Muttering pluralism

prompted by the so-called cultural talk on the seminar held by Bauhaus International students assembly that mainly focused on how students are facing some difficulties adjusting to a new culture that differs from their own, i was more rather concerned when one of the students, a Rusia girl, spilled out in regards with religious influencing cultural behavior in moslem society in a fundamentalist way. a few hours after the talk, the mediator of the seminar approached me and started to comment on some examples of attempts in pluralizing the view about religions in Indonesia, which of course is interesting in itself. any discussion about pluralism is always refreshing. apart from her point of view of how the other minority religion deal with the pluralization indonesia, thing that has been crossing my mind is that the discourse about religion somehow is always dichotomized between two polar, fundamentalist and liberalism, forgetting that between two spectrums there lays a space of in-between-ness where most of society stand. supposedly the liberalism has a totally different view than fundamentalist in interpreting religious messages, by holding on values of pluralism, there could always be space for exchanging ideas and appropriate critiques.

however, both should not be trapped in competing for the "right-ness" by negating each other. pluralism is not about "accuracy" but rather implies the "open-ness". other important thing is that the existence of in-between-ness which now somehow is forgotten and ignored. how could be any pluralism in the public sphere if there are only two dominant views and the rest are muted? supposedly the liberalists (well, easier for me to demand liberalists rather than fundamentalists... some of you know why) believe in the importance of pluralism, they should also encourage any different views about religion to grow and at the end this attempt should be more important than promoting any exclusive view of liberalism. but can one liberalist actually do that? this is not impossible, and one should keep this in mind if want to hold on to pluralism.

but it isn't easy as well living in pluralist society, remember the MUI (Majelis Ulama Indonesia) has sentenced pluralism as "haram" stipulated in the National discussion board in 2005 (CMIIW)? . such a controversial issue among religious figures, humanity activists and intellectual scholars, questioning the definition of "pluralism" that has been perceived by MUI. many of indonesian moslem society believe that "pluralism" is a heresy; pluralism has been socially constructed through the religious agents. moreover, to clarify the position of their fatwa, the MUI and the interpreter da'wah (religious teacher), as reported by some media, reaffirming that they receive a plurality because it is an inevitable reality yet firmly reject pluralism. because pluralism presupposes a belief that all religions are equal and authentic. some of the moslem society might have this perspective of pluralism, this makes me conclude that pluralism in Indonesia, such as twilight. the luminescence is fading away before it could really shine and glow. it's one thing that disturb me. not to mention other crucial matters; the conditions of the majority community of Indonesia who live in the shadow of non-literary culture, a culture where people not only are illiterate (can not read), but also not literate in accessing information about the different worlds outside themselves.

based on the phenomenon above, i suspect that the image of pluralism that has been dull because its meaning superficially crushed by 'some quarters' must be re-sharpened. term of pluralism must be acknowledged with different packaging. is in the industrial era, as now, packaging is the main capital to sell an idea or ideas? for example, the interpreter dai celebrities who often appears on the screen. all have their own packaging. in the meantime, the pluralism which has been packed as a presumption of relativism, a perspective that the value and truth is determined by the view of life and mind of every individual or community, in which all things (the views, values, beliefs, truth, meaning) contain relative truth. so the question is true / false, good / bad, halal / haram and so is relative. this view of relativism (that all religions are true and the same) is already undertaken as pluralism. isn't it a fallacy?

in the discourse on this matter is actually implied a concern that the history of mankind is always colored by the efforts of get rid of "the Other" under "the Same", who has the right to life is "the Same", while "the Other" and its disorder must be eradicated, muzzled, converted, and eventually become "the Same". for that, I think, borrowing Kang Jalal's testimony in his latest book, Islam and Pluralism, he said, "all religion is true according to each criterion. each one is valid within its particular culture." all God's creatures is a large families.