The fact that the recent issuance of fatwa (edicts) by the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) has been stirring unabated controversy among Muslims and non-Muslims here cannot be separated from the way religious language in the edicts is perceived by everyone.
The infamous terms such as haram, kafir (infidel), halal, blasphemous and heretical are frequently used to exhort or blandish people to abide by every edict issued.
Though these terms sound familiar to most of us, they pose greater problems of intelligibility when used in a specific context, giving rise to multiple interpretations and ending with continual spats. Those who are perceived to be kafir by a certain group of people might be perceived mu'min (believers) by other groups. Likewise, what is interpreted blasphemous in one context of religion might be construed as pious in others.
This shows that psychological familiarity with religious language does not necessarily grant it intelligibility.
Assuming that the content of the edicts by the MUI is purely religious in nature and has no political motive, the crux of the controversy lies actually on the overemphasis on familiar religious language, not on its intelligibility, as if this is automatically guaranteed by its sheer familiarity.
Another source of controversy can be observed from the meaningfulness of the religious language used. Laying a claim to something on a truth and falsity basis tends to favor cognitive meaning only, as opposed to psychological meaning, which has been defined in terms of the power to trigger thoughts, feelings, and images.
Obviously, labeling smoking, vote abstention and yoga practice as haram tacitly construes the cognitive meaning of haram rather than its psychological meaning.
It is, of course, cognitively meaningful to say that "The practice of yoga containing Hindu elements like chanting should be banned as it is haram and corrupts Islamic faith", but we cannot simply impose this proposition on people as containing truth unless we consider its psychological meaning. To make matters more complicated, pragmatic knowledge is required to validate and negate the truth of this proposition.
Questions of meaning (both cognitive and psychological) must be the prerequisite to questions of truth. The logic here is quite simple: how could we believe a proposition contains truth, and hence should be adhered to, unless we understand its cognitive and psychological significance.
The opponents of the MUI's edicts, many of whom are Muslim scholars, have repeatedly called into question the contents of the edicts, calling for more scientific and academic raison d'*tre to underscore the issuance of the edicts.
Responding to the edicts, some of these scholars beg for a more thorough sociological understanding of the issues banned in the edicts prior to their issuance to the public. In other words, religious language used in the edicts should be credited to the complexity of performative and ritual uses for the edicts to work effectively.
Scholarly critiques directed toward the edicts, which are seen by many as religious guidance issued by the highest religious authority, are healthy ones and prove that religious language is not something intellectually disreputable.
The critiques have a serious implication: Sound theological, sociological and linguistic knowledge is imperative in an attempt to issue a fatwa.
Mixed responses to the edicts are best seen from the point of view of the relativist position whose principle holds that any arguments or claims (both written and spoken) with other people are made possible if we share certain common premises; rational arguments are evaded and disqualified when we have no common premises.
Following this position, one can argue that the issued edicts are never expected to be so totally objective, impartial, and nonarbitrary that even everyone from the same religion and culture will be ready to accept and implement them. They are then inconclusive in nature and subject to continuous debate, given that a conclusion is always premise-relative.
The writer is chief editor of the Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and teaches English composition at Atma Jaya University, Jakarta.
