the contextualization of revelation through the exemplary actions of Muhammad SAW and his statements, which are considered explanations of revelation:

“And he does not speak out of (his own) desire. It is not but revelation revealed [to him]…” (An-Najm 53:3-4)

As a system of faith, Islam asserts the truth of the concept of tauhid or oneness as explained by theologians, and similarly, other religions have the right to claim the validity of their own faith concepts.

Each religion’s belief system is a private matter, and maintaining this privacy is a form of tolerance, which stems from a moderate stance. The common thread in religious ideological privacy is rationalism and openness. Rationalism in Islam is exemplified by theological philosophy, or kalam science, which seeks to rationalize faith, dogma, and belief systems regarding God. This rational concept of faith demands that adherents explore the realm of divinity through philosophical means. Dogma, traditionally taken for granted in a transcendent way, is examined critically through rational faith, known in Islamic theology as “alamul uluhah.”

Muslims who achieve intellectual status are those who excel in philosophical reasoning and thus attain wise thinking and openness. Openness is a prerequisite for religious moderation, especially concerning tolerance. It is challenging, as it requires elevating one’s belief system to a rational faith system. Remaining within dogma often leads to conflicts about whether religions share teachings of virtue or if all religions are the same. This perspective faces strong resistance from fundamentalist and traditionalist groups. Fundamentalists and traditionalists view the Words of God and Hadith as normative concepts, while rationalists, particularly those studying Maqashid Syariah, see them as frameworks for welfare and justice. Each verse of the Qur’an is interpreted within its conceptual framework of welfare and justice.

For example, consider the verse:

[هُنَّ لِبَاسٌ لَكُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ لِبَاسٌ لَهُنَّ] (البقرة: 187) “They are clothes for you, and you are clothes for them.”

Traditionalists interpret this verse as supporting the husband’s sexual rights, while fundamentalists may see it as evidence that heaven is forbidden to wives who disobey their husbands. In contrast, rationalist groups, such as those relying on Maqashid Syariah Lin Nisa, interpret this verse as a framework for husband-wife relations in both domestic and public contexts, emphasizing mutual support and cooperation in a marriage. The verse is seen as promoting sexual activity as a source of happiness rather than a burden, highlighting the importance of mutual satisfaction.

In the concept of muamalah (relationships), Islam also envisions welfare, which extends to human relations and interactions with the environment. Distinctions are made between domestic and public relations. Domestic relations include interactions between husband and wife, parents and children, and extended family. Domestic welfare, in popular and religious terms, is expressed as sakinah, mawaddah, wa rahmah (SAMAWA). Sakinah refers to peace without hostility, aiming to resolve and prevent conflicts. This will be the focus of the next discussion.

Women’s and Children’s Rights Crisis in the Middle East

/0 Comments/in /by

Nearly a month has passed since the world was shaken by the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the Head of the Political Bureau of Hamas, one of the fourteen resistance groups in Palestine. The most concerning aspect of this tragic event is its location—Tehran, Iran—which could have serious repercussions for Middle Eastern security, with the potential for the conflict to spiral out of control.

Israel, through its Mossad agents, has been linked to this assassination, a claim that surfaced just a day after Ismail was found dead. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied these accusations, likely aware of the severe consequences such an admission would bring. The silence from Israel only heightens the tension.

Two critical points have emerged: first, Ismail Haniyeh’s death was clearly a calculated and deliberate act, as evidenced by the explosion that killed him; second, the fact that this occurred in Tehran further complicates the situation, representing a violation of Iran’s sovereignty under international law.

This incident does not merely implicate Iran in failing to secure Ismail Haniyeh’s safety, nor does it serve as an effective provocation against Iran. Instead, it has unified the Iranian people in their resistance against Israel, as seen in the mass turnout for the funeral prayer in Tehran, led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the widespread prayers held across the Islamic world, from the Middle East to Southeast Asia.

In July 2024, Israel also claimed responsibility for the death of Fuad Syukri, a senior Hezbollah commander in South Lebanon. However, Fuad’s death did not generate the same level of global or regional impact, as it was perceived as a localized conflict between Hezbollah and Israel within Hezbollah’s stronghold.

In contrast, Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination has triggered a harsh global response because he symbolized the resistance of Palestinian women and children, who have suffered immensely due to Israel’s war.

The most urgent issue here is the impact of Netanyahu’s aggressive policies on the people of Gaza, especially women and children. Since the war began last year, over 50,000 people have died, 70 percent of whom are women and children. Gaza has become a living hell, wrought by human cruelty. Netanyahu’s actions are not only destroying Gaza’s people but also the future of his own nation. Growing support for Gaza is increasingly morphing into an anti-Jewish movement, harming both Israelis and Palestinians, as their economies are ravaged. The regional impact is severe, affecting countries like Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon, while Iran’s proxies complicate matters further.

Take Egypt, for instance. Even without war, the country teeters on the brink of collapse, burdened by a paralyzed economy, rampant corruption, and overwhelming national debt. The government’s insistence on funding a new capital project valued at an astronomical $57 billion USD (892 trillion rupiahs), largely covered by the national budget, only worsens the situation. This project infringes on the people’s right to a decent life, as guaranteed by the Egyptian constitution. The wars on Egypt’s borders, between Israel and Hamas, and in Eastern Europe between Russia and Ukraine, have deepened the humanitarian crisis. With inflation hitting an irrational 30 percent in 2023, the state can no longer control the market. A loaf of bread that once cost 25 Qirs now costs 3 Egyptian pounds—a twelve-fold increase. The once-subsidized grain that fed families now merely staves off hunger. Egypt is drowning in debt, with the IMF reporting that in 2023, Egypt’s debt exceeded 85 percent of its national income. Imagine the fate of women in Gaza, living at the heart of this conflict. They face famine not just for a day or two, but for nearly a year. They live without a state to protect them. Children, who should be welcomed into the world with joy, are instead born into cries of despair. Their lives are threatened by missiles and artillery shells, demolishing their homes and any hope of survival amidst the destruction wrought by colonial forces.

Meanwhile, national and international media focus on the display of American and allied combat troops ready to support Israel. They highlight aircraft carriers filled with stealth planes and the supposed superiority of Iranian missiles. What is the media truly after—viewer ratings, likes, shares, or subscribers?

Who Can Stop This?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, but this alone seems insufficient to halt what may be the most brutal war of this century—a war against humanity.

Israel and its allies must be held accountable for the destruction they have caused. Israel must rebuild Palestine, transfer security authority to the Palestinians, and recognize it as an independent state. They must also return Palestinian lands seized under Israeli occupation laws.

Israel’s allies, particularly the United States, must push for a two-state solution where Palestine and Israel coexist peacefully. If achieved sincerely and with a sense of humanity, Hamas must also cease its attacks, as these only deepen the suffering of Gazans.

Hamas must also be willing to compromise with other Palestinian groups to reduce internal tensions and egos.

But if a two-state solution is not reached, and there is no unity within Palestine, peace will remain an impossible dream, with each group choosing its own path.

4o