Andrew Collier in this chapter tries to make clear the Mark thoughts, especially some key concepts related to religion and state. Firstly, he explains that when Mark concedes that religion is opium of the people. The word “opium” usually understands in negative term. It is true that opium is drug, but according to (he quotes) Masignor Quixote point, it is respectable drug in Marx time. So, what Marx says can be update by using respectable things for the people, like valium for the poor, etc. Second, Collier says that religion is not bourgeois tools to console the poor, but the poor themselves who produce the hope. Religious is to speak the oppressed group. For Mark, religion is to back the poor from rebellion the religion to the rebellion in reality, in struggle of classes. Thus, religion become liberation instrument for the poor, if they aware what Mark means. Because, I think it likes sock therapy for religion adherent; maybe he says “no one will help you when you run from your responsibility”. In the other hand, we can say that actually Mark struggles for emancipation, not for money oriented. Thus, nobody permitted to exploit and oppressed another because he have strength and prosperity. In order to everybody can life with his personal authenticity.
Mark, Nitzhe, and Freud called as master of suspicion, because they have unique view of religion. If Collier statement above is true, in simple way their thoughts can be labeled as secularist thoughts, rather than atheist. Generally they see religion produced by social structure, true or false produced inside. In this way, knowledge can resemble with religion, if religion became the dominant ideology. But secularist is not neutral position, my be sometimes he claims that one need reason for believing something but that ones doesn’t need something for not believing something. Secularist character is dominating, if economy and politic dominate culture it also named as secularist.
For me, Mark, Nitzhe, and Freud thought are very interesting because their brave and veracity to critic dominant power in the social and cultural life. I know, not all what they think is appropriate with our cultures, but more or less his analyze can happens in our culture. Eastern cultures that more give attention to the ancient culture, like cannot go ahead front of the old age, in political culture it can hamper the regeneration of the leader. From oppressed perspective it can see as domination one class to another class. The most similar with their thesis also happens in Indonesia, there are many classes, and most of the Indonesian people are oppressed in economy, because they are poor. In the other hand, religion is important. Muslim is majority here, but religion is not being liberation instruments yet. Religion is still being an authority tolls for power holder to legitimate their political action. Citizen just follow religion and consistent to his believe, cannot take values from it for his life in the economical life. Hence, religion is still gives an advantage to some peoples, not for all. Secularism, atheist, and religion maybe close together, so sometimes we grasp it all. However, in social life we have to choose one, faith to one it means infidel to another.[]

Read More...

Pluralism discourses is problematic. We know that diversity is a fact, but why we are diverse in religious andcultural matters is difficult to understand. We can not refuse the plurality, but it also difficult to manage. The problem is how to come up its in better understanding. Today, pluralism discourses has become not only antropological and sociological discourses, but also philosopical and theological discourses. Two person who seems have a lot of contribution in proposing this isues is Jhon Hick and Sayyed Hussein Nasr. Their ideas have many respons from other scholar. Some of them I will explain below.
After Jhon Hick and Naser propose pluralism as a key to understanding religions there are many reaction to them. Reaction come from some theologion and some scholar who feels uncomfortable with their argumentation. Therefore, actually almost all of them accept Hick ideas about pluralism, but they questioning some fundamental issues bolstering. Some sholar that come from Islam, Christianity, and Buddha questioning the ontological bases of theidea of pluralism because Hick aruges that his theory overally covered to all traditions. However, the fact Hick did not give strong argumentation of what hi says comprehensively. Every religion has uniqueness that make dificult to generalize because of the culture and the history is different.
Actully, I get same aprehension from the articles of Mehmet Recber (Hick, the real and all-haqq), Muhammad Legenhausen (Misgiving about the religious pluralism of Sayyed Hossein Nasr and Jhon Hick), and Jhon Cobb (Beyond pluralism, from Christian uniqness reconsidered). As a fact wheter direct or dim they accept the theory of pluralism. Because Hick and Nasr give a rational explanition for that discourses. Although Hick and Nasr have different ways to explain it. Where Hick more stressed to philosophical approach and Nasr stressed to theological aproach they meet in the important issues that is the ultimate reality as a root of pluralism.
Hick influenced by Kant philosophy about nomena and phenome. In his views everything have a nomena. The atribut of nomena is difficult to understand because it cannot be observed. But nomena make fenomena exists. Religion is like fenomena, because it exist from the awe feeling to the ultimate reality. It means he says that religion are come from human experience of ultimate, so because there are many people in history it is possible for human to interperet the ultimate with different kinds and different expressions. For Hick, truth claim is not becasue they have different ultimate reality (it is like vague God), but because of human interpretation. what Hick stated look like clear, but for Heckber it is too reductionist. Although Hick qoutes some verses of the Qur’an, he did not analyze it verses from the historical context of the verses. The real in Hick term really did not equal with the concept The Real in Islam, Heckber states. If Hick analogy all religion is same, then Islam have some fundamental uniqueness that different from others, it is possible to question it. Catwell smith also says that Islam is not really have similiar catagory with other religions. Because Islam, as later monotheism have sistematic and modern doctrines.
Nasr’s thought is more influenced by theological doctrines. His theory argues that all religions came from God’s revelation. It means that religion is not come from human experinces per se, but come from God trough prophet or messenger. From theological perspectif it cannot be understood if god lets human alone to do worst things without god ruller. Although for some theologian its clear, not for Legenhousen. He opposes that Nasser not really give a clear argumentation for his theories. Even he seem like a theologian rather than philosoper. He says “Nasr fall short of allowing revelation the absolute status it must posses if it is realy understood as nothing less than god’s direct communication to huminity”.
Whatever religion is important to understanding religion. But, I think we must more ballance to see this discourses. Heckber and Legenhousen I see is actually support to Nasr ideas, because maybe they have same background. In the other hand, also Cobb sees that Christianity have special uniqueness that different with other religions. So, that all not good solution for better understanding. Even arising new truth claims. But, whoever is difficult to placed him self in a neutral position. Hick is influenced by Christian thingking, according to Heckber. That all then make dialog of religion changes not from doctrine of religion but from third issues, like human right, kindness, and so forth. That indicate pluralism as univerasl understanding has fail to work.
In posmodernism eras, we sometimes difficult to act wheter we should follow universal or particular ideas. In one hand, we have uniquenes of people that become identity, whereas our live cannot avoid others people who live in surroundings. It is fact that religion have different doctrine and ritual. Saying that something is truth is easy to same follower, but contrary when we say it to the other out side one religion can emergence disconcert situation.
Its true that both philosophy and theology talk about the ultimate reality, or specifically truth. But if we try to understand it by the theological perspective it more difficult in resulting similar conclussion. I think we should back to Hick aproach by using philosophical methods. Wheter we use western or nortern philoshophy. Perhaps, Shoun theory is good. He say that one religion is follow religion before. But, that aim wheter to correct nor to bring new doctrine I dont know. Or we can use another philosophy, like “Ilumination concept” from Suhrawardi, or using language game concept of Witgenstein. Every single philosophy can describe nomena as unspoken, or unreach being that will give balance understanding. The most important think is we must back to the our experince, our heart, our awareness, as human not horse.[]

Read More...

The world, nowadays, seems to have one ideology that is democracy. In any country, the spirit of democracy is now blown and regarded as highest accepted ideology. However, the world with its plurality, is now facing the challenge of having a peaceful world to live in. The challenge of religious truth claims lead most thinkers to provide the third language to facilitate alternatives on toleration among the truth claimers. The idea of secularism has emerged as an object of academic argument and of practical dispute. This is the growing interest in questions of modernity. However, most anthropologists continued to show little interest in question of secularity and secularization. Talal Asad noted that until today the main text book in the anthropology of religion make no reference to these issues (P. 22). Most thinkers believe the need of new model of religion and modernity. Talal Asad regarded as one of the leading professor (anthropology) who has been in front proposing the idea of secularism. His idea of pluralism, lead us to rethinking of religion and the modern.
Starting with very sharp question: Is secularism a colonial imposition, an entire world views that gives precedence to the material over the spiritual, a modern culture of alienation and unrestrained pleasure? Or is it necessary to universal humanism, a rational principle that calls for suppression-or at any rate, the restraint-of religious passion so that a dangerous source of intolerance and delusion can be controlled, and political unity, peace and progress secured?(p. 21).
Talal Asad suggested to use indirect way in approaching the idea of secularism (p.67). Secularism in the eye of anthropologist-like religion-is such a concept. The secular brings together certain behaviors, knowledge, and sensibilities in modern life What makes modern anthropology different is that its distinction in the comparison of embedded concept between societies located in time and space. The important thing in this comparative analysis is not their origin (Western or not Western), but the forms of life that articulate them; the powers they release or disable (p. 17). Talal Asad believes that macrosociology and epistemology undergirds modern society and modern system of knowledge. Asad tend to discuss secularism in general term rather than lifting concrete social particulars, and he emphasized that in this bok he is not concerned to attack liberalism whether as political system or as an ethical problem.(p. 26)
Modernity
Talal Asad emphasize that modernity, which has been reach by Western civilization, is centrally taking the role that influencing this new idea of secularism. Modernity with all tools altogether with its indicators such as technology, industry, and science take the most responsibility in influencing the global change all over world population jump hill to the culture, values of the society and the way civilian think in the third world civilization even the global warming. Modernity has successfully driven people to live in smaller world and within plurality that undoubtedly unavoidable. These situations encourage great thinkers, philosophers, scientists attempted to do such effort try to develop a bridge that could possibly give an alternative peace way to be used in plurality nature relation. They try hard to build a path to avoid conflict among religious adherent, ethnicity, racial, tribes, nationhood and so forth. Some notable name arise such as John Rawls (public reason), Seyyed Hossein Nasr (the tradition :”the Philosophia Perennis”),Wilfred Cantwell Smith (Religion as human Creation), John Hick, Jurgen Habermas (Religion in The Public Sphere), John B. Cobb,Jr, Arvind Sharma, Diana L. Eck (Civic Language) and more others.
Modernity, for Talal Asad, is a reality that cannot be ignored. This condition places primary emphasize on the role of the western domination in globalizing new system of knowledge and new social disciplines. As he noted: Assumptions about the integrated character of modernity are themselves are part of practical and political reality. They direct the way in which people committed to it, act in critical situations…. Modernity is a project-or rather a series of interlinked projects that certain people in power seek to achieve. The project aims at institutionalizing a number of (sometimes conflicting, often evolving) principles: constitutionalism, moral autonomy, democracy, human right, civil equality, industry, consumerism, freedom of the market and secularism (p.13).
In my opinion, bringing the idea of secular as a concept like religion will encounter another problem. As we know diversity of faiths is not a new phenomenon. But the problem emerges only in the last century because the contact between different religious communities intensified as the effect of the modernity itself. The different religions are different streams of religious experience, each having started at a different point within human history and each having formed its own conceptual self-consciousness within a different cultural milieu. Talal Asad himself aware of this issue and he even put this as the crucial hypothesis in society’s matter that he said differently in space and time. Form of life that articulates the concept is the most important thing. Civilization which exist today is the result of the social evolution. Anthropologist regard this industrial era as the highest era of civilization. This civilization can be trace and learned in term of order. People used to use myth to explain the phenomena that they cannot answer. In line with science and technological advancement, the way people think have shifted from time to time especially in responding the phenomena happened. Cantwell-Smith assert that the notion of civilization it’s not all transcendent, but also historical. This notion implies that human being is the outcome of his or her history. Religious experience is one and the most influence thing that shape human personal identity. Most adherents takes their religion for granted. Something inherently in blood. It might because the values of religion itself such as faith and truth claim. The fact that there exist many faiths; Each religion makes truth claims, and truth claims made by a religion may contradict with others are questions that should be answered. Does secularism has the answer?

Secularism, Nation State and Religion
Beginning with two question of how did Muslims think about secularism prior to modernity? What do Muslims today make of the idea of the secular? (P. 205). Talal Asad try to discuss his idea of secularism with some other Muslim thinkers (modern and classic) notions. In discussing Umma concept in islam he said: The Islamic umma in the classical theological view is thus not an imagined community on a par with the Arab nation waiting to be politically unified but a theologically define space enabling Muslims to practice the disciplines of din in the world. Of course the world umma has the sense of a people and a community in the Qur’an,…….The crucial point therefore is not that it is imagined but that what is imagined predicate distinctive mode of being and acting. The Islamic umma presupposes individuals who are self governing but not autonomous (P. 197). Furthermore he reminds all of us that Muslims are now inhabit different world from the one their medieval forebears lived in. Muslims today are the fastest growing community in America, Europe and almost all over the world, so it is clear that we must realize with this real circumstance. The world of global is now getting more plural unavoidably. He argue that even the most conservative Muslim draws an experiences in the contemporary world to give relevance and credibility to his or her theological interpretations (p. 198). Asad insists the need of a nation state to regulate people who are plural. The way social spaces are defined, ordered and regulated makes them all equally “political”. The deprivatization of the religion like those occured in Algeria 1992 and in Turkey 1997, are intolerable to secularist primarily because of the motives imputed to their opponents rather to than anything the latter have actually done. The motives signal the potential entry of religion into space already occupied by the secular. What Asad underline is that Islamism’s preoccupation with state power which is occured in Arab nations is not of its commitment to nationalist ideas but the global world enforced claim to constitute legitimate social identities and arenas, so that Asad insist that Islamism cannot be reduced to nationalism (p. 200).
The concept of the secular cannot do without the idea of the religion. America’s constitution does not recognize any phrase which mentioned “separation of church and state”, but it represents the supreme court’s interpretation of the founder’s intention.(p. 201). People, of course, will never be able to release themselves from his or her own religious activities. It represented in objects, sites, practices, words, even the minds and bodies of worshippers. The historical elements, one thing that Asad says as unavoidable thing in human live, of what come to be conceptualized as religion has disparate trajectories. On the other hand nation state requires clearly demarcated space that it canclassify and regulate: religion, education, health, leisure, work, income, justice, and war. Asad keep insisting that the space that religion may properly occupy in society has to be continually redefined by the law because the reproduction of secular life within and beyond the nation state continually affect the discursive clarity of the space.
By contradictory representation of modernity Talal Asad refer to what Weber wrote that sharia was primitive because it lack the criteria given to modern law by rationality. Anglo American Jurists had no hesitation in regarding English common law modern even though it did not embody the Weberian criteria of legal rationality. Secularism which is regarded as a modern concept is located in an argument about the importance of particularity. There is something that should be underlined here is that Weber derifed his understanding of Islamic law largely from the Dutch orientalist Snouck Horgronje, who was closely involved with projects of law reform in colonial Indonesia.
Talal Asad eventually define secular law for modern morality which involved the legal constitution of fundamental social spaces in which governance could be secured through ; (1) The political authority of the nation state,
(2) The freedom of market exchange,
(3) The moral authority of the family.
Central to this schema is the distinction between law (which the state embodied, produced and administered) and morality (which is the concern ideally of the responsible person generated and sustained by the family), the two mediated by the freedom of public exchange (p. 236). The question raised will be who will guarantee or evaluate all those three things to be properly applied in social daily life. Interestingly Secularist and Islamist share some common especially in civilizing population. For secularist each citizen is equal to every other, an equal legal and political member of a state that itself claims a single personality.
The state must stand in neutrality and never give any privileges to a certain group of religion. A state as political authority should guarantee that everybody has same access, same chances to have social welfare. The freedom of market should be managed in such a way in the favor of public welfare (almaslahatu al-amma), and the morality which developed responsible person lay on the family, finally will develop what Fukuyama mentioned as Social Capital. Society, which is populated by responsible and discipline occupants, will produce strong state. Fukuyama insisted that this is very crucial in running an integrated nation development.
The essence of religion-as kant put it, and others modern agreed-was its ethics. This mean that the attempt to allocate religion or its surrogate to its own private sphere, defined and policed by the law, was als an attempt to clear a space within the state for modern ethics. A secular state is not one characterized by religious indifference, or rational ethics-or political toleration. It is a complex arrangement of legal reasoning, moral practice, and political authority. Talal Assad use the aspect of sharia reform as both the precondition and the consequence of secular process of power. It redefined the concept of the human and so to protect the right that belong essentially to the human and the damage that can be done to his or her essence. Proposing the question of how to balance citizen rights within pluralistic societies, this book is very valuable in giving an alternative on how to live together in peaceful way within this pluralistic global world.

Read More...

Muhammad Legenhausen is proposing mainly about the epistemological distinction between Islam and Christianity. The topic that was chosen in discussion between two great scholars, Sayyed Nasr from Islamic point of view and John Hick from Christianity. Starting from the different point of view, Hick sees religion as a human creation but Nasr sees it as divine revelation. One thing that I admire the most about these two great thinkers are their believe of being a faithful person in each religion.
Ontologically speaking they did not deny the God divine borderless power and kept trying to explain the phenomenon surrounding or covering the matters. It is right that these two thinkers share some things in common despite of their more different opinion. Seyyed Nasr strong belief of the aspect of God Supranatural (above nature) in sense of having will, created a strong fundamental though of him. When he was questioned whether Jesus (a) is the incarnation of the second person of the trinity, he asks rethorically; if this was simply a mistake, how could God allow, with His infinite wisdom and justice, one of the major religions of the world within which millions of people have sought their salvation, to be misguided for two thousand years? Was this simply a mistake?...if one says that this was all a horrendous mistake of the thousand years, I cannot accept this. This opinion shows us Nasr belief in profound of his religion. Islamic doctrine told to its adherent to warship the one and only almighty God. God is powerful beyond any sensible power. There is nothing that could possibly missed from His knowledge. By having this belief as strong fundament Nasr told us to be aware of our weaknesses. He is the one who knows everything and we only know very little thing. So we can not say that only our religion is right and other’s are wrong. In this matter I agree with Nasr and Hick point of view of exclusivist statement attributed to Christ are meant only for Christian, not for Muslim and vice versa.
In my opinion the way of Nasr see the distinction among religion is something that we can propagate and provoke to be widely apply as a wise alternative way of thinking, that we can cultivate in conjunction with social development in Indonesia, especially in religious toleration. Developing sense of toleration, For Muslim, is through submission to the will of God. We must learn to better appreciate and respect the tolerance prescribed by Islam if we are to be worthy of calling ourselves Muslims. Culture is something to be created and not naturally privilege. Finally, the result of the social evolution will be the culture that we have developed in serious and conscious manner. As it is necessary to plan social change designed to promote the well being of the population as a whole in conjunction with a dynamic development process of social evolution itself.

Read More...

Smith (The Meaning and End Religion: 2005) used two word refer to religion that is faith and cumulative tradition. The former presentation is the phenomena of man’s religious life in people heart; an inner religious experience or involvement of a particular person; the impingement on him of the transcendent, putative or real; and the latter is the phenomena of man’s religious life across the centuries; the entire mass of overt objective data that constitute the historical deposit of the past religious life of a community: temples, scriptures, theological systems, dance patterns, convention, myth, moral codes and so on which historians can observe.
Faith is something that can’t be observable, because faith always personal experience who different one’s another. However the representation of faith apprehends in art, poem, dance, character of adherent, and communities—ummah concepts in Muslim, caste concepts in Hinduism, and torah concepts in Judaism-- can be observable. The expression of religious faith is the claim “I am touch with another world transcending this”, that is the connection between human and supernatural being. In the other hand, cumulative tradition is observable thing because the objective data exist in the world and can be observable. It is accumulation of tradition from one generation to other generation who build high civilization and in some place has been called as religion, like in Hindu’s tradition.
The separation between faith and cultivate culture might will help us to understand religious phenomena, but it cannot describe all thing about religion. Religious aspect is wider than faith and religious tradition. Problem faith is not only about the claim to the other entity, but also the implication of that faith in human life. Faith and culture in actual life can not be separated, both are connect each other. May be human’s faith bases on cultivate culture, but continuity of cultivate culture depend on human faith. Both faith and cultivate culture build human identities who make they differ with another, sometimes faith find in culture, but there is not a universal identities by separation faith and culture, also by separation between concept and practice. Faith is a part of religion, not religion itself, because religion sues more than faith statement or passive action; cultivate tradition is like a faith, its not religion itself, but can make culture like a religion, or make religion is identic with their culture. Human interpret their faith and their histories and consist to practice their belief by different ways, so faith and religion depend each other and can not be separate by science terminology.[]

Read More...

Religion has two aspects; universal and particular aspects. Universal aspect of religion is close each other, all religion come from one source, perennial wisdom. In philosophical terms that means a knowledge, which hit always be and will always be in universal character both in the sense of existing among peoples of different climes and epochs in dealing with universal principles. Realization and attainment this knowledge only will be found in symbols, rites, and images of massage from heaven or divine given to all traditions. Second, particular aspect of religion is different appearance of perennial wisdom, such as Islam, Christianity, Jew, Hindu, etc.
Different ability of recipient will constitute the One as causes of multiplicity from experience of religious phenomena. This happens because of different modest of experiencing to the divine. Different of philosophical and theological theory concerning reality and the implication of conduct will produce different experience. We can say that all religions have melting point in perennial wisdom, but they are different appearance in manifestation.
Perennial wisdom is pure metaphysics or science as ultimate reality, which not merely constructed by human mind. It also cannot be reduced to particular human mind, such as psychology, anthropology, philosophy and so forth. Perennial wisdom is a knowledge that lies at the heart of religion. To understand religion in the greater portion we should back to traditional aspect of religion, when religion born. To find the sacred thing from all religion we must use comparative religion approach.
However, religion as particular aspect is bias, because it has different truth claim. Religious followers tend to absolutized their truth of belief. In fact, all religions have perennial wisdom that is similar with them. In this way, religious leader should more active in dialog to solve that truth claim.
I think, If all religions have same source from ultimate reality and different religion just different manifestation of truth, all religious follower not must claims their doctrine as better than another, because the different doctrine just different respond for the divine experiences. There are many factor posses to religion, religious follower incumbent to find deepest meaning of religion not from truncated knowledge, but from traditional knowledge, in heart of all religion. Every body must realize that religions is way, not truly purpose, the purpose of religion is to find kindness for another human and near to bliss of God.[]

Read More...

The end of Religious Pluralism: A Tribute to David Burrel)

The problematic character of the concept of religion is reflection of any attempt to make sense of pluralism. Stanley said, pluralism is the ideology of people in power to comfort themselves with the presumption that they are in control of the world in which they find themselves. He proposed Joseph Dinoia as said that such thinkers like Kraemer, Rehner, Cantwell Smith, and Hick are those inclusive Christian; Christian who espouse some version of the view that all religion communities implicitly aim a salvation that the Christian community most adequately commends or at least that salvation a present possibility for the member of non Christian communities. Furthermore he said; Pluralist are but a variation of the inclusive type who believe that all religious communities aim at salvation but do so under a variety of scheme specific descriptions.
It shows how hard it is to accept the idea of pluralism, even among the great thinkers themselves. That is why Stanley other thinkers such as Rita M. gross proposing the third language in dealing with this issue. This third language is aimed to mediate between two traditions. Such language are anything but neutral. In Rita’s term such language is civic language.
Stanley explained, the problem of communicating the tradition is trying to talk with Christian fundamentalists. Stanley insisted that if you want to talk with Buddhists, you would just go talk to them. He gave an example question to begin to talk with Buddhists, ”What in the world are you guys doing in Conway?.”
The problem of third language itself is because it can not be fully neutral, its underwrite the superiority of those who represent the third language in contrast to tradition that do not see the need for such translations. Those representatives of the public with “all humality” assume they are superior to other tradition because they can appreciate other traditions in a manner that other tradition can not appreciate themselves. So in his argument as he attributed to Burrel he suggest to see the religion as a gift. By then people of different religion can learn each other.

A person who influence him a lot was his friend, David Burrel. David Burrel was chair of the department of theology when he thought at Notre Dame University University from 1970 until 1984. A philosophical theologian who has written grandbreaking books on Aquinas. Burrel was an Aquinas scholar. Aquinas, more over, was a student of Ibnu Sina and Maimonades. It is not surprising, therefore, that Burrel drew on his increasing knowledge of Judaism and Islam to write Knowing The Unknowable God; Ibnu Sina, Maimonides, Aquinas. In this book he show how each thinkers maintained the crucial distinction between essence and existence in the order of finite beings as crucial for maintaining the difference that creation makes. Without trying to force the tradition “to learn from one another,’ Burrel was able to show that some of Aquina’s most fundamental moves came from Jewish and Islamic scholars.
Stanley’s way of thinking remind me to Sayyed Nasr perspective in pluralism Idea. Seeing the nature of the religion as itself and no need to force other to do other’s tradition. By then we can see and learn the different of each other, as part of the beauty of God’s creation. I am not saying that both thinkers are having same opinion, but they have similarities on what suggestion they gave on how we supposed to react to religious pluralism.

Read More...