Anis Malik Thoha Faculty of Usuluddin, UNISSA
[email protected] ّلَِإ َكاَنْلَس ْرَأ اَم َو{
ةَمْحَر :ءايبنلأا( }َنيِمَلاَعْلِِّل 107
)
Abstract
The Arabic word “raḥmah” (mercy) seems to have considerably lost its correspondence meaning in the actual life of man today, even among the Muslims. The frequent utterance of this word is apparently more a lip service and rather euphemism. It is as foreign to the people’s mind today as was for the first time conveyed by the Prophet (may peace be upon him), due to the onslaught of Western cultural hegemony. The West has, indeed, been promoting certain concepts of peaceful coexistence, yet the peace that exists is fleeting, momentary, and temporary, and moreover the human communities are dreadfully torn apart. This essay endeavours to revisit the very term “raḥmatan lil-‛ālamīn” and to reactualize its meaning as the framework for an overarching concept of the peaceful coexistence of mankind. Not only is this Islamic raḥmah-based concept theoretically sound and epistemologically consistent, but its efficacy and sustainability had also been empirically and historically proven.
Keywords: peaceful coexistence, tolerance, assimilationism, religious pluralism, universalism, civilizational dialogue.
INTRODUCTION
The journey of mankind in the history has been long enough. Generation after generation have gone by.
However, they have made no significant step forward in this journey. Rather, most of the time they have just walked at the same place repeating the same pitfalls. As if today is no difference of yesterday or like in Arabic popular saying: ةحرابلاب ةليللا هبشأ ام (what so similar is tonight with the last night!). Or history is repeating itself.
Towards the turn of the third millennium, arose many positive thinking and new hopes for a brighter human life and wellbeing. Francis Fukuyama, for example, in his The End of History and the Last Man (1992), celebrated enthusiastically the triumphalism of liberalism following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the defeat of communism during the Cold War. With the end of the Cold War, Fukuyama confidently hoped that the
“universalization” of liberal values, i.e., freedom, human right, equality, justice, tolerance, democracy, and so on, would automatically have found the smooth way to spread all over the world.1 However, it is too good to be true –this hope is evidently far removed from the reality. Neither the peace and welfare index of the world have become better, nor have the liberal values been welcomed widely by the rest of the world. Instead, the live condition of no less than 80% of the world population has empirically proven the other way around, as they have had to willingly struggle and scramble among themselves in order to get their share out of 20% of the global wealth just to survive only, and still worse, a number of the Muslim countries have been ruthlessly demolished using the mass devastating weapons, yet, “in the name of freedom and human right”. Hence, the liberal values have been paradoxically challenged everywhere –the fact that eventually compelled Fukuyama to revise the very thesis of “the end of history” in his latest book, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics
This essay is prepared for presentation of keynote speech at International Conference on Aqidah, Religions & Social Sciences (SIGMA-10) organized by Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM) on 4 November 2020.
1 Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: The Free Press, 1992).
of Resentment (2018).2 It is highly expected that in this book he would come up with some corrective idea, but as a matter of fact in this piece he tries to develop the arguments in order to clarify his firm position in The End of History that liberalism remains the ideal political and economic system, and that its postponement is due to the desire of identity groups for recognition. Louis Menand, in his review of the book, makes it clear by putting the title: “Francis Fukuyama Postpones the End of History: The political scientist argues that the desire of identity groups for recognition is a key threat to liberalism.” Menand further says:
“Identity” can be read as a corrective to the position that Fukuyama staked out in “The End of History?” Universal liberalism isn’t impeded by ideology, like fascism or communism, but by passion. Liberalism remains the ideal political and economic system, but it needs to find ways to accommodate and neutralize this pesky desire for recognition.3
It is unfortunate, indeed, that the way resorted to accommodate and neutralize the demand for identity recognition is often in the violence forms, which actually causes contra-productive attitudes and creates, in many cases, disastrous life of the civilians. Thus, it exacerbates overwhelmingly the heated tensions existing already in the international relationships of the global communities. Perhaps, this disheartening global development of geopolitics is that which has been best theorized by Samuel P. Huntington in his controversial thesis of “the clash of civilization”.4
ASPIRATION TO A PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE
Modern history is the history of conflicts and violence. Since the era of Reconquista that ended with the fall of Islamic supremacy in Spain and Europe by the end of 15th century, subsequently followed by the successive era of colonialism that continued until around the middle of the 20th century, and even until the beginning of the 21st century, the so called modern Western civilization has been without guilt committing unspeakable acts of brutality and plethora of crimes against humanity and natural environment unmatched before. Hence, the sinking into absolute poverty and deteriorating life of the larger part of mankind, and the fantastic and increasing prosperity of others have further created enormous tensions in many regions and global community. Amidst the amalgamating helplessness and exasperation, some aspirations to the alignments of global peace resilience have been voiced up.
Generally speaking, these initiatives of global peace resilience can be distinguished into two broad categories: (i) political assimilationism; and (ii) religio-cultural pluralism. The former is represented by Francis Fukuyama and Samuel P. Huntington, and the latter is championed by a number of theologians and scholars of the scientific study of religion.
As for the assimilationists, the discrepancies and differences inter- and intra-communities, both at the national and international levels, can only be resolved through assimilation scenarios, i.e, “to brush off the otherness of the others”. With regard to Fukuyama, though he is fully aware that he could not set aside the natural desire of man for identity, this assimilationist ideal inclination has been persistently manifest throughout his writings, especially The End of History and Identity. Louis Menand vividly remarks that:
He (Fukuyama) has no interest in the solution that liberals typically adopt to accommodate diversity: pluralism and multiculturalism. Taylor, for example, has championed the right of the Québécois to pass laws preserving a French-language culture in their province. Fukuyama
2 Francis Fukuyama, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2018).
3 Louis Menand, “Francis Fukuyama Postpones the End of History: The political scientist argues that the desire of identity groups for recognition is a key threat to liberalism,” in The New Yorker, September 3, 2018 Issue.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/francis-fukuyama-postpones-the-end-of-history
4 See for the detail account of the thesis, Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996).
concedes that people need a sense of national identity, whether ethnic or creedal, but otherwise he remains an assimilationist and a universalist. He wants to iron out differences, not protect them. He suggests measures like a mandatory national-service requirement and a more meaningful path to citizenship for immigrants.5
Likewise, S.P. Huntington is quite straight forward. And without any reserve, he explicitly spells this ideal out. He is not inclined to the idea of multiculturalism, for according to him, it implies the destruction of the United States and, hence, the West as a whole. In addition, he does not prefer the dual Euro-American core of the West as well, as it is another source of weakness.6 Accordingly, he urges the United States to reject multiculturalism and to reaffirm Western culture. Further he states:
The futures of the United States and of the West depend upon Americans reaffirming their commitment to Western Civilization. Domestically this means rejecting the divisive siren calls of multiculturalism. Internationally it means rejecting the illusive and illusory calls to identify the United States with Asia. Whatever economic connections may exist between them, the fundamental cultural gap between Asian and American societies precludes their joining together in a common home. Americans are culturally part of the Western family;
multiculturalists may damage and even destroy that relationship, but they cannot replace it.
When Americans look for their cultural roots, they find them in Europe.7
Although Huntington is somehow not really inclined to the notion of Western universalism, that is the belief that people throughout the world should embrace Western values, institutions, culture, and practices,8 he does emphasize in this book, times and again, that because it is the most powerful Western country, the United States is to take lead and responsibility as the global leader “to preserve, protect, and renew the unique qualities of Western civilization.”9 What may furnish more this point is that Huntington is not reluctant to resort to
“power” language if for the West is to maintain and exercise its global hegemony. Further he said:
Culture, as we have argued, follows power. If non-Western societies are once again to be shaped by Western culture, it will happen only as a result of the expansion, deployment, and impact of Western power. Imperialism is the necessary logical consequence of universalism.10
At the same time, he strongly opposes the promotion of domestic multiculturalism in the United States.
He argues that “Multiculturalism at home threatens the United States and the West… A multicultural America is impossible because a non-Western America is not American.”11
Hence, the issue of Americanization, i.e., assimilation, of non-Americans especially the Muslims has been widely and strongly felt as clearly read in the title of a book co-edited by prominent scholars, Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad and John L. Esposito, Muslims on the Americanization Path?.12 Evidently this phenomenon
5 Louis Menand, op. cit. (Italics mine).
6 Samuel P. Huntington, op. cit., pp. 304-308.
7 Ibid., p. 307.
8 See, ibid., for example pp. 310 and 318 (In page 310, he said: “In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous.” And in page 318, he stated: “Some Americans have promoted multiculturalism at home; some have promoted universalism abroad; and some have done both. Multiculturalism at home threatens the United States and the West;
universalism abroad threatens the West and the world. Both deny the uniqueness of Western culture.”).
9 Ibid., pp. 308 and 311.
10 Ibid., 310. (Italics mine).
11 Ibid., 318.
12 Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad and John L. Esposito, Muslims on the Americanization Path? (Oxford, New York, Karachi:
Oxford University Press, 1998).
of Americanization coupled with the foregoing analysis of “power” language preference for the global hegemony, constitute irrefutable proof that it would be safe to place Samuel P. Huntington in the same typology with Francis Fukuyama as universalists-cum-assimilationists. Moreover, the titles of their books, especially The End of History and The Clash of Civilizations, respectively are self-explanatory and complementary to each other.
However, many have spelt out their concern by questioning the plausibility of the paradigm of “the clash of civilization” as if there is no alternative solution which is more desirable and civilized. One of them is Shireen Hunter who wrote The future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence?13 But as a matter of fact, as far as the global relations of Islam and the West is concerned, the scenario at work so far as lively, alas bitterly, experienced by the Muslim communities in the world over, and as precisely described by Daniel E. Kaplan in his “news report” at www.usnews.com, 25 April 2005, entitled “Hearts, Minds, and Dollars: In an Unseen Front in the War on Terrorism, America is Spending Millions… To Change the Very Face of Islam,” would condone absolutely Huntington’s paradigm.14 And this situation continues to date.
Meanwhile, the second initiative for peaceful coexistence, i.e., religio-cultural pluralism, has been advocated by a number of theologians, activists of religious dialogue, and scholars of the scientific study of religion in different trends: (i) secular humanism; (ii) global theology; (iii) syncretism; and (iv) sophia perennis.15
It is worth noting that theologians, activists of religious dialogue, and scholars of different faiths have expressed their concern about the tensions, bloody conflicts, wars, and genocides among peoples of different religions in the modern era. The conflicting absolute truth-claims by religions have been commonly recognized as the culprit and main source or cause of this human disaster. Professor Wilfred Cantwell Smith, for instance, categorically states such a concern as follow:
Unless men can learn each other across religious frontiers, unless we can build a world in which people profoundly of different faiths can live together, then the prospect for our planet’s future are not bright.16
As such, Smith proposes the idea of coexistence as a platform for brighter future of human life, as he says:
“Coexistence, if not a final truth of man’s diversity, would seem at least an immediate necessity and, indeed, an immediate virtue.”17
Having a look at the different trends of religious pluralism, one cannot help but wonder how sublime and noble their goal is. Yet an in-depth analysis of them, as written in the book Tren Pluralisme Agama:
Tinjauan Kritis,18 has revealed the real fact behind the notion of religious pluralism, which eventually betrays the very goal of it. Neither religious peace that which peoples aspire to, nor freedom from disturbance and the cessation of war or violence that which they long for. Rather, this religio-cultural pluralism in the final analysis ended up eventually in the assimilationist-universalist scenario in disguise of religion. For most, if not all, of
13 Shireen Hunter, The future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence? (Connecticut, London:
Praeger Publishers, 1998).
14 Daniel E. Kaplan, “Hearts, Minds, and Dollars: In an Unseen Front in the War on Terrorism, America is Spending Millions… To Change the Very Face of Islam,” at www.usnews.com, 25 April 2005.
15 For a detail account on religious pluralism, see: Anis Malik Thoha, Tren Pluralisme Agama: Tinjauan Kritis (Jakarta:
Perspektif, GIP, 2005).
16 Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion (London: SPCK, [1962] 1978), p. 9; and his article “The Christian in a Religiously Plural World,” in John Hick and Brian Hebblethwaite (eds.), Christianity and Other Religions (Glasgow: Fount Paperbacks, 1980), p. 95.
17 Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion, p. 10.
18 Anis Malik Thoha, op. cit.
those pluralistic trends have been immensely coopted, in a way or another, by the secularistic understanding of religion, which is characteristically and distinctively Western.
In a nutshell, all the pluralistic trends have transformed into a systematic agent “to relativize all religious truth-claims,” and “to authorize the right of absolutism only to religious pluralism.”
RAḤMAH-BASED CONCEPT OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE
The foregoing analysis has clearly shown the inadequacy of the existing concepts of peaceful coexistence. Both political assimilationism and religio-cultural pluralism are actually two faces of the same coin (Western culture).
It is no wonder, then, that often than not the success of the concepts in the practical life absolutely depends on the “coercive power”.
In Islam, the case is vice-versa, since no compulsion or coercive measure without any right is condoned and accorded in the sharī‛ah, especially in the matter of faith. In this regard, Allah the Almighty categorically says: }ِنيِِّدلٱ ىِف َهاَرْكِإ ٓ َلَ{ (there shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] religion).19 So, religious freedom of freedom of faith or freedom of belief is inherently embedded in the Qur’anic concept of religion (al-dīn) and religiosity (al-tadayyun). This is so because:
(i) logically “compulsion and religiosity are two opposites that do not converge, and one of them cannot be the fruit of the other;”20
(ii) epistemologically, religious freedom is the utmost characteristic features, the integral part, and conditio sine qua non, of man, without which man would not be man any longer;21 and
(iii) axiologically, this Qur’anic principle of religious freedom is derived from the fact that religion is about moral action, meaning by nature a moral action will be void and no moral worth without being intended and carried out freely by a free person. In this context, Ismā‛īl Rājī al-Fārūqī explains that moral action “is not itself moral unless it is freely willed and undertaken to completion by a free agent. Without the initiative and effort of man, all moral worth or values falls to the ground.”22
This Qur’anic principle of religious freedom is the core conceptual and operational framework or modus operandi of Islamic dealing with peoples who are “religiously others.” It is a sheer “mercy” (raḥmah) of Allah swt. upon His slaves. And moreover, according to one of the contemporary exegetes of the Qur’an, Sayyid Quṭb, in his commentary of al-Baqarah: 256, it is the “honour” (takrīm) granted by Allah swt. to them. Further he says:
ناسنلإل الله ميركت ىلجتي أدبملا اذه يفو
؛ هرعاشمو هركفو هتدارإ مارتحاو
؛ للاضلاو ىدهلاب صتخي اميف هسفنل هرمأ كرتو
داقتعلَا يف
؛ يناسنلإا ررحتلا صئاصخ صخأ يه هذهو ..هسفن باسحو هلمع ةعبت هليمحتو ..
19 Al-Baqarah: 256.
20 A prominent scholar among the contemporary mufassirīn, Muḥammad Sayyid Ṭanṭāwī comments on this al-Baqarah:
256 in his Al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ: "رخلآل ةرمث امهدحأ نوكي نأ نكمي لَو ،ناعمتجي لَ ناضيقن نيدتلاو هاركلإاف" . (Muḥammad Sayyid Ṭanṭāwī, Al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, vol. 1, p. 588, Al-Maktabah al-Shāmilah al-Ḥadīthah, online edition at https://al- maktaba.org/book/23590/585. Retreaved on 02 November 2020.
21 See Sayyid Quṭb, Fī Ẓilāl al-Qur’ān (Cairo and Beirut: Dār al-Shurūq, 32nd Printing, [1972] 2003), p. 291. He said:
تبا هتيناسنإ هبلسي امنإ ،داقتعلَا ةيرح اناسنإ بلسي يذلاف ."ناسنإ" فصو اهب هل تبثي يتلا "ناسنلإا" قوقح لوأ يه داقتعلَا ةيرح نإ ءاد .ةايحلا عقاو يف اهل لولدم لَ مسلَاب ةيرح يهف لَإو . . ةنتفلاوىذلأا نم نملأاو ،ةديقعلل ةوعدلا ةيرح داقتعلَا ةيرح عمو . . (Freedom of belief is the first "human" right by which human is eligible to be described as "human." He who deprives a person of the freedom of belief, actually deprives him of his humanity at the first place.
. Along with the freedom of belief, is freedom to advocate the belief, and security from harm and trouble.
. Otherwise, it is freedom in name that has no meaning in reality).
22 Ismā‛īl Rājī al-Fārūqī, Al-Tawḥīd: Its Implications for Thought and Life (Herndon, Virginia: IIIT, 2nd Edition, 1412H/1992M), p. 7.
(In this principle, Allah’s honour to man is evident. Respecting for his will, thoughts and feelings; and leaving his affairs to himself with regard to guidance and delusion in belief; and bearing him responsible for his work and its consequences on himself .. These are the most characteristic features of human liberation).23
Along with this al-Baqarah: 256, there are many other Qur’anic verses dealing, in a way or another, with the differences, diversities, and otherness of the others (such as al-Ḥujurāt: 13; al-Kāfirūn: 6; al-An‛ām:
108; al-Mumtaḥanah: 8; al-Anbiyā’: 107; al-Mā’idah: 48), if understood all-together comprehensively and treated integrally, will absolutely provide a holistic modus vivendi for a harmonious coexistence worthy of emulation by the whole world. Indeed, it is the “mercy” of Allah swt, All-Beneficent and All-Merciful, who has revealed this “mercy” for all mankind to the Prophet of “mercy” (Nabiyy al-raḥmah), Muhammad SAAS. In this regard, Al-Fārūqī states vividly:
For the Muslim, the relation of Islam to the other religions has been established by God in His revelation, the Qur’an. No Muslim, therefore, may deny it; since for him the Qur’an is the ultimate religious authority. Muslims regard the Qur’an as God’s own word verbatim; the final and definitive revelation of His will for all space and time, for all mankind.24
As a matter of fact, the Islamic “mercy” (raḥmah), is not just conceptually sound, but it has been manifestly translated into the live history of Islamic civilization, firstly by the Prophet of “mercy” Muhammad SAAS as the exemplary model, and secondly emulated by the four Right-guided Caliphs (al-Khulafā’ al- Rāshidūn), the Umayyad, the Abbasid, the Fatimid, until the Ottoman Caliphates. Throughout the history of Islamic reign in Madinah, Damascus, Cordoba, Baghdad, Cairo, Delhi, and Istanbul, this raḥmah-based concept of coexistence has been the live evidence whereby all the citizens, irrespective of their religion, tribe, ethnicity, race, skin colour, etc., coexist harmoniously and peacefully. Again, Al-Fārūqī explicates this atmosphere succinctly as follow:
The atmosphere of the Islamic state was one replete with respect and honour to religion, piety and virtue, unlike the tolerance of modern times in the West born out of skepticism regarding the truth of religious claims, of cynicism and unconcern for religious values. The Islamic Sharī‛ah is otherwise known as the ‘millah’ or ‘millet’ system (meaning ‘religious communities’), or the ‘Dhimmah’ or Zimmi system (meaning the covenant of peace whose dhimmah or guarantor is God). It cannot be denied that evil rulers existed in the Muslim World as in any other empire. Where they existed, Muslims suffered as well as non-Muslims. Nowhere in Islamic history, however, were non-Muslims singled out for prosecution or persecution. The constitution which protected them was taken by Muslims to be God-inspired, God-protected.
The Prophet had already warned: ‘Whoever oppresses any dhimmi (non-Muslim peace- covenanter with the Islamic state), I shall be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgement.25
The discourse of coexistence, so far, focused mainly on the human communities, and never went beyond. However, recently there has been an increasing awareness among the scholars to address the peaceful coexistence not only among human beings, but also to include non-human world or the natural (or non-human built) environment. This is an interesting aspect of the topic that has been unfortunately neglected by most of
23 Sayyid Quṭb, op. cit.
24 Ismā‛īl Rājī al-Fārūqī, Islam and Other Faith (Leicester and Herndon: The Islamic Foundation and IIIT, 1998/1419), pp.
72-73
25 Ibid., pp. 90-91.
the Western scholars. Among the few is Pasi Heikkurinen whose essay entitled “On the emergence of peaceful coexistence,” instills the Western awareness about the climatic disasters that are getting deteriorated today.26 As far as the raḥmah-based concept of coexistence is concerned, the “mercy” of Allah swt. does not cover only mankind. Al-Anbiyā’: 107 states clearly that }َنيِمَلاَعْلِِّل ةَمْحَر ّلَِإ َكاَنْلَس ْرَأ اَم َو{ (And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds), which means worlds of the creatures. Hence, it is the Will of Allah swt., the Creator of all creatures, that human being has to coexist peacefully with not only their fellow human beings, but also all the creatures, as prescribed in the Islamic Sharī‛ah.
CONCLUSION
Today, we are living in the most ever-advanced world, yet very fragile. Ethnic cleansing, racial conflicts, genocide, and human rights violations are prevalent everywhere, and perpetrated even by and in the country which is popularly known as the champion of democracy and human right. Generally speaking, the modern Western civilization has been dehumanizing itself. All the liberal theories and concepts of coexistence have proven self-defeated. Therefore, in order to save humanity and this world from the impending decay, it is high time to revisit the Islamic teachings of peaceful coexistence whose efficacy has been conceptually and practically proven throughout the history. In the framework of “raḥmatan lil-‛ālamīn”, Islam has been evidently spreading and extending the “mercy” not only to all mankind but also to all the creatures.
26 Pasi Heikkurinen, “On the emergence of peaceful coexistence,” in his (ed.), Sustainability and Peaceful Coexistence for the Anthropocene (New York: Routledge, 2017), pp. 7-15.
