This paper will try to contribute methodological-analytical-philosophical frameworks in understanding contemporary religious phenomena, more specifically the ones usually related to the approaches applied by theologians, religionists and scientists. It will be followed by an elaboration of their implications leading to the elaboration of how an ideal approach can construct the emergence of a better internal and external socio-religious relation in a multicultural and religious society.
The profane and the sacred are intermingled
It is said in contemporary religious discourses that a ‘religion’ has multi-faces, not single face. A religion is not anymore the one what our former descendants understood which only covered concerns of divinity, faith, belief, credo and way of life, the ultimate concerns and the like. Not only does a religion have conventional characteristics and nature, it has also assumed that it is closely related to historical-cultural issues which are human reality.
In terms of historical-empirical studies on religious phenomena, it has been understood that a religion is full of “interests” found in its curriculum, teaching process, religious leadership, religions, institution, and theological studies. The intermingledness and interwovenness between religion with various socio-political and socio-economical interests in the historical-empirical areas seem to be complicatedly revealed in the contemporary religious life. As a matter of fact, most religions have their own “institution” and “organization” that support, strengthen, and spread their religious teachings. This religious institution and organization have been involved in the areas of socio-cultural, educational, medical, political, economic, commercial, journalistic, electronic media, security, and communal concerns and the likes. If that is so, it is really difficult to find a religion without interests of its institution and authority no matter how high the social values the interests have is. In Indonesia and in some other countries, it is very easy to witness such phenomena.
It is not easy to reveal and solve the emergence of mutual involvement of religion – to avoid the terms faith and piety, which are more ethical and esthetical – and socio-communal interests. Both have been so intermingled each other that it is very complicated to differentiate between the real areas of “religion” and of its historical-cultural “interests”. In one side, non-religious studies scientists may still be able to purify and classify between pure science that is openly inclusive and applied science that is tightly and closely exclusive, religious studies scientists go to the contrary on the other sides. For theologian, natural scientists who are religious and common follower of any religion are difficult to define and to separate as well as differentiate both of them. In the discourses of theological studies, most of socio-religious practices seem to be regarded as exclusively-ta’abbudy applied science, without any connection to the realm of inclusively-ta’aqquly pure one. If we could think and have in our mind the realm pure science in the field of religious studies and regard it as the fundamental bases for the study of religious diversity, hopefully we can solve some of the problems confronted by human beings today.
To my knowledge, if religious practices and experiences are assumed to have some elements of applied science, they automatically have also elements of pure science. To search and to define appropriate formula and to emphasize the importance of pure science in the study of religions in the contemporary religious diversity will constitute good contributions that some scholars expect much to reveal present religious discourses. It is like the functions mathematics, physics and chemistry and biology which belong to pure science, they as a matter of fact are also used to construct bridges, aircraft designs, medical technology, biotechnology and the like which are in the area of applied science.
The phenomena of the sacralization of human religious thought (taqdis al-afkar al-diniyyah)2 in all religions is another difficulty to scholars as profane things (mu’amallah ma’a al-nas; dzaniyya al-dalalah) are often regarded as sacred ones. Political jargon in Indonesia saying that a religion is categorized as SARA (ethnic group, religion, and race, inter-group) show us how they think about religion. One of the risks and consequences in sacralizing certain religious doctrines leads to make individual and public behaviour closed, neglect discussion, talks, and question religious harmony openly in addition to criticize and reconstruct the questions
critically and scientifically.3
In the modern epistemology, philosophers and scholars can express the advantages as well as the disadvantages of the conceptions of rationalism (deductive thinking), empiricism (inductive thinking) and logical-positivism (combination between deductive and inductive logics) and so forth.4 Because of the valuable contribution of contemporary epistemology, it can be described that scientific activity is not only dominated by logical aspect of knowledge, which is timeless essence.5 As a matter of fact, the knowledge has also historical, cultural, sociological, and even political nuance. The comparative study of religions and theology in the old fashion seem to resemble what the modern philosophy of science has done in observing and analyzing general science’s frameworks. In a sense that the scholars of comparative study of religions and theologian seem to claim that scientific construction of religion should be different from the nature of science in general, for there has been what we call ‘dogma’ or ‘ doctrine’ inside which is timeless essences, too.
Religious behaviour and experience in applied sciences area, therefore, will find difficulty to contact and integrate itself with the philosophy of the study of religion.6 The authoritative claim of sacred books are often embedded sociologically as the institutional claims of dominant religious scholars, ulama, priests, monks religious activist.7 Whether the construction of religious science has been intermingled by aspects of cultural-historical ‘interests’, the common followers of religions and theologians in general will find themselves in difficulty to recognize this tangible fact and reality. For them, religious dimension of normativity – not to mention the sacred aspects of religion – should be given first priority, neglecting the historical dimension of individual, communal, collective, and institutional religiosity.
Based on the above-mentioned description, it can be said that we can witness the ‘sacred’ and the ‘profane’ or the ‘normative’ and the ‘historical’ in the humankind’s socio-religious area. In practice, there has been intermingled and interrelated entity. The previous assumption that relation seems to be the one between oil and water which is separable, cannot work any more in daily life. To my knowledge, their intermingledness and interwovenness is quite clear. In certain cases, their mutual relation is so clearly overlapped that the profane is sacred and the sacred is profaned. The community members have also recognized the tendency in which ways of thinking, interpretation towards certain religious teachings, which are merely profane and historical, are then sacralized for the shake of socio-political authority and sustaining the charisma of individual, the cohesiveness of certain group and community not to say to maintain the hegemonic and dominant group. The question is what kind of approach that may help us to clarify this complicated issue? Do those complicated issues motivate the religion scientists to urgently contribute to the formation of the philosophy of the study of religion? What kind of methodology of the study of religions to be hopefully expected to clarify scientifically upon the intermingled relation between the sacred, the normative and the historical, the profane in the contemporary phenomena of socio-religious society?
To complete the picture of the scientific approach to the phenomena of human religious life, a brief reference will be made here to the methodological relationships between the doctrinal-theological approach, religious studies of a cultural-sociological bent and philosophical enquiry to religion.
The doctrinal-theological, cultural-sociological and philosophical approaches to religion.
The relationships between religious communities, especially in complex societies, are always marked by progression and decline. This occurs on local, regional, national and international scales. The relationship between religious communities is not always harmonious. Though the doctrines (teachings) of each religion might teach the virtues of harmony, peace, mutual respect, the principle of togetherness and other lofty ideals, in reality (cultural-sociological realities) religious doctrines, the decisions of scholastic (ulama) councils, conciliatory decisions or even ideal agreements made in the council of world churches, have often not been implemented or extended upon. There are still many dominant “interests” (cultural-sociological) – which can be referred to as political, economic, social, cultural or defense interests – that give shape to struggles, dynamics and the rise and decline of relations between religious communities. To a certain extent, these historical-practical interests appear to have made these theological doctrines, religious council agreements, conciliations and agreements barren, dry, formal and incapable of awakening the intentions of religious followers to increase the spirit for breakthroughs.
The confusion of doctrinal-theological aspects in cultural-sociological spheres adds complexity to the religious problem in the historicity of mankind. Where doctrine – which is normative, and which can be based upon verses from holy texts – and also where the interpretations of an individual or a group towards a doctrine (often contained and mixed by cultural-sociological interests), is difficult to distinguish in many cases. Preconceived opinions, prejudice and theological presumptions develop quickly, and this is later strengthened by the efforts of proselytizers and missionaries with references to the holy texts of each religion. This is difficult to control through conventional means, whether that be through renewed study of the religious doctrines of each religions with honesty and rigor, or through the empirical study customary to religious studies. Theological presumptions which have developed over the centuries are very difficult to break or purify, no matter what technique is adopted. The relationship between religious communities is no longer just a personal or group relationship, but has already entered into an overlapping of text and reality.
As an illustration, the empirical study of religion can point to a number of important events in Indonesia. For almost three decades – from 1970 until 2000 – religious communities during the New Order and Reformasi period made use of the term “Kerukunan”, which derives from the Western terms of ‘tolerance’ or ‘harmony’. In daily practice, it appears that this concept, of harmony or tolerance has led to an apologetic attitude. Each religion wants to demonstrate that it the most harmonious or tolerant. The irony is that such apologies are effected both textually (through textual teachings or doctrines) and contextually (through historical, anthropological and sociological legitimacy), which appear not to have decreased the existing tensions but, on the contrary, to have actually engendered new tensions.8
In terms of doctrinal-textual approaches Muslims will claim that the first thing they say when meeting with another person is assalamu’alaikum (peace be unto you). Thus, Islam is a religion of peace. At the same time, Catholics and Protestants claim that the Christian religion has always been one of love, which is implemented through deaconal teachings. Hindus also say that their religion teaches dharma. Buddhists claim that their religion aims to free mankind from suffering. To put more blatantly, as Robert Cummings Naville notices that when the Buddhists of Sri Lanka, whose religion is supposed to be that of quite enlightenment, battle with Hindus, whose slogan is “Shanti! Shanti!” “Shanti”, they both are making profound mistakes about the implications of their own religions. When Christians, whose God is love, bomb and snipe at one another in Northern Ireland, the operant forms of Christianity at hand are corrupt.9 Islamic jihad in Afganistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia and other places are trapped in the same category of mistake. Conceptually, all of them refer to the same essence and ambitions, peace and harmony but in at the level of socio-political arena those timeless essences are manipulated and corrupted.10
There is nothing wrong with such a doctrinal-textual approach, because “truth” exists especially for the followers of a particular religion. However, according to the Indonesian cultural observer and historian Kuntowijoyo, this textual-doctrinal argument will be challenged by a contextual approach, which is often polyinterpretable in nature (open to various interpretations). For example, Muslims will differ with Catholics concerning the caliphate of Ummayyah in Spain, which was begun by the government of Abdurrahman Al-Dhakil. Muslims believe that Islamic power and government over Spain was a blessing for Europe: Spain possessed the most brilliant civilisation in the middle ages (until 1492) before the Spaniards chased them out. Without this there would have been no renaissance. And what also needs to be noted here is that there was no religious or ethnic cleansing throughout the 700 years of Islamic rule. But, for Catholics, Islamic prestige has been interpreted as a form of cultural aggression and proof that Islam was spread with the sword. These two impressions cannot be removed from the intellectual heritage of mankind, as both have been recorded in documents of civilisational history from each camp, both for purposes of science and for promoting certain interests and biases. As such, mankind has been fettered by the literature arranged by previous generations.
There is also a controversy between the Islamic community and Hindu-Buddhists concerning the arrival of Islam in Indonesia and the collapse of the Majapahit kingdom. Muslims consider the entrance of Islam into the Majapahit kingdom as a peaceful transition, whilst Hindu-Buddhists consider it an act of war. The war conducted by the United States of America in the modern history can be interpreted in the same way. So, in both a doctrinal-textual and historical-contextual way these two events can be interpreted apologetically.
No form of theological doctrine, or historico-empirical approach for that matter, is capable of providing insights to solve the interplay and mixing between the dimensions of doctrine-theology and history in its practical social form and the interplay between text and reality. The mixture of group interests – economic, political, educational, social, cultural, and even security – with theological doctrine, makes the relationship between religious communities even more complicated. It is somewhat difficult now to simply analyse the doctrinal-theological aspects of a particular religion by freeing it from any social-practical and cultural-sociological dimensions that accompany this, and vice versa. The two of them have already been interlaced and mixed. Is there any ray of hope to be found in the cracks and gaps of this confusion and complexity?
In order to break through, or at least clarify, the confusion of the doctrinal- theological and cultural-sociological, we need the critical reflection that is generally available in the critical-philosophical approach. Ideally, a fundamental philosophical approach (al-falsafah al-ula) would prove effective in explaining, clarifying and solving these complications between the doctrinal-theological and the cultural-sociological dimensions in the age religious diversity. To a certain extent, a phenomenological approach to religious phenomena needs to be assessed so as to view the essence of human religiosity transparently, especially in relation to inter-religious relations. But a phenomenological approach, which usually only produces formulations and comprehensions of the fundamental structure of human religiosity,11 is no longer considered satisfying, especially for clarifying the interplay between text and reality or the complicated web of doctrinal-theology and cultural-sociology. A phenomenological approach that is capable of locating the universal essence of human religiosity needs to be conducted along with a critical-philosophical analysis of the concrete reality of religiosity in the cultural-sociological spheres.
It needs to be reiterated here that these three approaches (doctrinal- normative, cultural-sociological, critical-philosophical) are all the creation of mankind, and therefore have weaknesses that cannot be removed entirely, and this is even truer when these approaches are pursued in, isolation from each other. For that reason, critical-philosophical reflection is not only directed towards purely doctrinal-theological or purely cultural-sociological considerations, but must also be critical of itself. That is, it must think “philosophically” of its own status. In the history of philosophy, the philosophical streams are greatly varied, so it is difficult to differentiate between the streams of philosophy and philosophical methodology, and an individual can often be caught up in the exclusivity of a particular philosophical stream.12
I am under the impression – and it is certainly still a tentative one – that religious studies of a sociological, anthropological, psychological and historical bent,13 do not share an interest in the ‘old-fashioned’ philosophical approach. This is because in times past and right up until the present time, philosophical approaches towards religion have been marked by ‘logical structural’ explanations rather than belief. Secondly, the philosophy of religion in Europe – to make use of Ursula King’s observations – cannot be separated from a Christian or Catholic bias. This means that the philosophy of religion developed in the West is almost identical with the Christian philosophy of religion.14 The two prominent characteristics of such a philosophical approach to religion make it non-appealing for those pursue religious studies. This is so because the first characteristic tends to focus on ‘timeless essences’, which does not recognise meaning inside time, whereas the second one is focussed more upon a particular religion, Christianity, by distancing the concepts promoted and offered by other religions. The philosophical approach that I allude to here is a critical-analytical approach of human religiosity in general, as it emerges in numerous pre-existing traditions. At the very least, such a critical approach could provide scientific clarification of a philosophical nature, and this would later assist with efforts to clarify the vision, essence and substance of human religiosity as opposed to the missions, schools and interests that attach to such religiosity.
Parallel, linear or circular poles: a hermeneutical circle perspective
From the above illustration, it is my personal claim and hopefully could be my contribution to this seminar, that the study of the religion of humankind today can not be fruitfully accomplished without utilizing those three kinds of approaches, namely the doctrinal-theological, the cultural-sociological and the critical-philosophical approaches, in the unified – not in the separate – entities. Due to that assumption, I am still wonder to explore the modes of relationship between those three approaches within the body of the study of religion.
If those three approaches of the religious studies is true of contemporary society, then what is the real relationship between the three of them? The relationship between the three is another matter altogether. Is it a parallel, linear or circular relationship? The definitions and the understanding of these three approaches have to be followed by distinguishing the relationship between these different approaches. Once again, it is hoped that the critical-reflective-comprehensive perspective offered through a philosophical approach would clarify the nature of the relationship between the three. The accuracy and error encountered between the three would determine the output achieved.
If the relationship between these three approaches are parallel then each approach will progress individually without a direct relationship or interference between scholars and clerics of one approach and another. The theoretical and practical value obtained from such a relationship will also be minimal. A parallel relationship assumes scholars and religious clerics possess all three approaches, however, the methodologies and logics of these approaches will function separately, without dialogue and communication between each other. This, of course, will depend upon the situation and condition. Someone might operate solely within the doctrinal-theological field and lack the courage to contribute – to themselves or to other – that, which they have gained from an alternative scientific methodology. Nevertheless, regardless of how small the results obtained from such a parallel relationship, this is still much better than the results gained from an isolated approach which does not recognise any other approach.
A linear approach, if taken to extremes, will face a dead end. The linear approach begins with the assumption that one of these three methodologies will become the primadona. A scholar of religion will distance contributions gained from the numerous approaches with which he/she is familiar, because he/has already favoured one of the three available approaches. The approach that he/she chooses will be considered the ideal and final approach. Such a mindset, however, can only bring one to a dead end. This closure would take the form of a dogmatic-theological impasse (usually expressed as an excessive and exclusive truth claim which believes the mentality that “right or wrong is my country alone”) or even a historical-empirical impasse (in the form of a sceptical, relativistic and nihilistic perspective), or even a philosophical impasse (depending upon the type of tradition or philosophical stream most favoured).
Neither of these two – the parallel or the linear approach – are ideal or capable of providing guidance for religious communities in this contemporary era of pluralism. A parallel approach cannot open new horizons, insights or conceptions since each of the three approaches mentioned above rest upon their own standpoints, making it difficult to achieve dialogue between one and the other. Just like a train line, the three of them will follow their own tracks and will not converge. A linear approach, which perceives itself as the final option, will trap individuals or groups into exclusive–polemics situations. A linear relationship deems other approaches invalid. Consequently, adherents of a linear approach will enforce one type of approach by denying or refusing contributions from colleagues working in other streams. Thus, such people will easily fall victim to their own truth claims, that is, by perceiving their own approach as the most accurate, whilst the rest are inaccurate. Contemporary approaches to the study of religion, in my opinion, can only bring a religious scholar and their followers to a choice between one of the two approaches listed above. Neither of these two approaches are conducive for an individual or a group to attain artificiality such a field. Only intelligent and observant researchers, observers, social-religious critics would be aware of such anomalies. One serious and unavoidable anomaly for every religious community is the proximity of “religion” and “language”, “tradition” and “culture”, “text” and “context”.
A religion cannot be freed of the social and religious experiences instituted in its own structure. To consolidate and strengthen the theological premises of every follower, what is needed is a new discipline referred to as ‘philosophical theology’ or ‘natural theology’. In essence, this second scientific discipline is similar to the first in that the two of them are rooted in theological doctrine. Even if such a philosophical approach is adopted, its use will be very limited because it is appropriated within the self-interest and message of the sponsor of a particular theology.15 The ‘philosophy of religion’ deriving from the West is simply ‘philosophical theology’, in another dress. The major weakness of this model of philosophical enquiry is the lack of familiarity with the thought and religious concepts possessed by groups outside of Western traditions.
Both old-fashioned philosophical approaches and philosophical theology are not yet capable of refreshing and directing communities to a more inclusive (hanif), open-ended understanding of the very complex nature of human religiosity. A pure theological approach and philosophical theology are not yet capable of touching on, let alone criticising, the interplay of doctrinal-theological and cultural-sociological interests in religious communities. For this to be achieved an additional approach is required, one that is more fundamental-critical-inclusive. Such an approach, which refer to as al-falsafatu al-ula (to follow the phrase of al-Farabi and al-Tusi) is differentiated clearly from the al-ilm al-ilahy (theology, Kalam or philosophical theology) or the ‘fundamental philosophy’ (to use the term of Wilhelm Dupre).
Unfortunately, the fundamental philosophy (al-falsafatu al-ula) highlighted by al-Farabi and Tusi is still not as popular as the spread of ‘Kalam’ or mainstream Islamic theology. The Kalam approach is generally the same as the theological approach found in the Christian world, only their content is different. The mental attitudes and thought processes of the two are practically the same. It is largely possible that the fundamental philosophy approach – completely different from other philosophical streams – which, from the outset, did not side with a particular group, lost its popularity over time. Such an approach is very contradictive from thought processes and approaches of pastors, priests and ulama, most of whom pursued ideas stemming from the confines of their own particular religion or social grouping. Thus, there emerged a number of difficult relationships between religious communities in a multi-cultural and multi-religious context, a complexity that marks contemporary religious agendas and which everyone must deal with. As a first step, perhaps, the renewal of contemporary religiosity requires a reinvestigation and redevelopment of the al-falsafatu al-ula or the fundamental philosophy, because only this field – the pure sciences of religious studies – can clarify the phenomena of the interplay between the normative-sacred and the historical-profane in contemporary religious society. The path to a formulation and the reconstitution of the fundamental philosophy and al-falsafatu al-ula is still a long way off completion and has been blurred, simply because contemporary philosophical approaches have already been obstructed and blanketed by various and exclusive thoughts, understandings and ideologies.
A research agenda to establish a methodological framework (fundamental philosophy, al-falsafatu al-ula) which is directly related to religious studies and Islamic studies and which aims to contribute towards a solution for the plurality of religiosity is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Those who believe they have not even lost the needle will be apathetic of such a problem. But those who genuinely believe they have dropped the needle will experience a real sense of guilt because they believe that such a needle is there somewhere, needing only the illumination of a torch to locate the needle. This torch represents the melting pot of the three cluster of approaches as outlined above, that is, a critical dialogue in the form hermeneutical circle between those three approaches based upon religious texts (naql; bayany; subjective, theological doctrine), and sociological context which deal with the human cultural, sociological and institutional construction of human civilization, and the ethical, critical and transcendental aspect of being religious (al-falsafatu al-ula; fundamental and critical philosophy). Such a critical and creative dialogue among those three approaches outlined above within unified entity of discourse is just one of the many other methods worth considering for such a reconstruction of the study of religious diversity in contemporary era.
By introducing the fundamental and critical philosophy of religion, within the integrated body of the study of religions, I would like simultaneously to respon Frank Whaling’s question in his Introductory word in his book Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion which says that “what we are seeking for and have not yet found is a philosophy of religion that is universal in application, that can deal responsibly with religious diversity, and that can moderate over (rather than isolate itself from or dominate) the other approaches to the study of religion”.16
From my point of view, every philosophy of religion, especially in its old fashion, is easily trapped by its own particular religious tradition, namely Christian, Islamic, Jewish or Hindu tradition. It can not be universalized at all. Nothing wrong with this particularity, since human beings tend to be culturally and religiously determined. The difficult problem only will come into the surface, when this particularity changes and shapes the social behavior of its adherents and custodians to be rigid, inflexible, defensive, and aggressive. This is the root of violent act on behalf one’s own of religion.
It is only philosophical mode of thought that can be universalized, especially its way to think and to analysize the problem (approach) and its way to obtain the data to construct the argument (methodology). This approach and methodology will only flourish in the compact combination of between phenomenology of religion and religious hermeneutic. A phenomenology of religion is useful to seek for the general-universal pattern of human religiosity and its specific-particular manifestation in the history17, while religious hermeneutic is looking for the dynamic and the interplay of religious text and its interpreters within the particular epoch of historical context.18 Only by then, human beings and religious communities in particular can do justice in facing the challenge of multireligious and multicultural society in the contemporary life.
Allen, Douglas, 1978, Structure and Creativity in Religion : Hermeneutics in Mircea Eliade’s Phenomenology and New Directions, Paris, New York: Mounton Publishers.
Arkoun, Muhammad, 1990, Al Islam : Al-Akhlaq wa al-Siyasah, terjemahan Hashim Salih, Beirut : Markaz al-Inma’ al-Qaumy.
_____, 1987, Al Fikr al-Islamy : Qira’ah Ilmiyyah, terjemahan Hashim Salih, Beirut: Markaz al-Inma al-Qaumy.
_____, 1990, Al Fikr al-Islamy : Naqd wa Ijtihad, terjemahan Hashim Salih, Beirut: Dar al-Saqi.
_____, 1993, Aina Huwa al-Fikr al-Islamy al-Mu’asir, terjemahan Hashim Salih, Beirut: Dar al-Saqi.
Armstrong, Karen, 1993, A History of God : The 4000 Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, New York: al-Fred A. Knof, INC.
Barbour, Ian G., 1966, Issues in Science and Religion, New York: Harper & Torchbooks, Harper & Row. Publishers.
Bleeker, C.J., “Comparing the Religion. Historical and the Theological Method” NVMEN, Vol. XVII.
Boullataa, Issa J. (Ed.), 1992, An Anthology of Islamic Studies, McGill Indonesia IAIN Development Project, Montreal, Canada.
Chalmers, A.F., 1993, Apa itu yang dinamakan Ilmu : Suatu Penilaian tentang Watak dan Status Ilmu serta Metodenya, terjemahan Redaksi Hasta Mitra, Joesoef Isak (ed.) Jakarta: Hasta Mitra.
Eliade, Mircea, 1969, The Sacred and the Profane : the Nature of Religion, terjemahan Willard R. Trask, New York: A. Harvest Book, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc..
El-Fadl, Khaled Abou, 2003, Speaking in God’s Name : Islamic Law, Authority and Women, Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
al-Farabi, Abu Nasr, 1970, Kitab al-Huruf, Beirut: Dar al-Mashriq.
al-Fattah, Nabil Abd, 1997, al-Nass wa al-Rasas : al-Islam al-Siyasy wa Azmah al-Daulah al-Haditsah fi Misr, Beirut: Dar al-Nihar wa al-nasyr.
Hanafi, Hasan, Dirasah Islamiyah, Qahira: Maktabah al-Anjilo al-Missriyyah.
al-Jabiry, Muhammad Abid, 1989, Takwin al-Aql al-Araby. Beirut: Markaz Dirasat al-Wihdah al-Arabiyyah, Cetakan keempat.
_____, 1990, Bunyah al-‘Aql al-Araby : Dirasah Tahliliyyah Naqdiyyah li Nudzumi al-Ma’rifah fi al-Tsaqafah al-Arabiyyah (Beirut: Markaz Dirasat al-Wihdah al-Arabiyyah, Cetakan ketiga.
Kuhn, Thomas. S, 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kuntowijoyo, “Dari Kerukunan ke Kerjasama, dari Toleransi ke Koperasi”, UMMAT, No. 14 Tahun I, 8 Januari 1996 17 Sya’ban 1416 H.;
Laporan akhir Pusat Penelitian Pembangunan Pedesaan dan Kawasan University Gadjah Mada dengan Departemen Agama Republik Indonesia, Perilaku Kekerasan Kolektif : Kondisi dan Pemicu, Yogyakarta.
Leaman, Oliver, 1985, An Introduction to the Medieval Islamic Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Margoliouth (trans). “The Discussion between Abu Bishr Matta and Abu Sa’id al-Sirafi on the Merits of Logic and Grammar”, 1905, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society NS, XXXII.
Martin, Richard. C. (Ed.), 1985, Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Mudimbe, V.Y (Ed.), 1996, Open the Social Sciences : Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of Social Sciences, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, 1988, Knowledge and the Sacred, Lahore: Suhail Academy.
Naville, Robert Cummings, 2002, Religion in Late Modernity, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Peters, F.E., 1968, Aristotle and the Arabs, New York: New York University Press.
Russel, Bertrand, 1971, History of Western Philosophy, London: Unwin University Books.
Rolston III, Holmes, 1987, Sciences and Religion : A Critical Survey, New York: Random Mouse, Inc..
Schumann, Olaf H., 2004, Menghadapi Tantangan, Memperjuangkan Kerukunan, Jakarta: Gunung Mulia.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, 1972, The Faith of Other Men, New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Sharif, M.M. (Ed.), 1963, A History of Muslim Philosophy, Vol. I, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz.
Vroom, Hendrik M., 1989, Religions and the Truth : Philosophical Reflections and Perspectives, terjemahan J.W. Rabel, Amsterdam: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co and Editions Rodopi.
Whaling, Frank (Ed.), 1984, Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion, Vol. I, Social Sciences, Berlin: Mouton Publishers.
Woodhouse, Mark B., 1984, A Preface to Philosophy, Belmont, California: Wadworth Publishing Company.
Zaid, Nasr Hamid Abu, Naqd al-Khitab al-Diniy.
UIN Sunan Kalijaga
25 September 2004
 Ursula King, ”Historical and Phenomenological Approaches to the Study of Religion” in Frank Whaling (ed), Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion, Vol. II: The Social Sciences (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1984), pp. 106-9 and pp. 139-40.
2 M. Arkoun, Al-Islam: Al-Akhlaq wa al-Siyasah, Hashim Salim, tr., (Beirut: Markaz al-inma’al-qauny, 1990), pp. 172-3; 116-7.
3 The word ‘sacredness’ is sociologically meant, not hierophantically, that means the one found in things (stones or trees) to primitive society, and neither the one meant by holiness, like in Yesus’ incarnation. See Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion), tr. Williard R.Trask (New York: A Harves Book, Harcout Brace & World, Inc, 1959) pp. 11-18; see also Ninian Smart, Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of the World’s Belief, London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996. The newly published book by Olaf H. Schumann, Menghadapi Tantangan, Memperjuangkan Kerukunan (Jakarta: Gunung Mulia, 2004) will be very informative to discuss this problem.
4 A.F. Chalmer, Apa itu yang dinamakan ilmu: Suatu penilaian tentang watak dan status ilmu serta metodenya, tr. Hasta Mitra, Joesef Isak (ed.), Jakarta: Hasta Mitra, 1993).
5 Ibid., pp. 93-105
6 See further Frank Whaling, ”An additional Note on the Philosophy of Science and the Study of Religion” in Frank Whaling (ed.), op. cit., pp 380-390.
7 In the contemporary Islamic Studies, Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid’ book Naqd al-Khitab al-Diniy is very illuminating in discussing this issue.
8 Kuntowijoyo, “Dari Kerukunan ke Kerjasama, dari Toleransi ke Koperasi”, UMMAT, No. 14, 18 January 1996, 17 Sya’ban 1416 H, pp. 28-29. See also Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Faith of Other Men, New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1972, p. 100; 103; 107.
9 Robert Cummings Neville, Religion in Late Modernity (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002), p.164.
10 Nabil Abd al-Fattah, an-Nass wa al-Rasas : al-Islam al-Siyasy wa al Aqbat wa Azamah al-Daulah al-Haditsah fi Misr, (Beirut: Dar al-Nihar li al-Nasr, 1997, h.271-290.
11 Douglas Allen, Structure and Creativity in Religion: Hermeneutic in Mircea Eliade’s Phenomenology and New Directions (Paris, New York: Mountain Publisher, 1978) p. 59. See also Richard C. Martin, (ed), Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, (Arizona: University of Arizona Press, 1 985), pp. 7-8. Mark B. Woodhouse, Loc. cit.
12 Mark B. Woodhouse, Loc. Cit.
13 C.J. Bleeker, Op.cit. p.15
14 Ursula King, “Historical and Phenomenological Approach to The Study of Religion : Some major developments and issues under debate since 1950”, Frank Whaling (Ed.), Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion, Vol. I, (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1984), h. 137.
15 Al-Jabiry describes this tendency in contemporary Islamic thought as al-Burhan fi khidmati al-Irfan wa al-Bayan. For further commentary, see Muhammad Abid al-Jabiry, Op. cit.
16 Frank Whaling, “Introduction : The Contrast between the Classical and Contemporary Periods in the Study of Religion”, Frank Whaling (Ed.), Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion : Vol. I : Social Sciences, (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1984), p. 14.
17 Richard C. Martin, “Islam and Religious Studies : An Introductory Essay”, Richard C. Martin (Ed.), Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, op.cit, p. 7-8.
18 Khaled Abou El Fadl, Speaking in God’s Name : Islamic Law, Authority and Women, (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003), p. 86-95.