Critical-humanist religion

Critical and humanist understandings of religion

Terrorism is not only a state of violence, but also a state of mind, an ideology. It is also a part of transnational movement stimulated by various reasons. There is no single cause or factor elucidating terrorism comprehensively. However, it is obvious that religion or religious understanding in many ways play a pivotal role to produce a violent ideology that leads to brutal activities, as terrorists often manipulate scriptures or erroneously points the idea of jihad to justify their terror attacks to innocent people.

In this respect, detaining terrorists or even killing them thus does not necessarily terminate terror attacks because this does not address the root of the problem. Many still holding similar views with terrorists are ready to become their future successors. When one terrorist dies, the others will come forward to take retaliation. Stern raids to terrorist camps might reduce terror acts temporarily. I do not mean to overlook security approach to terrorism, but this still needs a more fundamental approach to deal with it.

One important step to eradicate religious extremism, radicalism and terrorism is to invoke critical and humanist understandings of religion. The critical method necessitates comparative and comprehensive approaches. Through comparison, religious devotees will be familiar with various different interpretations within their religious tradition. They will acknowledge that religious scholars have already developed means and methods to expound a particular theme or doctrine. They will also understand that such-and-such doctrines are not given and self-evidence, but rather produced through such mechanism and processes that remain subjected to criticism.
The comparative method will make them aware that their choice of thought or school does not invalidate others’ choices since other also have their own argument. The idea behind comparison is that they will understand that their choice is not absolute, but relative, true. This will make them aware with strength and weakness in every school or tradition.

Religious fanaticism and bigotry commonly stem from a strict selectivity of thought and rebuttal of pluralistic interpretation. No religion is monolithic, and therefore no single narrative in a religion is authoritative and representative of, let alone superior over, all rest of other narrations or interpretations within one religious tradition. Unfortunately, the majority and dominant approach in religious studies seems to be normative, simply transforming doctrine from one generation to another. It fails to apprehend critically the history of religion and the production of a religious discourse, which were yielded from specific power relations within historically embedded time and place.

Likewise, religion should not be approached partially, but must be comprehensively. Partial understanding might lead to reduction and manipulation. Extreme interpretation of religion often stems from an exclusive selection to a particular notion, while declining other related issues. In the case of Islam, the Prophetic tradition that strongly fosters goodness and to prevent badness (amr ma’ruf nahi munkar), even though through the use of physical enforcement, is a good example to advance here. Radical groups such as The Islamic Defense Front (FPI) often understand it narrowly. This group simply employs this tradition to justify their violent action on the foreclosing of discotheques or cafes because they accused such places as being a center of moral decadence. They do not compare their argument with what the Qur’an said. The Qur’an clearly calls for Muslims to disseminate Islam with wisdom (hikmah) and good teaching (mau’idha hasanah), not with violence [Qur’an 16: 125]. This is a palpable example of failure in comprehensive understanding of the teaching of Islam.
The comparison also helps appreciate differences that exist both within internal religious traditions and amongst interreligious communities. This is a good start to stimulate sympathy to other faiths. By making comparison, it will uncover a common denominator lying behind diverse religious phenomena. There is an essence of religion despite various manifestations of religious practices. The essence can refer to a divine being or a spiritual existence. The essence might also refer to the spirit of affection, love and peace that every religion promotes. The notion of sameness and common denominator in religions should become a vital point from which religious humanism and the spirit of religious humanist embark. This spirit shows that religious devotees fundamentally share basic human needs and characters, such as the need to worship the spiritual Being and the spreading of peace and justice. It is what exactly humanist religion is. It is on this humanist notion that interreligious interaction and dialogue should begin.

This does not mean however that I advocate a unification of religion, because it is impossible to deny religious pluralism. What we need to do is to acknowledge others as human and religious beings with their beliefs, as we do. We do not have to judge other’s belief from our own faith. Neither do we need to fault others if they adopt different interpretations and practices from what we do. Every religious follower has a full right to implement their beliefs as long as they are realized within the frameworks of humanism, peace and justice. In contrast, every extreme view that might create exclusivism, radicalism and terrorism in the name of religion is simply contrary to spirit of humanist religion and therefore should be prevented through, among other things, critical and humanist understanding of religion

Mohamad Abdun Nasir, lecturer of State Institute of Islamic Studies (IAIN) Mataram
and PhD student in Religion at Emory, Atlanta, the US.