I refer to the Ikim article in The Star recently on whether religious choice is a matter of the dictate of fashion or taste. The writers then asks the loaded question: \’Is the belief that \”religion is a matter of taste\” true?\’
As a Christian, I agree with their answer. There are indeed universal axioms. Objective truth does exist and, to the extent that religion expounds truth, it is either true or false. Obviously Islam, like most religions, teaches objective truth and therefore is not subject to \’taste\’ but rather to \’belief or faith\’.
Religions such as Islam and Christianity, as Abrahamic faith systems, claim not only absolute truth but also total truth and therefore leave no room for even the possibility of being partly true and partly false. Agnosticism, although claiming a higher ground, is really also the same; for its fundamental article of faith claims absolutely that there is no absolute truth; an oxymoron at best.
Given this reality, is it possible for different religions (agnosticism is also a religion) to live together in mutual respect and harmony? Malaysia must somehow find a way. It helps define also our Malaysian-ness.
The Ikim authors then put aside this question and suggests that the propositions of different religions be examined in order to determine their soundness. An excellent idea, but with a faulty assumption that could easily have been inspired by Enlightenment philosophers who would argue that, \’given enough time, the human intellect is capable of arriving at ultimate conclusions regarding truth\’.
Clearly such a presupposition is antithetical to any religion that believes in a supreme and sovereign Creator. Nor does my experience support it.
\’Right\’ decisions
Then we turn to a definition of apostasy: \’Apostasy will never happen to a true Muslim. It only \’happens\’ to one who has never been a Muslim.\’ So say the authors. Applying simple logic to this definition results in an interesting conclusion: there is no such thing as apostasy!
Since an \’apostate\’ was never a true Muslim in the first place, therefore it is impossible for him or her to apostatise. He or she is merely renouncing a religion that he or she was never a part of; in personal spiritual terms, although maybe culturally it would apply.
Later in the article a slightly different definition of apostasy turns up, \’… the act of rejecting truth\’. Suddenly, all non-Muslims have become apostates and participating in \’an evil act warranted of condemnation. (sic)\’. (As a non-Muslim I would prefer the first definition, although there are elements of both in the Christian religion as well.)
Further, the authors argue, \’the true solution to the problem of apostasy is to have a proper education for the Muslim community\’. This assumes again that humans are essentially rational and given appropriate facts about a matter, they will make the \’right\’ decisions.
As modern philosophers, we no longer buy this kind of mechanical determinism. Perhaps we\’ve already seen too many well-educated non-rationalists and witnessed too many groups duped into self-annihilation and destruction of many forms.
Rather, true education must be viewed as an expression of and the real exercise of freedom; including the freedom of denial or rejection, based on one\’s conscience. That must be true faith.
Common ground
But I agree with the authors\’ conclusion that religion is a matter of choice, not of taste. A choice based on \’reason guided by revelation\’. A true Muslim must choose to be a Muslim, \’one who submits to God consciously and willingly\’ according to the tenants of Islam.
\’It is ultimately an individual\’s decision whether or not to accept the truth of Islam\’ and \’Law and punishment cannot stop apostasy\’. I cannot but agree.
Thankfully \’there is no compulsion in Islam\’, implying that an individual is truly free to choose. Now we must answer the question of whether an individual is free to choose wrongly. And is an individual permitted only one choice in his or her lifetime?
In order to answer these questions we must dig deep into our anthropology and uncover what we believe about human dignity. It is this common ground that will enable us to not only just \’get along\’ but also to celebrate our diversity.
I\’m told that there is ample support in the Koran to affirm the human dignity of every person. Surely, as in Christianity, this dignity extends to those persons in error even if the error itself is condemnable.
Stated positively, \’Truth is knowable but it can only be embraced authentically when it is embraced freely\’.
