Amin Abdullah
This paper will try to contribute
methodological-analytical-philosophical frameworks in understanding
contemporary religious phenomena, more specifically the ones usually related to
the approaches applied by theologians, religionists and scientists. It will be
followed by an elaboration of their implications leading to the elaboration of
how an ideal approach can construct the emergence of a better internal and
external socio-religious relation in a multicultural and religious society.
The Profane and The Sacred Are Intermingled
It is said in contemporary religious discourses that a
‘religion’ has multi-faces, not single face. A religion is not anymore the one
what our former descendants understood which only covered concerns of divinity,
faith, belief, credo and way of life, the ultimate concerns and the like. Not
only does a religion have conventional characteristics and nature, it has also
assumed that it is closely related to historical-cultural issues which are
human reality.
In terms of historical-empirical studies on religious
phenomena, it has been understood that a religion is full of “interests” found
in its curriculum, teaching process, religious leadership, religions,
institution, and theological studies[8]. The intermingledness and interwovenness
between religion with various socio-political and socio-economical interests in
the historical-empirical areas seem to be complicatedly revealed in the
contemporary religious life. As a matter of fact, most religions have their own
“institution” and “organization” that support, strengthen, and spread their
religious teachings. This religious institution and organization have been
involved in the areas of socio-cultural, educational, medical, political,
economic, commercial, journalistic, electronic media, security, and communal
concerns and the likes. If that is so, it is really difficult to find a
religion without interests of its institution and authority no matter how high
the social values the interests have is. In Indonesia and in some other countries,
it is very easy to witness such phenomena.
It is not easy to reveal and solve the emergence of
mutual involvement of religion – to avoid the terms faith and piety, which are
more ethical and esthetical – and socio-communal interests. Both have been so intermingled
each other that it is very complicated to differentiate between the real areas
of “religion” and of its historical-cultural “interests”. In one side,
non-religious studies scientists may still be able to purify and classify
between pure science that is openly inclusive and applied science that is
tightly and closely exclusive, religious studies scientists go to the contrary
on the other sides. For theologian, natural scientists who are religious and
common follower of any religion are difficult to define and to separate as well
as differentiate both of them. In the discourses of theological studies, most
of socio-religious practices seem to be regarded as exclusively-ta’abbudy
applied science, without any connection to the realm of inclusively-ta’aqquly
pure one. If we could think and have in our mind the realm pure science in the
field of religious studies and regard it as the fundamental bases for the study
of religious diversity, hopefully we can solve some of the problems confronted
by human beings today.
To my knowledge, if religious practices and experiences
are assumed to have some elements of applied science, they automatically have
also elements of pure science. To search and to define appropriate formula and
to emphasize the importance of pure science in the study of religions in the
contemporary religious diversity will constitute good contributions that some
scholars expect much to reveal present religious discourses. It is like the
functions mathematics, physics and chemistry and biology which belong to pure
science, they as a matter of fact are also used to construct bridges, aircraft
designs, medical technology, biotechnology and the like which are in the area
of applied science.
The phenomena of the sacralization of human religious thought
(taqdis al-afkar al-diniyyah)2 in all religions is another difficulty to
scholars as profane things (mu’amallah ma’a al-nas; dzaniyya al-dalalah) are
often regarded as sacred ones. Political jargon in Indonesia saying that a
religion is categorized as SARA (ethnic group, religion, and race, inter-group)
show us
how they think
about religion. One of the risks and consequences in
sacralizing certain religious doctrines leads to make individual
and public behaviour closed,
neglect discussion, talks, and question religious harmony
openly in addition
to criticize and
reconstruct the questions
Critically and Scientifically.
In the modern epistemology, philosophers and scholars
can express the advantages as well as the disadvantages of the conceptions of
rationalism (deductive thinking), empiricism (inductive thinking) and
logical-positivism (combination between deductive and inductive logics) and so
forth.4 Because of the valuable contribution of contemporary epistemology, it
can be described that scientific activity is not only dominated by logical
aspect of knowledge, which is timeless essence.5 As a matter of fact, the
knowledge has also historical, cultural, sociological, and even political
nuance. The comparative study of religions and theology in the old fashion seem
to resemble what the modern philosophy of science has done in observing and
analyzing general science’s frameworks. In a sense that the scholars of
comparative study of religions and theologian seem to claim that scientific
construction of religion should be different from the nature of science in
general, for there has been what we call ‘dogma’ or ‘ doctrine’ inside which is
timeless essences, too.
Religious behaviour and experience in applied sciences
area, therefore, will find difficulty to contact and integrate itself with the
philosophy of the study of religion.6 The
authoritative claim of sacred books are often embedded sociologically as
the institutional claims of dominant religious scholars, ulama, priests, monks
religious activist.7 Whether the construction of religious science has been
intermingled by aspects of cultural-historical ‘interests’, the common
followers of religions and theologians in general will find themselves in
difficulty to recognize this tangible fact and reality. For them, religious
dimension of normativity – not to
mention the sacred aspects of religion – should be given first priority,
neglecting the historical dimension of individual, communal, collective, and
institutional religiosity.
Based on the above-mentioned description, it can be said
that we can witness the ‘sacred’ and the ‘profane’ or the ‘normative’ and the
‘historical’ in the humankind’s socio-religious area. In practice, there has
been intermingled and interrelated entity. The previous assumption that
relation seems to be the one between oil and water which is separable, cannot
work any more in daily life. To my knowledge, their intermingledness and
interwovenness is quite clear. In certain cases, their mutual relation is so
clearly overlapped that the profane is sacred and the sacred is profaned. The
community members have also recognized the tendency in which ways of thinking,
interpretation towards certain religious teachings, which are merely profane
and historical, are then sacralized for the shake of socio-political authority
and sustaining the charisma of individual, the cohesiveness of certain group
and community not to say to maintain the hegemonic and dominant group. The
question is what kind of approach that may help us to clarify this complicated
issue? Do those complicated issues motivate the religion scientists to urgently
contribute to the formation of the philosophy of the study of religion? What kind of methodology of the study of
religions to be hopefully expected to clarify scientifically upon the
intermingled relation between the sacred, the normative and the historical, the
profane in the contemporary phenomena of socio-religious society?
To complete the picture of the scientific approach to
the phenomena of human religious life, a brief reference will be made here to
the methodological relationships between the doctrinal-theological approach,
religious studies of a cultural-sociological bent and philosophical enquiry to
religion.
The doctrinal-theological, cultural-sociological and
philosophical approaches to religion.
The relationships between religious communities,
especially in complex societies, are always marked by progression and decline.
This occurs on local, regional, national and international scales. The
relationship between religious communities is not always harmonious. Though the
doctrines (teachings) of each religion might teach the virtues of harmony,
peace, mutual respect, the principle of togetherness and other lofty ideals, in
reality (cultural-sociological realities) religious doctrines, the decisions of
scholastic (ulama) councils, conciliatory decisions or even ideal agreements
made in the council of world churches, have often not been implemented or
extended upon. There are still many dominant “interests”
(cultural-sociological) – which can be referred to as political, economic,
social, cultural or defense interests – that give shape to struggles, dynamics
and the rise and decline of relations between religious communities. To a certain
extent, these historical-practical interests appear to have made these
theological doctrines, religious council agreements, conciliations and
agreements barren, dry, formal and incapable of awakening the intentions of
religious followers to increase the spirit for breakthroughs.
The confusion of doctrinal-theological aspects in
cultural-sociological spheres adds complexity to the religious problem in the
historicity of mankind. Where doctrine – which is normative, and which can be
based upon verses from holy texts – and also where the interpretations of an
individual or a group towards a doctrine (often contained and mixed by
cultural-sociological interests), is difficult to distinguish in many cases.
Preconceived opinions, prejudice and theological presumptions develop quickly,
and this is later strengthened by the efforts of proselytizers and missionaries
with references to the holy texts of each religion. This is difficult to
control through conventional means, whether that be through renewed study of
the religious doctrines of each religions with honesty and rigor, or through
the empirical study customary to religious studies. Theological presumptions
which have developed over the centuries are very difficult to break or purify,
no matter what technique is adopted. The relationship between religious
communities is no longer just a personal or group relationship, but has already
entered into an overlapping of text and reality.
As an illustration, the empirical study of religion can
point to a number of important events in Indonesia. For almost three decades –
from 1970 until 2000 – religious communities during the New Order and Reformasi
period made use of the term “Kerukunan”, which derives from the Western terms
of ‘tolerance’ or ‘harmony’. In daily practice, it appears that this concept,
of harmony or tolerance has led to an apologetic attitude. Each religion wants
to demonstrate that it the most harmonious or tolerant. The irony is that such apologies
are effected both textually (through textual teachings or doctrines) and
contextually (through historical, anthropological and sociological legitimacy),
which appear not to have decreased the existing tensions but, on the contrary,
to have actually engendered new tensions.8
In terms of doctrinal-textual approaches Muslims will
claim that the first thing they say when meeting with another person is
assalamu’alaikum (peace be unto you). Thus, Islam is a religion of peace. At
the same time, Catholics and Protestants claim that the Christian religion has
always been one of love, which is implemented through deaconal teachings.
Hindus also say that their religion teaches dharma. Buddhists claim that their
religion aims to free mankind from suffering. To put more blatantly, as Robert
Cummings Naville notices that when the Buddhists of Sri Lanka, whose religion
is supposed to be that of quite enlightenment, battle with Hindus, whose slogan
is “Shanti! Shanti!” “Shanti”, they both are making profound mistakes about the
implications of their own religions. When Christians, whose God is love, bomb
and snipe at one another in Northern Ireland, the operant forms of Christianity
at hand are corrupt.9 Islamic jihad in Afganistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia
and other places are trapped in the same category of mistake. Conceptually, all
of them refer to the same essence and ambitions, peace and harmony but in at the
level of socio-political arena those timeless essences are manipulated
and corrupted.10
There is nothing wrong with such a doctrinal-textual
approach, because “truth” exists especially for the followers of a particular
religion. However, according to the Indonesian cultural observer and historian
Kuntowijoyo, this textual-doctrinal argument will be challenged by a contextual
approach, which is often polyinterpretable in nature (open to various
interpretations). For example, Muslims will differ with Catholics concerning
the caliphate of Ummayyah in Spain, which was begun by the government of Abdurrahman
Al-Dhakil. Muslims believe that Islamic power and government over Spain was a
blessing for Europe: Spain possessed the most brilliant civilisation in the
middle ages (until 1492) before the Spaniards chased them out. Without this
there would have been no renaissance. And what also needs to be noted here is
that there was no religious or ethnic cleansing throughout the 700 years of
Islamic rule. But, for Catholics, Islamic prestige has been interpreted as a
form of cultural aggression and proof that Islam was spread with the sword.
These two impressions cannot be removed from the intellectual heritage of
mankind, as both have been recorded in documents of civilisational history from
each camp, both for purposes of science and for promoting certain interests and
biases. As such, mankind has been fettered by the literature arranged by
previous generations.
There is also a controversy between the Islamic
community and Hindu-Buddhists concerning
the arrival of Islam
in Indonesia and
the collapse of the Majapahit
kingdom. Muslims consider the entrance of Islam into the Majapahit kingdom
as a peaceful transition, whilst
Hindu-Buddhists consider it an act of war. The war conducted by the United
States of America in the modern history can be interpreted in the same way. So,
in both a doctrinal-textual and historical-contextual way these two events can
be interpreted apologetically.
No form of theological doctrine, or historico-empirical
approach for that matter, is capable of providing insights to solve the
interplay and mixing between the dimensions of doctrine-theology and history in
its practical social form and the interplay between text and reality. The
mixture of group interests – economic, political, educational, social,
cultural, and even security – with theological doctrine, makes the relationship
between religious communities even more complicated. It is somewhat difficult
now to simply analyse the doctrinal-theological aspects of a particular
religion by freeing it from any social-practical and cultural-sociological
dimensions that accompany this, and vice versa. The two of them have already
been interlaced and mixed. Is there any ray of hope to be found in the cracks
and gaps of this confusion and complexity?
In order to break through, or at least clarify, the
confusion of the doctrinal- theological and cultural-sociological, we need the
critical reflection that is generally available in the critical-philosophical
approach. Ideally, a fundamental philosophical approach (al-falsafah al-ula) would
prove effective in explaining, clarifying and solving these complications
between the doctrinal-theological and the cultural-sociological dimensions in
the age religious diversity. To a certain extent, a phenomenological approach
to religious phenomena needs to be assessed so as to view the essence of human
religiosity transparently, especially in relation to inter-religious relations.
But a phenomenological approach, which usually only produces formulations and
comprehensions of the fundamental structure of human religiosity,11 is no
longer considered satisfying, especially for clarifying the interplay between
text and reality or the complicated web of doctrinal-theology and
cultural-sociology. A phenomenological approach that is capable of locating the
universal essence of human religiosity needs to be conducted along with a
critical-philosophical analysis of the concrete reality of religiosity in the
cultural-sociological spheres.
It needs to be reiterated here that these three
approaches (doctrinal- normative, cultural-sociological,
critical-philosophical) are all the creation of mankind, and therefore have
weaknesses that cannot be removed entirely, and this is even truer when these
approaches are pursued in, isolation from each other. For that reason,
critical-philosophical reflection is not only directed towards purely
doctrinal-theological or purely cultural-sociological considerations, but must
also be critical of itself. That is, it must think “philosophically” of its own
status. In the history of philosophy, the philosophical streams are greatly
varied, so it is difficult to differentiate between the streams of philosophy
and philosophical methodology, and an individual can often be caught up in the
exclusivity of a particular philosophical stream.12
I am under the impression – and it is certainly still a
tentative one – that religious studies of a sociological, anthropological,
psychological and historical bent,13 do not share an interest in the
‘old-fashioned’ philosophical approach. This is because in times past and right
up until the present time, philosophical approaches towards religion have been
marked by ‘logical structural’ explanations rather than belief. Secondly, the
philosophy of religion in Europe – to make use of Ursula King’s observations –
cannot be separated from a Christian or Catholic bias. This means that the
philosophy of religion developed in the West is almost identical with the
Christian philosophy of religion.14 The two prominent characteristics of such a
philosophical approach to religion make it non-appealing for those pursue
religious studies. This is so because the first characteristic tends to focus
on ‘timeless essences’, which does not recognise meaning inside time, whereas
the second one is focussed more upon a particular religion, Christianity, by
distancing the concepts promoted and offered by other religions. The
philosophical approach that I allude to here is a critical-analytical approach
of human religiosity in general, as it emerges in numerous pre-existing traditions.
At the very least, such a critical approach could provide scientific
clarification of a philosophical nature, and this would later assist with
efforts to clarify the vision, essence and substance of human religiosity as
opposed to the missions, schools and interests that attach to such religiosity.
Parallel, Linear or Circular Poles: a Hermeneutical
Circle Perspective
From the above illustration, it is my personal claim and
hopefully could be my contribution to this seminar, that the study of the
religion of humankind today can not be fruitfully accomplished without
utilizing those three kinds of approaches, namely the doctrinal-theological,
the cultural-sociological and the critical-philosophical approaches, in the
unified – not in the separate – entities. Due to that assumption, I am still
wonder to explore the modes of relationship between those three approaches
within the body of the study of religion.
If those three approaches of the religious studies is
true of contemporary society, then what is the real relationship between the
three of them? The relationship between the three is another matter altogether.
Is it a parallel, linear or circular relationship? The definitions and the
understanding of these three approaches have to be followed by distinguishing
the relationship between these different approaches. Once again, it is hoped
that the critical-reflective-comprehensive perspective offered through a
philosophical approach would clarify the nature of the relationship between the
three. The accuracy and error encountered between the three would determine the
output achieved.
If the relationship between these three approaches are
parallel then each approach will progress individually without a direct
relationship or interference between scholars and clerics of one approach and
another. The theoretical and practical value obtained from such a relationship
will also be minimal. A parallel relationship assumes scholars and religious
clerics possess all three approaches, however, the methodologies and logics of
these approaches will function separately, without dialogue and communication
between each other. This, of course, will depend upon the situation and
condition. Someone might operate solely within the doctrinal-theological field
and lack the courage to contribute – to themselves or to other – that, which
they have gained from an alternative scientific methodology. Nevertheless,
regardless of how small the results obtained from such a parallel relationship,
this is still much better than the results gained from an isolated approach
which does not recognise any other approach.
A linear approach, if taken to extremes, will face a
dead end. The linear approach begins with the assumption that one of these
three methodologies will become the primadona. A scholar of religion will
distance contributions gained from the numerous approaches with which he/she is
familiar, because he/has already favoured one of the three available
approaches. The approach that he/she chooses will be considered the ideal and
final approach. Such a mindset, however, can only bring one to a dead end. This
closure would take the form of a dogmatic-theological impasse (usually
expressed as an excessive and exclusive truth claim which believes the
mentality that “right or wrong is my country alone”) or even a
historical-empirical impasse (in the form of a sceptical, relativistic and
nihilistic perspective), or even a philosophical impasse (depending upon the
type of tradition or philosophical stream most favoured).
Neither of these two – the parallel or the linear
approach – are ideal or capable of providing guidance for religious communities
in this contemporary era of pluralism. A parallel approach cannot open new
horizons, insights or conceptions since each of the three approaches mentioned
above rest upon their own standpoints, making it difficult to achieve dialogue
between one and the other. Just like a train line, the three of them will
follow their own tracks and will not converge. A linear approach, which
perceives itself as the final option, will trap individuals or groups into
exclusive–polemics situations. A linear relationship deems other approaches
invalid. Consequently, adherents of a linear approach will enforce one type of
approach by denying or refusing contributions from colleagues working in other
streams. Thus, such people will easily fall victim to their own truth claims,
that is, by perceiving their own approach as the most accurate, whilst the rest
are inaccurate. Contemporary approaches to the study of religion, in my
opinion, can only bring a religious scholar and their followers to a choice
between one of the two approaches listed above. Neither of these two approaches
are conducive for an individual or a group to attain artificiality such a
field. Only intelligent and observant researchers, observers, social-religious
critics would be aware of such anomalies. One serious and unavoidable anomaly
for every religious community is the proximity of “religion” and “language”,
“tradition” and “culture”, “text” and “context”.
A religion cannot be freed of the social and religious
experiences instituted in its own structure. To consolidate and strengthen the
theological premises of every follower, what is needed is a new discipline
referred to as ‘philosophical theology’ or ‘natural theology’. In essence, this
second scientific discipline is similar to the first in that the two of them
are rooted in theological doctrine. Even if such a philosophical approach is
adopted, its use will be very limited because it is appropriated within the
self-interest and message of the sponsor of a particular theology.15 The
‘philosophy of religion’ deriving from the West is simply ‘philosophical
theology’, in another dress. The major weakness of this model of philosophical
enquiry is the lack of familiarity with the thought and religious concepts
possessed by groups outside of Western traditions.
Both old-fashioned philosophical approaches and
philosophical theology are not yet capable of refreshing and directing communities
to a more inclusive (hanif), open-ended understanding of the very complex
nature of human religiosity. A pure theological approach and philosophical
theology are not yet capable of touching on, let alone criticising, the
interplay of doctrinal-theological and cultural-sociological interests in
religious communities. For this to be achieved an additional approach is
required, one that is more fundamental-critical-inclusive. Such an approach,
which refer to as al-falsafatu al-ula (to follow the phrase of al-Farabi and
al-Tusi) is differentiated clearly from the al-ilm al-ilahy (theology, Kalam or
philosophical theology) or the ‘fundamental philosophy’ (to use the term of
Wilhelm Dupre).
Unfortunately, the fundamental philosophy (al-falsafatu
al-ula) highlighted by al-Farabi and Tusi is still not as popular as the spread
of ‘Kalam’ or mainstream Islamic theology. The Kalam approach is generally the
same as the theological approach found in the Christian world, only their
content is different. The mental attitudes and thought processes of the two are
practically the same. It is largely possible that the fundamental philosophy
approach – completely different from other philosophical streams – which, from
the outset, did not side with a particular group, lost its popularity over
time. Such an approach is very contradictive from thought processes and
approaches of pastors, priests and ulama, most of whom pursued ideas stemming
from the confines of their own particular religion or social grouping. Thus,
there emerged a number of difficult relationships between religious communities
in a multi-cultural and multi-religious context, a complexity that marks
contemporary religious agendas and which everyone must deal with. As a first
step, perhaps, the renewal of contemporary religiosity requires a
reinvestigation and redevelopment of the al-falsafatu al-ula or the fundamental
philosophy, because only this field – the pure sciences of religious studies –
can clarify the phenomena of the interplay between the normative-sacred and the
historical-profane in contemporary religious society. The path to a formulation
and the reconstitution of the fundamental philosophy and al-falsafatu al-ula is
still a long way off completion and has been blurred, simply because contemporary
philosophical approaches have already been obstructed and blanketed by various
and exclusive thoughts, understandings and ideologies.
A research agenda to establish a methodological
framework (fundamental philosophy, al-falsafatu al-ula) which is directly
related to religious studies and Islamic studies and which aims to contribute
towards a solution for the plurality of religiosity is like trying to find a
needle in a haystack. Those who believe they have not even lost the needle will
be apathetic of such a problem. But those who genuinely believe they have
dropped the needle will experience a real sense of guilt because they believe
that such a needle is there somewhere, needing only the illumination of a torch
to locate the needle. This torch represents the melting pot of the three
cluster of approaches as outlined above, that is, a critical dialogue in the
form hermeneutical circle between those three approaches based upon religious
texts (naql; bayany; subjective, theological doctrine), and sociological
context which deal with the human cultural, sociological and institutional
construction of human civilization, and the ethical, critical and
transcendental aspect of being religious (al-falsafatu al-ula; fundamental and
critical philosophy). Such a critical and creative dialogue among those three
approaches outlined above within unified entity of discourse is just one of the
many other methods worth considering for such a reconstruction of the study of
religious diversity in contemporary era.
By introducing the fundamental and critical philosophy
of religion, within the integrated body of the study of religions, I would like
simultaneously to respon Frank Whaling’s question in his Introductory word in
his book Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion which says that “what
we are seeking for and have not yet found is a philosophy of religion that is
universal in application, that can deal responsibly with religious diversity,
and that can moderate over (rather than isolate itself from or dominate) the
other approaches to the study of religion”.16
From my point of view, every philosophy of religion,
especially in its old fashion, is easily trapped by its own particular
religious tradition, namely Christian, Islamic, Jewish or Hindu tradition. It can
not be universalized at all. Nothing wrong with this particularity, since human
beings tend to be culturally and religiously determined. The difficult problem
only will come into the surface, when this particularity changes and shapes the
social behavior of its adherents and custodians to be rigid, inflexible,
defensive, and aggressive. This is the root of violent act on behalf one’s own
of religion.
It is only philosophical mode of thought that can be
universalized, especially its way to think and to analysize the problem
(approach) and its way to obtain the data to construct the argument
(methodology). This approach and methodology will only flourish in the compact
combination of between phenomenology of religion and religious hermeneutic. A
phenomenology of religion is useful to seek for the general-universal pattern
of human religiosity and its specific-particular manifestation in the
history17, while religious hermeneutic is looking for the dynamic and the
interplay of religious text and its interpreters within the particular epoch of
historical context.18 Only by then, human beings and religious communities in
particular can do justice in facing the challenge of multireligious and
multicultural society in the contemporary life.
Bibliography
Allen, Douglas, 1978, Structure and Creativity in
Religion : Hermeneutics in Mircea Eliade’s Phenomenology and New Directions,
Paris, New York: Mounton Publishers.
Arkoun, Muhammad, 1990, Al Islam : Al-Akhlaq wa
al-Siyasah, terjemahan Hashim Salih, Beirut : Markaz al-Inma’ al-Qaumy.
_____, 1987, Al Fikr al-Islamy : Qira’ah Ilmiyyah,
terjemahan Hashim Salih, Beirut: Markaz al-Inma al-Qaumy.
_____, 1990, Al Fikr al-Islamy : Naqd wa Ijtihad,
terjemahan Hashim Salih, Beirut: Dar al-Saqi.
_____, 1993, Aina Huwa al-Fikr al-Islamy al-Mu’asir,
terjemahan Hashim Salih, Beirut: Dar al-Saqi.
Armstrong, Karen, 1993, A History of God : The 4000 Year
Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, New York: al-Fred A. Knof, INC.
Barbour, Ian G., 1966, Issues in Science and Religion,
New York: Harper & Torchbooks, Harper & Row. Publishers.
Bleeker, C.J., “Comparing the Religion. Historical and
the Theological Method” NVMEN, Vol. XVII.
Boullataa, Issa J. (Ed.), 1992, An Anthology of Islamic
Studies, McGill Indonesia IAIN Development Project, Montreal, Canada.
Chalmers, A.F., 1993, Apa itu yang dinamakan Ilmu :
Suatu Penilaian tentang Watak dan Status Ilmu serta Metodenya, terjemahan
Redaksi Hasta Mitra, Joesoef Isak (ed.) Jakarta: Hasta Mitra.
Eliade, Mircea, 1969, The Sacred and the Profane : the
Nature of Religion, terjemahan Willard R. Trask, New York: A. Harvest Book,
Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc..
El-Fadl, Khaled Abou, 2003, Speaking in God’s Name :
Islamic Law, Authority and Women, Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
al-Farabi, Abu Nasr, 1970, Kitab al-Huruf, Beirut: Dar
al-Mashriq.
al-Fattah, Nabil Abd, 1997, al-Nass wa al-Rasas :
al-Islam al-Siyasy wa Azmah al-Daulah al-Haditsah fi Misr, Beirut: Dar al-Nihar
wa al-nasyr.
Hanafi, Hasan, Dirasah Islamiyah, Qahira: Maktabah
al-Anjilo al-Missriyyah.
al-Jabiry, Muhammad Abid, 1989, Takwin al-Aql al-Araby.
Beirut: Markaz Dirasat al-Wihdah al-Arabiyyah, Cetakan keempat.
_____, 1990, Bunyah al-‘Aql al-Araby : Dirasah
Tahliliyyah Naqdiyyah li Nudzumi al-Ma’rifah fi al-Tsaqafah al-Arabiyyah
(Beirut: Markaz Dirasat al-Wihdah al-Arabiyyah, Cetakan ketiga.
Kuhn, Thomas. S, 1970, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kuntowijoyo, “Dari Kerukunan ke Kerjasama, dari
Toleransi ke Koperasi”, UMMAT, No. 14 Tahun I, 8 Januari 1996 17 Sya’ban 1416
H.;
Laporan akhir Pusat Penelitian Pembangunan Pedesaan dan
Kawasan University Gadjah Mada dengan Departemen Agama Republik Indonesia,
Perilaku Kekerasan Kolektif : Kondisi dan Pemicu, Yogyakarta.
Leaman, Oliver, 1985, An Introduction to the Medieval
Islamic Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Margoliouth (trans). “The Discussion between Abu Bishr
Matta and Abu Sa’id al-Sirafi on the Merits of Logic and Grammar”, 1905,
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society NS, XXXII.
Martin, Richard. C. (Ed.), 1985, Approaches to Islam in
Religious Studies, Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Mudimbe, V.Y (Ed.), 1996, Open the Social Sciences :
Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of Social Sciences,
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, 1988, Knowledge and the Sacred,
Lahore: Suhail Academy.
Naville, Robert Cummings, 2002, Religion in Late
Modernity, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Peters, F.E., 1968, Aristotle and the Arabs, New York:
New York University Press.
Russel, Bertrand, 1971, History of Western Philosophy,
London: Unwin University Books.
Rolston III, Holmes, 1987, Sciences and Religion : A
Critical Survey, New York: Random Mouse, Inc..
Schumann, Olaf H., 2004, Menghadapi Tantangan,
Memperjuangkan Kerukunan, Jakarta: Gunung Mulia.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, 1972, The Faith of Other Men,
New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Sharif, M.M. (Ed.), 1963, A History of Muslim
Philosophy, Vol. I, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz.
Vroom, Hendrik M., 1989, Religions and the Truth :
Philosophical Reflections and Perspectives, terjemahan J.W. Rabel, Amsterdam:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co and Editions Rodopi.
Whaling, Frank (Ed.), 1984, Contemporary Approaches to
the Study of Religion, Vol. I, Social Sciences, Berlin: Mouton Publishers.
Woodhouse, Mark B., 1984, A Preface to Philosophy,
Belmont, California: Wadworth Publishing Company.
Zaid, Nasr Hamid Abu, Naqd al-Khitab al-Diniy.
UIN Sunan Kalijaga
25 September 2004
[8] Ursula King, ”Historical and Phenomenological
Approaches to the Study of Religion” in Frank Whaling (ed), Contemporary
Approaches to the Study of Religion, Vol. II: The Social Sciences (Berlin:
Mouton Publishers, 1984), pp. 106-9 and pp. 139-40.
2 M. Arkoun, Al-Islam: Al-Akhlaq wa al-Siyasah, Hashim
Salim, tr., (Beirut: Markaz al-inma’al-qauny, 1990), pp. 172-3; 116-7.
3 The word ‘sacredness’ is sociologically meant, not
hierophantically, that means the one found in things (stones or trees) to
primitive society, and neither the one meant by holiness, like in Yesus’ incarnation.
See Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion), tr.
Williard R.Trask (New York: A Harves Book, Harcout Brace & World, Inc,
1959) pp. 11-18; see also Ninian Smart, Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of
the World’s Belief, London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996. The newly published book by Olaf H. Schumann,
Menghadapi Tantangan, Memperjuangkan Kerukunan (Jakarta: Gunung Mulia, 2004)
will be very informative to discuss this problem.
4 A.F. Chalmer, Apa itu yang dinamakan ilmu: Suatu
penilaian tentang watak dan status ilmu serta metodenya, tr. Hasta Mitra,
Joesef Isak (ed.), Jakarta: Hasta Mitra, 1993).
5 Ibid., pp. 93-105
6 See further Frank Whaling, ”An additional Note on the
Philosophy of Science and the Study of Religion” in Frank Whaling (ed.), op.
cit., pp 380-390.
7 In the contemporary Islamic Studies, Nasr Hamid Abu
Zaid’ book Naqd al-Khitab al-Diniy is very illuminating in discussing this
issue.
8 Kuntowijoyo, “Dari Kerukunan ke Kerjasama, dari
Toleransi ke Koperasi”, UMMAT, No. 14, 18 January 1996, 17 Sya’ban 1416 H, pp.
28-29. See also Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Faith of Other Men, New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1972, p. 100; 103; 107.
9 Robert Cummings Neville, Religion in Late Modernity
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002), p.164.
10 Nabil Abd al-Fattah, an-Nass wa al-Rasas : al-Islam
al-Siyasy wa al Aqbat wa Azamah al-Daulah al-Haditsah fi Misr, (Beirut: Dar
al-Nihar li al-Nasr, 1997, h.271-290.
11 Douglas Allen, Structure and Creativity in Religion:
Hermeneutic in Mircea Eliade’s Phenomenology and New Directions (Paris, New
York: Mountain Publisher, 1978) p. 59. See also Richard C. Martin, (ed),
Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, (Arizona: University of Arizona
Press, 1 985), pp. 7-8. Mark B. Woodhouse, Loc. cit.
12 Mark B. Woodhouse, Loc. Cit.
13 C.J. Bleeker, Op.cit. p.15
14 Ursula King, “Historical and Phenomenological
Approach to The Study of Religion : Some major developments and issues under
debate since 1950”, Frank Whaling (Ed.), Contemporary Approaches to the Study
of Religion, Vol. I, (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1984), h. 137.
15 Al-Jabiry describes this tendency in contemporary
Islamic thought as al-Burhan fi khidmati al-Irfan wa al-Bayan. For further
commentary, see Muhammad Abid al-Jabiry, Op. cit.
16 Frank Whaling, “Introduction : The Contrast between
the Classical and Contemporary Periods in the Study of Religion”, Frank Whaling
(Ed.), Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion : Vol. I : Social
Sciences, (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1984), p. 14.
17 Richard C. Martin, “Islam and Religious Studies : An
Introductory Essay”, Richard C. Martin (Ed.), Approaches to Islam in Religious
Studies, op.cit, p. 7-8.
18 Khaled Abou El Fadl, Speaking in God’s Name : Islamic
Law, Authority and Women, (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003), p. 86-95.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar