|
(April 25,
2007) Earlier this month, members of European and Asian
parliaments under the banner of the Alliance of Liberals and
Democrats for Europe (ALDE) and the Council of Asian Liberals
and Democrats (CALD) met Abdurrahman Wahid, Indonesia's former
President, at his party's office in Jakarta. Led by ALDE's
chief, Graham Watson, they had a discussion on the need to build
a bridge between Islam and the West.
According to Wahid, currently, there is a global tendency to
institutionalize Islam instead of adopting Islam as a culture.
This situation has put Islam in a collision course with the
West. Both Islam and the West claim to be the savior of
humanity, thus putting them at odds.
Globalization has partly contributed to this situation. The
world has become "flat" -- to use the term coined by Thomas L.
Friedman -- and a small village has been created in which each
and every member of the communities that live in the village
bumps into and interacts with each other. Globalization has
obliterated any distance that ever existed.
Thus collisions, friction, and fierce competition become
inevitable. Survival of the fittest becomes the rule that
everyone must embrace. And the current trend, in which
domination of Western civilization of the global village has
become apparent, has made other groups, in this case Islam, feel
insecure. The recent development of Islam in Indonesia provides
an example of this phenomenon.
Several
Muslim groups in Indonesia advocate an aggressive stance toward
the West. They believe that Islam is incompatible with the West
and seek to destroy it. Their diminutive number, yet aggressive
and oppositional stance toward the "enemy of Islam," have put
Indonesian Muslims in the difficult position of being branded as
radicals and fundamentalists.
The feeling
of being insecure and threatened has forced people to seek
solace and protection from something or someone. When a group
feels threatened over a perceived domination by another group,
they would dig deep into their own selves to seek answers as a
rejection of this domination. And if Islam is threatened by
another civilization -- by Western civilization for example --
Muslims would dig deep into Islam and come up with ideas and
answers to reject that domination. And the efforts to dig deep
into oneself might achieve different results which could be
contradictory.
The first possible result is strong rejection and confrontation.
By digging deep into Islam, a Muslim might come up with an idea
of fundamental Islam that rejects anything that is different.
Fundamentalist movements in the name of religion then spring up
to fight the "enemy." Thus if the domination of the West is
perceived as a threat to Islam, it must then be rejected and
confronted with all force. Violence and force must be maximally
utilized to implement this idea and to demonstrate the presence
of its adherents. Furthermore, these fundamentalists believe
that Islam must win over Western civilization at all costs.
The second result is to embrace the moderate values and
principles of Islam and teach its followers to confront any
differences wisely and with an open heart. This has been
reflected in what is called moderate Islam. Moderate Muslims put
Islam as a way of life that possesses a high degree of tolerance
towards other groups or followers of other religions for the
sake of creating a harmonious society in the midst of
disparities and differences. Moderation is the key, and Islam
teaches its followers to be moderate. Thus any perceived threats
to Islam must be solved wisely through the process of dialogue
and discussions to find the middle way and to avoid
confrontation and the use of force.
From the illustration above, we find that from one source there
are two contradictory results: the first, an embrace of
fundamentalism and the use of force and violence; and the
second, moderation and dialogue as tools to solve problems and
differences.
So far, the first group, though in the minority, has been
dominating the limelight with their aggressive actions. They
stole the show and successfully painted a bleak picture of
Islam: Islam means violence. Meanwhile, the second group, the
majority of Muslims, has been silent and unable to project the
moderate values of Islam. They seem to struggle to erase the
depiction of Islam as a religion of violence. Thus, it is time
to re-define Islam.
Islam rejects violence and the use of force to solve problems.
Instead, Islam clearly advocates dialogue and discussion to find
the middle way. Muslims must understand this principle in order
to change the current situation. Loud rejection of violence and
the use of force along with the promotion of dialogue and
discussion to solve problems by the moderate Muslims will, I
believe, erase the depiction of Islam as a religion of violence.
Furthermore, reciprocal action must also be taken to
successfully change the situation. Non-Muslims, notably those in
the West, must also help this process. Both sides need to embark
upon developing sustainable dialogue to understand each other's
culture and civilization. It is only through this process that
any clash between the two in this globalized world can be
avoided, and the notion of fundamentalism and radicalism can be
suppressed. |
