Disclosing the Ambiguous Text

The prime theological challenge in recent religious life is this: How does someone who is religious define himself in relation to other religions? Or in contemporary theological terms: How does one theologize in the inter-religious context? There are fundamental questions at hand here: Why, despite both the inter-religious conventions recently held frequently and the spread of interfaith institutions, are there continuing clashes occurring between religious communities? Is there something wrong with the inter-religions dialogue’s “management” or with religion itself? The “idealist” would answer that these clashes are not due to religious teachings or texts, but due to the religious community. It is the fault of humans and not the teachings themselves. All religions promote peace and not war, teach rahmat (God’s mercy) and not violence, love and not hatred—and certainly not terrorism nor other idealist formulas of religious apologists.

Indeed, there is no religious text, which instructs directly in the use of hostility and terrorism. But, religious texts do nevertheless inspire violent behavior. Why? Because the text’s fundamental notion is ambiguous. On one hand, the text edifies the ideal universal value of humanitarianism, and on the other hand it also articulates and legalizes the exclusivity of primordial behaviors for the sake of preserving what is called as “belief”. One of the obscurities eroding the religious fundamentalism movement is the theological justification based on the “Holy Book”. Without deconstruction, the egalitarian and humanistic theological transformation could never have been manifested in the religious community’s life.

The Ambiguity of the Text.

One example of a religious text, which inspires the “religious adventurer” to commit violence is: “whoever curse you (Israel), he is cursed and whoever bless you, he is blessed” (Genesis27: 29). This verse has been applied by Jarry Falwell (a prominent figure in the American conservative church) in a campaign within the Christian community to support Zionism and to criticize Palestine. Whereas according to Norman Gottwald, the director of the Bible of Graduate Theological Union, the “Holy” concept (Israel as the Holy/sacred nation) and the “Blessed nation” referring to the ancient Jewish community is similar to a terrified person’s song while passing an old cemetery. It means that in the past, the Jewish elite utilized that concept because they were unable to face the political suppression of Egypt - then a superpower state. The concept has been utilized in order to consolidate the public sympathy to fight the Egyptian state’s hegemony. Gottwald remarks that those Biblical texts were “tactics” of the Jewish elite since King David’s era and were used to upgrade that regime’s supremacy. Subsequently, Gottwald went as far as to call the Bible “a trap of Jews”.

In addition to this text, which contains the early spirit of Jihad, there are other examples in the Holy Bible of this exclusive-primordial bias. For example, in John 14/6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but by me.” And also the verse “There is no salvation except in Him, because under this sky there is no man who could not be saved by us.” (Acts of the Apostles 4/12). This emerged as a popular saying amongst Christians,” No Other Name!” and it became the symbol of the impossibility of salvation outside of Jesus Christ. This verse also inspired Hendrick Kraemer –a theologian- to write The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World- a books which has been important for missionaries for many years. On the base of preserving the sacred nature of these texts, a lot of spokespeople within the Christian community have been instigating a Jesus militia to battle the Muslim or whoever else is considered to be disturbing the nobility of the Christian doctrine.

Islam also has many verses which are similarly “fundamentalist” and which are taken literally and used to incite confrontation and justify terrorism against both non-Muslims and even against Muslims who are see as not “enacting the authentic Islam”. In short, puritanism and authenticity, a common ideology in several Islamic countries (including Indonesia), are inspired by these primordial texts. For example,“And who seek religion other than al Islam it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter ” (Q.S. 3/85). Or “Lo! Those who disbelieve, among the people of the scripture and the idolaters, will abide in the fire of hell. They are the worst of created being.” (QS 98: 7). And also the most popular verse of Qur’an, “ The Jews and the Christians would never acquiesce . . . unless you follow their religions.” These verses have inspired Muslims in their antipathy towards “Crusaders” and “Zionists.”

These verses are also used as the theological base for Islamic fundamentalist regimes in Muslim countries and as reasons for ethnic cleansing and violence against Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims. Other scriptural texts inspire discrimination, domination and subordination of both women and minority sects.

The classical Islamic text, even the Qur’an itself, can also be understood as “An Arabian’s (or Quraish) trap. It also cannot be detached from Quraish supremacy. For example, Khalil Abdul Karim in his book Quraish min al-Qabilah ila ad-Daulah al-Markaziyah, has shown how the Quraish nation has upheld its hegemony since the time of Quraish ben Kilab, the clan founder at the time of the emergence of the state of Medina. The Quraish hegemony over Islam resembles Israel’s hegemony in the Judaic tradition.

Deconstruction for Transformation

The religious textsin Islamic, Christian and Jewish tradition can be deconstructed through a socio-historical approach. In a socio-historical approach, each community abandons some assumptions which has influenced the collective perception of the Muslim community. The premise is that the “Holy Book” (Bilble or Qur’an) as “God’s word” is not to be seen as supra historic, or outside of history. A historical approach understands the sacred texts as profane, temporal and impermanent. Instead there is a long and complex historical process at work through which texts become “scientia sacra” – both sacred and mythic.

Such deconstruction can serve to build a transformed religious community. But this “religion’s transformation” can only occur if each community is prepared to “detach itself” from the Text’s hegemony over the critical logic of the Muslim community. Instinctively, the Text has been slithering beneath our consciousness, influencing every step of religious Muslim community behavior: do this, and don’t do that. We have acted like robots controlled by remote control. As long as our movement is positive and “humanist” there is no problem. The problem emerges when our actions are destructive. Though the text has been considered as sacred, containing positive “movement-principle” (for instance, the text regarding the freedom/liberation, the equality of rights, the teaching of love, social solidarity, emancipation, universal brotherhood etc) is also contains negative “movement principles” (such as texts supporting slavery, doctrines of supremacy, gender domination, and jihad etc). Thus the negative “movement principle” of the text creates narrow-minded humans who exploit other humans in the name of religion and God.

It is important to deconstruct the idea that one text and thus one religion is more superior to another. God is more magnificent than any text. He is beyond any text. The claim of supra-historical Godly verses reduces the greatness of the concept of God itself. So, through deconstruction, arthritic textual claims disappear - no one text or religion dominates another. These are the very latest efforts advocated by the inter-religion dialogue as explained by Leonard Swidler in After the Absolute The Dialogical Future of Religious Reflection. The idea is to disavow“ double standards”, the claims for unitary truths and single paths of salvation as these are all considered to be uncritical ways of thinking.

Arthur J D’Adamo argues that this uncritical “way of knowing” is at the root of inter-religious community conflict. Each religious group thinks it has the source of truth—(1) consistent and errorless; (2) complete and final, (3) the only source of salvation and enlightenment; and (4) directly given by God without human influence. It is a narrow minded way of thinking and not conducive for building a universal brotherhood. The religious dialogue’s activists should start discussing this “muharramat” (forbidden) topic without any hesitation or trepidation.

We should open ourselves to other belief systems and restrict our egoism, abandon “primordial identity”, and use self introspection to look into the double standards we apply to others. Only then, in widening our theologically inclusive view, would religions have significant positive roles for providing a spiritual foundation for our futures. This has been superbly portrayed by Bhagavan Das, ”all of us, the religion’s disciples, would meet in the same road of life. Who come from the far, who come from the near, all are hungry and thirsty, all are in the need of life’s bread and water which can be gained only through unity with the Supreme spirit.”

(Translated by Lanny Octavia, edited by Jonathan Zilberg)