I have been exposed to discourses on religious pluralism for quite some time. Therefore the new article written by the populist Dr MAZA on the subject matter recently on his blog PLURALISME AGAMA: POLITIK, FANATIK DAN REALISTIK came to me as a surprise, especially when someone commented that it is a discourse that delivers the "need to understand religious pluralism in a wider context, beyond Hick's definition". Not only is the chap a non-expert in the issue, his arguments are fallacious and incoherent, and this is my attempt to demonstrate to you why I think so.
His arguments are based on the definitions made by the Harvard University Pluralism Project: WHAT IS PLURALISM?. One can wonder whether he has made an in-depth semantic analysis of the meaning of the term, as if this definition is to be accepted without challenge. This goes quite contrary against 'minda tajdid' that he is propagating.
Dr MAZA's primary premise in his attempt to clarify the meaning of pluralism can be summed up in syllogistic form, that:
1. Pluralism is not relativism.
2. Pluralism is the encounter of commitments.
3. Pluralism is not relativism.
Firstly, this argument is circular. It tells us very little to make a proper judgment that pluralism and relativism are two distinct things. Secondly, what is meant by an 'encounter of commitments'? If this is meant as 'holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation, but in relationship to one another', it does not relate in any way to relativism or prove that pluralism is not relativism. Because one can still hold on to differences in relationship with one another and at the same time hold on to relativism too.
A and B may have differences, but they can approach each other with a relativist mindset, that is, that A is true relative to the context of A and B is true relative to the context of B. This is a sophistical approach towards truth; this is relativism as mentioned in Taftahzani's Syarah Aqa'id as the Inadiyyah. Relativism does not hold that A and B must be the same thing. Relativism holds that while A and B are different, they are different only in their own relative context and not in their truth values.
It is to be noted that Dr MAZA did attempt to explain, contrary to his earlier position regarding pluralism, that:
"Apa yang penting bukan istilah-istilah ini tetapi kepercayaan atau akidah seseorang muslim berkaitan hal ini. Jika dia percaya semua agama adalah berkongsi kebenaran yang sama, atau kebenaran itu sesuatu yang subjektif, boleh dilihat pada dimensi yang berbeza, maka itu pluralisme yang kufur. Jika dia menganggap hanya Islam agama wahyu yang diiktiraf di sisi Allah, namun kepelbagaian agama adalah sesuatu yang tidak dapat dielakkan, manusia mesti belajar memahami antara satu sama lain, berbincang dengan cara yang baik, sudi untuk berdialog dan menyemakkan sikap dan tindakan, maka ini tidak kufur. Bahkan itulah yang dilaksanakan oleh sarjana Islam yang terbilang."
All of a sudden, sematics are not important, faith is? But didn't you attempt to establish a semantic analysis before this?
Then suddenly, in the same text he mentions of two different types of pluralism; kufur pluralism and acceptable pluralism. Since he cannot establish properly what pluralism is from the start, we cannot know properly what he means by this. Because in order for you to give value to an object of knowledge, the object must necessarily be of neutral value. But furnishing proofs that pluralism is not relativism does not demonstrate adequately that pluralism is a neutral term.
Then in the same paragraph, he jumps from the meaning of (acceptable) pluralism to dialogue, as if dialogue is exclusive to subscribers of pluralism. This is a fallacy. Dialogue is an activity, not an ideology/orientation. While there are ideologies/orientations that are resistant to dialogue, this is not shown properly by him.
Dr MAZA then digresses from the subject matter:
1. "Maka, muslim tidak percaya semua agama sama di sisi Allah di sudut kebenaran dan wahyu. Ini soal akidah. Namun bukanlah bererti Islam membezakan manusia di sudut keadilan dan hak kemanusiaan."
This has absolutely nothing to do with pluralism. And there is no proof furnished that non-subscribers of pluralism do not hold on to universal justice and humanity.
2. "Demikianlah ajaran Islam. Jika ibubapa pun tidak boleh memaksa agama anak sendiri, inikan pula orang lain."
This also has absolutely nothing to do with pluralism. And there is no proof furnished that non-subscribers of pluralism impose their religious beliefs onto others. Neither is there proof that only by subscribing to pluralism will one not impose their religious beliefs onto others. In fact, pluralism IS imposing the pluralistic belief on two religions in dialogue isn't it?
3. "Islam mengiktiraf kebaikan yang ada pada agama lain dan pengikutnya seperti mengiktiraf halalnya sembelihan Yahudi dan Kristian dan keizinan berkahwin dengan wanita mereka."
This also has nothing to do with pluralism. And there is no proof that non-subscribers of pluralism do not recognize the positive attributes of other religions. And there is also no proof that only subscribers of pluralism recognize the positive attributes of other religions.
4. "Islam melarang penganutnya menzalimi penganut agama lain. Perbezaan tidak boleh membawa kepada penindasan dan kezaliman."
This also has nothing to do with pluralism. And there is no proof that acts of injustice and cruelty stems from the non-belief in pluralism.
Lastly, to express his rather cynical views on wahdatul wujud, he mentions that:
"Menariknya, ada yang lantang tentang pluralisme ini dalam masa yang sama menganut dan mengiktiraf ‘wahdatul wujud’ ala Ibn ‘Arabi iaitu kesatuan antara Tuhan dan makhluk dalam makam kerohanian. ‘Wahdatul wajud’ ini kepercayaan yang dikongsi oleh banyak agama dalam pelbagai tafsiran. Tidaklah pula mereka menganggap diri mereka telah jatuh ke lembah pluralisme agama. Maka, sekali lagi pelbagai persoalan timbul tentang isu pluralisme yang dibangkitkan oleh kelompok tarekat ini."
He does not seem to show intellectual vigor in demonstrating that wahdatul wujud is the unity of God and creation at a certain spiritual station. Neither did he attempt to demonstrate with proofs that subscribing to wahdatul wujud leads to (kufur?) pluralism.
In summary, the arguments furnished in the article does not reflect a proper logical structure, and much is based on rhetoric and ignorance of pluralism and wahdatul wujud as a subject matter needing in-depth analysis.
Wallahu 'Alam
