Winding Road of Religious Tolerance
Common wisdom is needed to respond to this developing dynamic in order to unravel the tangled threads of the controversy – not with an attitude that can worsen the situation.
The intention of the state (read: Religious Affairs Ministry) to be present in managing religious life to make it better, tolerant and mature, does not always fit with the aspirations of (some) members of the community.
Controversy, polemic and public debates regarding state policies on religious affairs are becoming commonplace. We can see this after the launch of the Religious Affairs Minister Circular No. 5/2022 concerning guidelines on the use of loudspeakers at mosques and mushola (prayer rooms).
In this context, common wisdom is needed to respond to this developing dynamic in order to unravel the tangled threads of the controversy – not with an attitude that can worsen the situation. The wisdom referred to in this context is proportionality in our attitudes and actions, so policy can land on target and bring common good.
This means that what we must focus on is the ratio-legis of a regulation, not the elements that are easily manipulated, converted and capitalized by certain parties into short-term interests.
Epistemic gap
Thus, the issuance of the circular should be understood in the context of the state's intention to organize religious affairs in a better, healthier and more tolerant public space.
It is indescribable naivety to imagine a state policy is issued only to create public ugliness and damage. There is a dimension of kemaslahatan (public good) behind state policy. In the words of Religious Affairs Minister Yaqut C Qoumas, "This regulation was made solely to make our society more harmonious".
Also read:
> Exporting Religious Moderation
The problem is, there is a sociological reality that hinders the acceptance of such policy in its entirety among some sections of society as the goodwill of the state. I call it the “epistemic gap” between the intentions and goodwill of a policy on one side and the religious logic of some of our society on the other. This gap is then capitalized by certain parties for short-term interests. As a result, our public space becomes very noisy because it contains anger, insults and blasphemy.
More concretely, the "epistemic gap" can be seen in the difficulty for some people in viewing the public benefit of the circular on the installation of loudspeakers in houses of worship. What is even more prominent is the minor assumption that the existence of the circular is a means of weakening religious symbols in the public sphere, "a trump up". They forget the basic fact that the existence of loudspeakers is bid'ah hasanah (technological innovation) that was not found in the early days of Islam.
Indeed, for the “layman”, this kind of gap in logic is understandable. The presence of loudspeakers at high volume can add to their emotional glorification.
However, for educated people, the expression of protest against the circular is an absurdity that is difficult to digest. The protests and resistance have even given rise to suspicion over the presence of short-term interests outside the agenda for strengthening religious tolerance.
If left unchecked, this epistemic gap will harden and eventually coalesce into—to borrow from Foucault—an “epistemic block”, namely a sociological group containing individuals united by certain schools of thought and/or certain short-term interests. The strengthening of identity politics in the community is basically the logical consequence of the omission of the epistemic gap.
Inequality and epistemic blocks are only the gateway to the social segregation that exists in society. At a certain level, social segregation can be understood as a human mechanism to obtain social protection, which provides comfort.
However, if overdosed, social segregation can hinder religious harmony and tolerance at the grassroots. Look at how the phenomenon of social segregation in society has taken place at an extreme level; from housing complexes to cemeteries!
Ethical and aesthetic dimensions
The questions that may be being asked by parties opposing Circular No. 5/2022 are, what is the urgency for the state to be present in regulating loudspeakers in houses of worship? Haven't the voices that come out of the mushola or mosque become an inseparable part of our culture (regardless of religious background)? Haven't the people “made peace” with the noise of the prayer house? Even if there are parties who object to the loudspeakers of the mosque or mushola, the number may not be significant!
What is the urgency for the state to be present in regulating loudspeakers in houses of worship?
This series of questions, at first glance, appear to be valid. However, on closer inspection, the problem of loudspeakers is actually much more complex than it appears on the surface. The complexity especially relates to the pattern of majority-minority relations in our highly heterogeneous society. Those who object to the loud volume of mosque loudspeakers, in the end, prefer the option of “making peace” for the sake of a modus vivendi.
As long as it is properly regulated, the presence of loudspeakers in the mosque or mushola really does not need to be a problem. Besides, the presence of Circular No. 5/2022 is not a prohibition of the use of loudspeakers. It is rather a guideline or recommendation with no legal sanctions. Of course, it should be understood that what is being regulated are the ethical (the volume) and aesthetic (the beauty that creates mutual comfort) dimensions of the sound issued from the speaker, not prohibiting the use of loudspeakers altogether in places of worship.
Social Darwinism law
Therefore, the Religious Affairs minister’s circular represents a form of the state’s "soft intervention" in a "non-religious and non-secular" country to support the pillars of a harmonious and tolerant democratic multicultural society. If the state is not present to regulate the ethical and aesthetic dimensions of loudspeakers at mosques or mushola, it is feared that the laws of social Darwinism will occur in our pluralistic society, especially in densely populated urban areas.
In a degree of fairness, social Darwinism can lead to sociological dynamics that give birth to "healthy competition" among religious people, internally and externally. However, at an extreme level, the patterns of relations of social Darwinism can lead to unhealthy, intolerant and even conflictual sociological segregation and segmentation. Before this can actually occur, the circular is a preventive effort to fortify the community from potential conflict, while at the same time strengthening the pillars of religious tolerance.
Also read:
> Maintaining Religious Tolerance
> Sharp Bend in Religious Moderation
From the perspective of the majority-minority relations, the absence of such regulation can disrupt and even destabilize social harmony. A concrete example is the construction of houses of worship. The issue of building houses of worship in this country has become more of a “thorn in the flesh” that disturbs our social harmony.
The difficulty of establishing houses of worship in certain communities for minorities is often met with similar actions in other parts of the country. As a result, the fulfillment of the right to worship in certain circles is being castrated, which can reduce the ideal image of religious tolerance in this country.
This writing is not a defense for the Religious Affairs minister’s circular. In the end, we must be honest with our own conscience about the pros and cons of the installation of loudspeakers at mosques or mushola in a much broader perspective: ideal religious tolerance. Unless we are adopting Alfred Stephan's (2000) "twin-tolerance" paradigm in religious life: where the church (religion) and the state should not regulate or interfere with each other?
MASDAR HILMY
Masdar Hilmy, Professor and Rector of UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya
This article was translated by Kurniawan Siswo.
