Judul
Studi Agama di Indonesia, Refleksi Pengalaman
Penulis
Zainal Abidin Bagir, Samsul Maarif, Achmad Munjid, Gregory Vanderbilt, Mohammad Iqbal Ahnaf, A. Bagus Laksana
Penerbit
CRCS 2015
ISBN
978-602-72686-2-3
Sejarah studi agama dalam beragam pendekatannya di Indonesia sudah cukup panjang, namun bidang studi ini juga terus berkembang. Buku ini menyajikan pemetaan pendekatan – pendekatan serta tema – tema mutakhir studi agama, juga narasi pengajaran beberapa matakuliah di Program Studi Agama dan Lintas Budaya, Universitas Gadjah Mada. Sumbangan ini diharapkan bermanfaat untuk pengajar studi agama dan memperkaya gagasan untuk perkembangan lebih jauh studi agama di Indonesia. Selengkapnya
Bagi yang tertarik, bisa menghubungi:
Divisi Marketing CRCS UGM
Gedung Lengkung Lantai 3
Sekolah Pascasarjana Universitas Gadjah Mada
Jl. Teknika Utara, Pogung, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 55281
Telephone/Fax : + 62-274-544976

Azis Anwar Fachrudin | CRCS | Article
Is it possible and necessary to have voices from Islam that are both against and for a moratorium on the death penalty? I think it is necessary, as what shapes discourse in the Muslim communities of Muslim-majority countries can influence policies in those countries. In Indonesia, for instance, an interpretation of sharia promoting a moratorium on the death penalty has been raised, but it is unfavorable to many Muslim scholars.
Amid the uproar concerning the death penalty for Indonesian migrant workers in Saudi Arabia, as well as that of drug convicts in Indonesia, opposing voices in the name of Islam are barely heard. Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), the largest Muslim organization in Indonesia, considered moderate by many, condemned the death penalty for migrant workers in Saudi Arabia, yet supported the death penalty for drug convicts. But in general, the death penalty is a non-issue for Islamic organizations.
First, this is maybe because death penalty cases in general scarcely touch the issue of Muslim identity politics — many so-called secular Muslims are on both sides of the debate. Second, capital punishment, along with corporal punishment, is prescribed in Islamic scripture so it is very difficult, though not impossible, to have a voice of Islam that is against the death penalty.
However, 21st century Muslims should review the practices of the death penalty in Muslim-majority countries and this can be done even within the realm of Islamic teachings or sharia. Here are the premises.
Sharia by many Muslims nowadays is reductively understood in terms of legalistic formulae. Sharia is associated with corporal and/or capital punishment, as if sharia is nothing but a penal code and punishments. Yet sharia literally means the way or path. In Koranic terminology, it means the path toward an objective representative of the supreme virtue of Islam, which is justice (some would add dignity of human beings and mercy and love for all creatures). 
Muslim scholars, ranging from reformists, rationalists, even literalists, would agree that the supreme value promoted by Islam when it comes to dealing with relationships among individuals and/or communities is justice, as explicitly stated and commanded by God many times in the Koran. The mercy that Islam would bring to the world is justice.
Any action leading to injustice, in whatever name, including in the name of Islam, is therefore un-Islamic and should be opposed by Muslims. All Islamic legal opinions that are against justice are thus against the sharia of Islam.
As God has commanded Muslims to be “bearers of witness with justice”, as the Koran states, Muslims should share the notion once voiced by Martin Luther King Jr. that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. All unjust punishments should be an Islamic issue, including questions over the death penalty of Indonesian migrant workers and foreign and local drug convicts.
Now, the question is how justice is manifested in punishment. The traditional fiqh (Islamic law and jurisprudence) is still lacking discussion of the philosophy of justice compared to advanced discourse in the secular realm, which has led to the concept of restorative justice, distinguished from retributive justice. The idea of qisas (an eye for an eye) is mostly understood as a deterrent and/or equal retaliation within retributive justice.
Nevertheless, Muslim scholars advocating a moratorium on the death penalty are echoing these arguments: corporal punishment, stoning or the death penalty cannot be implemented within an unjust system of governance, judiciary, or an unequal society, given the fact that those punishments are irreversible.
In this view, a just system is a prerequisite of such irreversible punishments. An unjust system is considered one of the shubuhat (ambiguities) based upon which the irreversible punishment must not be applied, as the Prophet Muhammad said. Included in that unjust system are dictatorships that are still embraced by many Muslim-majority countries, where the weak and poor are more likely to be punished than the wealthy and powerful. 
That is the argument posed by some NU leaders in criticizing Saudi Arabia’s death penalty for Indonesian migrant workers, given frequent reports of torture and other dehumanizing practices by employers. 
With regard to restorative justice, Mutaz M. Qafisheh from Hebron University in the International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences wrote that Islamic jurisprudence had many alternatives to original punishments known in modern restorative justice systems, such as compensation (diya), conciliation (sulh) and pardon (afw). These mechanisms are stated in the Koran and were exemplified by the Prophet. Qafisheh also says that classical Muslim scholars had unique mechanisms derived from the wider principles of Islam that can be understood as restorative means, such as repentance (tawba), intercession (shafaa), surety (kafala) and expiation (kafara). 
He concludes: “By looking at the philosophy of penalty as detailed by Islamic jurisprudence […] restorative justice does exist. It exists as the general rule. Retributive justice is the exception.” 
That kind of reinterpreting of Islamic scripture should be advanced by today’s Muslim scholars if Muslims want to be able to respond to the discourse of international human rights.
Also, for the Muslims who are so obsessed with the rules textually prescribed in the scripture, we should consider the notion that God’s revelation is not only in the text (ayat qauliyyah) but exists also in the universe (ayat kauniyyah), in the way human beings behave. Modern sociology and criminology should be juxtaposed and mirrored with traditional fiqh by Muslim jurists in their interpretations of the scripture.

Fardan Mahmudatul Imamah | CRCS | SPK
Setelah mengalami berbagai tekanan dari negara maupun kelompok intoleran selama lebih dari delapan tahun, para penganut Ahmadiyah di Manislor, Kuningan, Jawa Barat, kini berusaha memperbaiki kondisi dengan cara membangun jejaring sosial dengan masyarakat Kuningan lainnya. Mereka mengunjungi  tokoh agama di pesantren-pesantren, menemui masyarakat adat, menjadi relawan kegiatan sosial, serta aktif dalam beberapa organisasi kemasyarakatan. Hal itu dirasa sangat membantu untuk mengurangi tekanan fisik yang mereka alami selama ini, walaupun belum sepenuhnya menuntaskan permasalahan yang ada. Hingga kini, masyarakat Ahmadiyah di Kuningan masih menghadapi persoalan pemenuhan hak-hak administrasi sipil. Itulah beberapa hal yang disampaikan pimpinan Ahmadiyah Manislor, Nur Salim, pada acara kunjungan peserta Sekolah Pengelolaan Keragaman (SPK) VII, Jumat 27 November 2015 di Manislor, Kuningan.

Masa lima belas tahun terakhir ini, sejak Reformasi 1998, telah muncul beragam ketegangan, konflik, bahkan kekerasan terkait isu-isu keagamaan. Buku ini adalah Buku Kedua dalam serial mengenai advokasi untuk pluralisme dan kebebasan beragama dan berkeyakinan di Indonesia. Buku Pertama merupakan upaya pemetaan masalah dan advokasi, termasuk konteks historis dan teoritisnya. Buku kedua ini melakukan analisis terhadap beragam jenis konflik terkait keragaman itu, dan bagaimana konflik itu ditangani dan diadvokasi. Secara lebih khusus para penulisnya membahas perbedaan dan ketegangan antara pendekatan berbasis-hak dan pendekatan berbasis-kepentingannya, yang berpengaruh pada paradigma advokasi lembaga-lembaga swadaya masyarakat.

Buku ini adalah buku pertama dari serial penerbitan yang melihat persoalan keragaman agama di Indonesia saat ini dan advokasi untuk itu. Dalam bab pendahuluannya, Zainal Abidin Bagir memetakan persoalan-persoalan keragaman di Indonesia masa transisi demokrasi dan juga advokasinya. Robert Hefner melihat konteks historis isu kebebasan beragama dan pengelolaan keragaman sejak masa kemerdekaan,dan menarik pelajaran teoretis dari sejarah itu. Ihsan Ali-Fauzi mematok beberapa acuan normatif, menggambarkan arenanya, dan  membahas dengan cukup terinci aktor, sekutu dan pesaing advokasi itu. Dengan itu, buku ini berharap agar dapat memberikan gambaran tentang advokasi untuk pluralisme dan kebebasan beragama di Indonesia yang agak menyeluruh meskipun singkat dan menyediakan kerangka konseptual guna memahaminya. Buku Kedua yang terbit bersama buku ini merupakan refleksi beberapa kerja advokasi tersebut, dan secara lebih spesifik melihat perbedaan, dan ketegangan, di antara beberapa pendekatan advokasi dan kemungkinan titik temunya.

Ali Jafar | CRCS | Wednesday Forum Report
The discourse about “religion” “and” “science” has been long contested among scholars. Since the nineteenth century, religion and science have often been understood as in conflict with each other, science is human method for understanding nature using reason and religion relies on divine revelation. From different starting point, both religion and science have difficulties in finding common ground. But, starting from Ian Barbour, in the 1950s, a new discourse about the contemporary field of religion and science has proposed that integration is possible. Starting from this question at the Wednesday forum of CRCS/ICRS on 9th September 2015 , Zainal Abidin Bagir called for both side to re thinking the relation between science and religion.
Bagir described the Barbourian discourse as sympathetic to religion, accepting of the basic theories and findings of modern science, and looking at scientists’ theories and theological beliefs to understand the relationship and its impact of the former on the latter. Barbour proposed a typology: conflict, independence, dialog- integration. In the conflict relation, we have to choose one. In the independent relation religion and science belong to separate world without contact. While in the dialog, we have to find similarities of them. The last is integration meaning that religion validate science each other.
Bagir explained that the territory struggle between religion and science outside the West is not about the content itself, but it is as part of resistance to colonialism. Among this contestation, bagir told about Islamic modernist movements. In Indian subcontinent there is Sayyed Ahmed Khan who integrated religious belief with modern science. Other example include Muhammad Abduh from Egypt, Muhammad Iqbal from Pakistan, and Hossein Nasr from Iran and so on, who were communicating religious belief with scientific ideas.
Indeed, Bagir argued that discussion of the discourse on the relation between religion and science should involve historical awareness. Moreover, it should not be just discussion of the content of the two fields but rather and examination of instrumental and social ethics, as well as epistemological and metaphysical view points. Bagir also noted that there are differences in the discourse between cultures and religious tradition. One example is that evolution is not a topic of debate in the Islamic world as in the United States.
Bagir discussed several instances of the “religion and science” discourse in Indonesia. For example, this question has arisen in relation to the educational models of Islamic Universities. When some of the IAINs (State Islamic Religious Institute) were transformed into UINs (State Islamic Universities), these new universities included faculties of natural and social science and medicine. Each university took its own approach to the question, but all tried to integrate the spirit of religion and the spirit of science.
Bagir also explained that the relation between religion and science at times of disaster can be one of competing authorities. He took an example from  Merapi volcano eruption in 2010, when there was debate between scientific explanation and defiance by Mbah Maridjan, the traditional spiritual guidance of the volcano, though Bagir argued that the central was issue trust, not science versus superstition. Anticipating next week’s presentation by Samsul Maarif on the forestry practice of the indigenous people of Sulawesi, Bagir argued that the “religion” part of “religion and science” must be radically questioned and opened up to include indigenous religion which are often the same as indigenous ways of knowing nature, i.e. indigenous science. Moreover we must ask what this discourse is for: it is to dominate the other or it is for the well-being of all, including non-human communities.
Responding a question about scriptural authority in relation to scientific knowledge, Bagir answered both are known through interpretation. Another question is from Fahrur, a CRCS student, who asked about Bagir opinion on the integration of religious studies and science and other field of study, including English, at UIN Yogyakarta. Bagir described the integration is still among debate. If the purpose of integration is to create Islamic identity, what makes a field of study become Islamic? He took examples from UIN Jakarta and UIN Malang. At UIN Jakarta, there is no integrated study. Science and Islamic studies each follow its own logic and methods. While in UIN Malang, student in all field are prepared for their studies by learning about Islam for one year in a boarding school that is part of the university. Still, the science learned in university is not integrated with religious science.
Concluding the discussion, Bagir explained that the discourse of religion and science is still debatable among scholar. There are many discourses and opinions of integration of religious and science. Thus, he insisted Dr. Samsul Maarif to be speaker in the next Wednesday Forum to explain indigenous science and religion. Dr Samsul Maarif has taken his research in Amatoan in which the indigenous sciences of Amaatoan about forest conservation are coherent with their religious belief. (Editor: Greg Vanderbilt)