Pluralism and the challenges facing it are inevitably shaped by the world around it. One of the strongest influences on the formation of ideas and movements at international, national and local levels in the contemporary world is the force of globalization. The process of globalization has created challenges for pluralism in dealing with increasing wealth disparity, injustice and the rise of fundamentalist movements.

In order to discuss these challenges, and the strategies needed by pluralism to overcome them, the International Center for Islam and Pluralism (ICIP), in cooperation with the Center for Religion and Cross-Cultural Studies (UGM) and the Asia Foundation hosted a panel discussion on the 2^nd of June 2006. This discussion featured talks by two visiting scholars, Professor Paul Knitter (U.S.) and Professor Farid Essack (South Africa).

Director of ICIP, M. Syafi’i Anwar opened the discussion by introducing the two speakers and reminding the audience of the importance and contemporary nature of the issue of pluralism. Pluralism in Indonesia itself has recently come under pressure from the increasing strength of fundamentalist movements and is attempting to grapple with this while also addressing the issue of globalisation. He noted that in Indonesia fundamentalist movements have called for Islamic law to be applied both at the national and local level, however up until now they have only succeeded in applying it to several regencies. Furthermore these fundamentalist ideas have also been behind the issuance of a fatwa from the Indonesian Ulama Council (Majelis Ulama Indonesia) which outlawed the ideas of pluralism, secularism and liberalism. As fundamentalism itself has emerged as one of the side effects of globalisation, how pluralism deals with fundamentalism will be closely tied to how it deals with globalisation.

According to Professor Paul Knitter, pluralism must be able to deal with three issues which have their roots in the process of globalisation. The first issue is the ever increasing gap between rich and poor. This gap is not only between rich countries and poor countries, but also between the rich and poor within countries. The second is the ever increasing frequency of violence throughout the world. Although this violence is mostly triggered by political and economic factors, religion nonetheless plays a key role in the perpetuation of this violence. Third, there is the problem of increasing oppression and injustice in the world. He believes that these challenges offered by globalisation are ones which often manifest themselves in the more direct challenge of fundamentalism.

Professor Knitter argued that a “globally responsible, ethical, religious dialogue” is the best way to transform religion from being a force which exacerbates these problems to becoming one which can solve them. For him, it is not just pluralism that is required to do this, but more specifically a dialogue involving mutuality. He believes that pluralism merely requires tolerating others, without necessarily respecting them, or treating them as an equal. A mutuality on the other hand is where two sides respect one another, treat one another as equals and most importantly interact with one another. It is through this process of interaction, in the form of dialogue, that members of different religious communities can come together and minimize the possibility of conflict and injustices occurring between them.

How can we achieve this mutuality? He proposed that followers of all religions must first give up their claims of the universal, complete superiority of their own faith. The belief that ones own faith is completely superior to another becomes the first, and strongest, stumbling block in achieving meaningful dialogue between religions. If members of different religious communities can not see themselves as being equal, then dialogue will not be feasible, as both sides will refuse to compromise as they consider themselves more correct.

This belief in the supremacy of one religion over another has also often caused conflict or at the very least exacerbated existing conflicts, he argued. Those who perpetrate violence in the name of their faith are often able to do so because they believe that theirs is ‘Gods’ favoured religion’. As a result when any attack is made on a religious community it is believed by members of that community to be an assault not just on them, but an assault God him/herself. Furthermore, if the community holds that their religion is superior to that of another, they then believe that in any battle to defend their faith, God will be ‘on their side’. This is despite the fact that these in these conflicts or acts of violence involving different religious communities it is often the case that both sides claim that God is on their side.

The idea that we should give up our religion’s claim to superiority however does not mean that there is no truth in religion. In fact, each religion has elements of truth in it, and according to Knitter the presence of elements of truth in different religions is a natural occurrence and something which God wants. He argued that the existence of many religions each containing elements of truth in them was established by God so that each religion could learn from the experience and ideas of others. In this way, a plurality of religions should not be a disadvantage and a cause of conflict, but rather should be seen as something positive, as each religion can develop itself more effectively by learning from others.

Building on the issue of religious supremacy the second speaker in this panel discussion, Professor Farid Essack, discussed the tendency of members of religious communities to excessively rely on labels. Drawing on his experiences growing up in apartheid era South Africa, he argued that God in all religions is much more concerned with peoples’ deeds than with the labels they attribute to themselves and God. “What kind of God do you worship who is only concerned with labels?” he asked.

That a persons’ claim to belong to one religion or another is no guarantee of the kindness of their spirit was evident to him while growing up in South Africa. Despite the kindness of his Christian neighbours, he was taught that they would nonetheless eventually still go to hell because they were not Muslims. It made no sense to him that despite these peoples’ kind actions that they were still destined to be punished in the afterlife. Similarly he believed that not all people who claim to be Muslims, particularly those partaking in acts of violence and terrorism, could necessarily be considered good people. Labels such as ‘Muslim’ and ‘Christian’ then do not guarantee that one person is inherently evil nor that another is inherently good.

For Professor Essack disregarding labels and focusing instead on deeds is part of a process of ‘getting God out of the box and keeping him out’. He argued that God is much larger than the labels that we as humans attribute to him/her. For him, labels and invocations of God tend to ‘categorize’ God and thus reduce his/her nature. He took the example of the Pakistani cricket team praying to God for victory as an example of God being reduced to being a ‘sports fan’. Labels of ‘Muslim’ and ‘Christian’ work in a similar way as they reduce God to only being supportive of one religion, when in fact God is much more concerned with people’s good deeds, rather than what they call themselves.

Professor Essack also spoke about his love for Indonesia, and the spirit of pluralism present in this country. Despite his personal rejection of all forms of nationalism, he nonetheless spoke in glowing terms about Indonesia’s national identity. From his own experience in Indonesia he has come to believe that pluralism is an essential part of Indonesia’s national identity, arguing that “pluralism is so Indonesian”. This pluralism however is now at the center of an intellectual and political battle between Muslims.

Pluralism, he argued, is under threat from an increasing tide of Wahabi-inspired Islam which has spread throughout the world since the 1970s, including throughout Indonesia. This movement considers itself to be the ‘true’ orthodox expression of Islam and seeks to revive a ‘golden age of Islam’ based on Islamic society at the time of the Prophet Muhammad. It intends to eliminate differences of expression within Islam and impose a single model of faith on the Islamic community, particularly reducing the space for interaction between Islam and local cultures.

According to Professor Essack, despite its claims to orthodoxy, this Wahabi form of Islam is in fact very new, conservative and in no way represents Islam as it should be practiced today. It is less a valid expression of Islam and more a counter balance or response to Western (particularly American) hegemony over and adventurism in the Muslim world. Fundamentalist groups are not really interested in offering a different or better system than the current one, he argued, they are only interested in establishing their own control over the world. “Fundamentalists would love to be in Bush’s position right now”, he added.

He also argued that it has not only been Western adventurism which has contributed to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, but also the inaction and permissive attitude of some liberals and pluralist thinkers. He noted that while fundamentalist groups are prepared to struggle passionately for their rigid, conservative beliefs, pluralist thinkers appeared much less willing to passionately fight for pluralism and justice. He believed that this is because pluralists are often trapped in a permissive mode of thinking which accepts the existence of exclusivist groups as part of a pluralistic society.

If the pluralist project is to succeed and have a visible impact in society, pluralists must sharpen their thought and believe in the superiority of inclusivism over exclusivism, pluralism over fundamentalism, and take action to promote these views. Pluralists should be much more firm in rejecting exclusivist thought and refusing to grant a place in society to groups which hold exclusivist views, unless they are willing to reform and accept the existence of groups with opinions different to their own. Ultimately for Professor Essack, it is not merely enough to struggle for pluralist ideas on an intellectual level, but it is vital for the continued existence of pluralist ideas that thinkers and activists be willing to struggle politically for them as well.

The discussion which followed the talks by Professor Knitter and Professor Essack displayed that there is still some uncertainty on how to apply pluralism at the grassroots level. While the academic argument for pluralism is developing, grassroots support for the concept has yet to fully emerge. In order to promote pluralism, education programs and as support from the government are required as well as efforts towards redressing injustice.

In order to further promote the spread of pluralism, Professor Knitter argued that education programs promoting pluralism should be maintained and strengthened. He noted ICIP’s recent efforts in implementing training programs on pluralism and democracy with participants from pesantren in West Java as a prime example of the kind of education programs required. The key to these programs should be that they teach members of one faith to be proud of their own faith, but also to respect and value the existence of others.

Furthermore he argued that a clear separation between the state and religion should be maintained as part of preserving political pluralism. He noted for example the case of the United States where, at least in theory, the state is not allowed to be identified with or show preference to any one particular faith. While this ideal is not always easily upheld, governments should nonetheless try their hardest to remain neutral in religious affairs, as it is through showing preference to one religious group or another that institutionalized discrimination can emerge.

This does not necessarily mean that religion has no role in politics. On the contrary religion has a very important role as a voice for justice in society and, if need be, a source of critical opposition to the government. Indonesia is a good example in this regard, as Indonesian Islamic social organizations such as the Nahdlatul Ulama (Muslim Scholars Awakening) and Muhammadiyah stay out of formal politics but nonetheless have considerable political influence through their sheer weight of members. Figures central to the reformasi movement which forced the resignation of former President Soeharto, such as M. Amien Rais and Abdurrahman Wahid, originated from these social organizations.

This role in fact cuts to the heart of the pluralist project, in that the main focus of religion should be on promoting the ideals of justice, freedom and democracy rather than contributing to injustice. Religions should work together through dialogue to solve shared problems between them, rather than creating new conflicts amongst themselves. Quoting Professor Hans Kung, Professor Knitter concluded that “if there is no peace among religions there will be no peace amongst nations”, to which he himself added “there will be no peace amongst religions without dialogue”.