The crucial problems of interfaith marriage involve one’s private right to choose one’s spouse and the stigmas associated with interfaith marriage prohibition as well as bureaucratic resistance. Nuryamin Aini, an alumnus of Flinders University in Australia, shows that the consequences are that sometimes that couples of different religions often resort to manipulating the law (hilah)and become ambivalent and hypocritical in order to slip out of the trap of the marriage registration bureaucracy.
The crucial problems of interfaith marriage involve one’s private right to choose one’s spouse and the stigmas associated with interfaith marriage prohibition as well as bureaucratic resistance. Nuryamin Aini, an alumnus of Flinders University in Australia, shows that the consequences are that sometimes that couples of different religions often resort to manipulating the law (hilah)and become ambivalent and hypocritical in order to slip out of the trap of the marriage registration bureaucracy.
Here is an interview by Ulil Abshar-Abdalla conducted on Thursday, 19th June 2003 with Drs. Nuryamin Aini, MA who is a lecturer on sharia on the faculty of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah who is also a researcher at the Centre of Human Resource Development (PPSDM) UIN Jakarta.
ULIL ABSHAR-ABDALLA: Mr Nuryamin, You’ve written a thesis on the phenomena of interfaith marriage. What are the empirical facts of the matter?
NURYAMIN AINI: I have to say before that there’s a fundamental matter we should observe. Usually someone’s religiosity is the most difficult matter to be controlled formally. When we talk about something personal, and then religion tries to control that, there are always many people who want to seek a way out and look for a space to get away (hilah).
Therefore, I wanted to observe the phenomenon of interfaith marriage (IFM) more empirically. What kind of reality is experienced by people who go through IFM? In 1994 when I wrote a thesis on the subject for my MA degree at Flinders University, Australia, I tried to look at factors of IFM through using empirical data taken from the 1980 population census. I used data from the census since it provides a sound methodological basis for sampling.
Since the phenomena of IFM are increasing, eventually I updated those old data by inserting the census results from 1990 and 2000. I chose Jogjakarta (DIY) as my research target since DIY is a melting pot or a dissolving place for cultural identity. From those data I found a fluctuation. In 1980, 15 out of every 1000 cases of registered marriages involved interfaith unions. In 1990, it increased to 18 cases. The trend decreased to only 12 cases per 1000 in the year 2000. This decreasing trend is called a reversed U in statistical terminology. In 1980 it was low (15/1000), then it increased in 1990 (19/1000), and subsequently it decreased again in 2000 (12/1000).
Table I Number of IFM according to Religion, Year and Sex
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* For Census-80, Hindu, Buddha and etc accumulated for analysis. Source: Census 1980, 1990 and 2000
Is this trend connected to notions of Liberal Islam or Pluralism. The claim is often made that Liberal Islam has caused an increase in people’s interest in inter-faith marriage (IFM). The data show instead that this interest has not increased the enthusiasm for IFM. Though I initially conducted the research in DIY, later, I have observed the same phenomenon in Medan, Jakarta, Bali, Manado, and Pontianak. These observations make the claim for a statistically significant pattern more reliable.
The above table also indicates that it is men who tend to engage in interfaith marriage more commonly than women. The lowest number of IFM, according to the censuses of 1980, 1990 and 2000, was within the Muslim sector (under 1%). In addition, the greater the number of Muslim citizens, the greater the chance of single faith marriages. But in the case of minorities, the chances for single faith marriage automatically decreases. Hence the chances for interfaith marriages among minority groups is greater. Yet generally, the table also indicates the absence of a particular mode of IFM within the non Muslim communities.
ULIL: Having noticed that IFM is not connected to notions of pluralism, what are the type of motives that lie behind inter-faith marriages?
NURYAMIN: I only used secondary data in this research. I did not collect primary data. For example, I did not interview people about their motivations. Instead I simply collected and analysed the relevant statistics concerning the phenomenon.
ULIL: Does the problem of the bureaucracy result in the decrease in interfaith marriage?
NURYAMIN: In fact, the data I use indicates that the actual numbers of IFM are greater than those registered in the civil registration office. This means that IFM couples were having serious problems with the bureaucracy. Many people preferred to be hypocrites or to be ambivalent and commit hilah (law manipulation) in order to protect themselves from the bureaucracy. Many of them simply pretended to alter their beliefs in order to simplify the administrative details of their marriages. Bureaucracy resistance, at least I believe, instead of limiting the cohabitation of interfaith couples actually increases the incidence of hypocrisy.
ULIL: Is your discovery regarding interfaith marriage in Jogjakarta more common in educated circles?
NURYAMIN: I don’t think so. I think, IFM is not an index of social change. In DIY, IFM is not an exclusively urban phenomenon. In fact, IFM turns out to be a stronger tradition amongst the poorer rural people. For example, I discovered that many interfaith couples were illiterate and incapable of speaking Indonesian. Before 2000, 50% of inter-faith marriages were performed by rural people with a low level of education. Many had not graduated from elementary school and many of them had never even been to school. Generally, IFM in DIY is a reflection of Jogjakarta society’s heterogeneity. Thus even though there is a relation between the phenomena and urbanism, the case of IFM in DIY indicates that IFM is not limited by social categories.
ULIL: What are the religious tendencies among children of interfaith marriages?
NURYAMIN: The religious tendencies of IFM children is a very interesting subject. In Islam, it doesn’t matter if a Muslim marries a non Muslim woman. According to data I’ve got at 1980, 50% of children of Muslims who marry non Muslim woman were Muslims. But, where the mother is Muslim and father is non Muslim, the number is higher: up to 77% would be Muslim. That number increased in 1990 by up to 79%. Hence it could be said that Muslim woman’s capability to Islamize her children when she marries a non Muslim is higher than if it is the husband who is Muslim. The mother’s domination can’t be separated from her role as the primary nurturer of her children. For example, this can be seen in the following table:
Table II Religious Affiliation of Children of IFM couple according to religion, Year and Sex of Parent
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* For Census-80, Hindu, Buddhist and so on unified for analyses. Census-1980 = 685 children; Census-1990 = 1044 children; Census 2000 = 83 children. Source: Census 1980, 1990 and 2000
ULIL: In observing those data, is it true that one motive of fikh (Islamic jurisprudence) is to forbid Muslim woman from marrying non Muslims and hence it is essentially irrelevant as it is so rare?
NURYAMIN: Yes, that is so because fikh discipline depends essentially on hypothetical matters, that is it supposes and depends upon notions which are not proven empirically. Nevertheless we do find that unempirical fikhs are taken as reference points by people, that their behaviour does appear to be “dictated” non-empirical fikhs. Instead Fikh discipline should instead be constantly altered according to the developments within a particular society and time.
I think that radical change is needed if this process was to be used to evaluate the relevance of the old fikh. If in the old fikh laws Muslim woman can’t marry non Muslims based on the reason that the children would not become Muslims then that law would have no empirical base anymore according to the data given above. Therefore, in this case in particular, we have to deconstruct the myth of fikh which prohibits Muslim woman from marrying non Muslims. The data from the Central Bureau of statistics (BPS) justifies this even if it contains an error of about 2-3 %.
ULIL: Generally, based on your discovery, do the parents use particular strategies to attract their children towards certain religions?
NURYAMIN: The interesting thing that emerged from this research is that out of several religions, it is the Muslim and Catholic communities who were dominant in influencing their offspring. (Look at table II). This phenomenon might be related to both religions as having propagandist doctrines. The canonist doctrine of the Church even puts an anti-nuptial agreement into effect which obliges Catholic couples to catholicize their children. The church is expected to watch over the realization of that agreement through baptism. Islam is similar, even though it has different terms or degrees of proselytism. In Islam, the theological burden and responsibility to educate their offspring according to Islam lies with the parents. In the Qur’an, and Hadits, the parent’s responsibility to educate their children in religious matters is frequently mentioned.
ULIL: As a lecturer in the sharia faculty, how do you observe prohibition of interfaith marriage holistically, that is, despite the fact that interfaith marriage occurs constantly if not to any great degree?
NURYAMIN: Even if the prohibition of IFM is available, the matter is not as such about religion. There are correlated social categories and variables in theological interpretation. Indeed the Koran clearly says, “Do not marry polytheists….” (QS 2:221). In Arabic language, the vocabulary al-musyrikât (polytheists) points toward certain communities (al-ma’rifah). It is not nakirah,instead it points toward prohibiting marriage with other imagined opposing communities. Al-musyrikat atheism, is a social category and not only a theological term.
I think, the musyrikmentioned in that verse is an illustration of how the Quarish people of Mecca were discriminating against the Muslim community which had only been recently formed at that time. We can imagine that if the enmity towards Islam was so deep, how could one marry outside of the faith? The fundamental issue of IFM prohibition is a social and political matter. As the logic of a religion develops within a particular socio-political context, the IFM prohibition is then a result of the hegemony of theology.
ULIL: The prohibition of interfaith marriage is often heard at the grass-roots level. Even the verses of the Qur’an which allows Muslim men to marry non Muslim woman is considered as haram (prohibited). Can you comment on this?
NURYAMIN: That kind of interpretation is a resulted of neglecting the social setting of the revelation of that Koranic verse. Each verse has its own context. Besides, the matter of religion is an obviously important issue within society and within each household. Religious differences are often considered as obstructions to a harmonious life.
People always consider the verse 221 of Al Baqarah to be an argument for IFM prohibition. The difficult political context of musyrik at that time marked an apprehensive attitude about maintaining the holy expectations of marriage which used to be called mîtsâqan ghalîdzâ (the strong bond). Consequently, the matter of kafâ’ah (equivalence) or religious equality for couples who want to marry is emphasized just as it is in classic Islamic jurisprudence.
ULIL: The interpretation about ahlul kitab (people of scripture) invites different opinions and controversies as well. What do you see as going on there?
NURYAMIN: That is associated with a doctrine which sometimes reduces the universality of the Qur’an. Let’s imagine who people in the scriptures are. To me, people of the scripture are illustrative of enlightened people. When they act, something is guiding them and that is because of the existence of the teachings they believe in. They were not in hurry like the musyrik who do not have any lucid references and hence simplistically oppose everyone.
Therefore, to me, people of the scripture are not conventionally limited to Jews or Christians but whomever had points of view guided by lucid theologies which prevent them from blindly opposing others. To me, that is the ideal illustration about people who are called “people of the scriptures.”
ULIL: The myth that interfaith marriages are particularly susceptible to conflict and divorce is rooted in people’s consciousness. What’s your comment on this?
NURYAMIN: Actually the matter of family conflict is not incited merely by religious differences. When each couple is capable of facing problems well, God willing, there will be no conflict. Even single faith couples experience conflict.
ULIL: What are the empirical marital conditions found in interfaith marriages? Are most of them happy or do they experience enduring conflicts as most people tend to think?
NURYAMIN: My research has not gone that far yet. The point is that we have to respect and listen to people who opt for interfaith marriage. If they eventually find peace, then the rejection of IFM on the presumed basis of unavoidable unhappiness should be put aside. So far we have been speculative and relied upon our own beliefs. We need to conduct field research into how many interfaith married couples actually get divorced. It might even be that their divorce rate is lower than partners who share the same religion.
We have observed that IFM couples can neutralize their religious differences and compensate for them through their similarities in other respects. People may think that the matter of religion is a personal matter concerning the individual and Allah, whereas it is more a matter of having to be good towards one’s wife whatever her religion is. These sort of arguments are sometimes used to counter the claim that IFM family life is a living hell.
Sometimes we actually find the case of an inter-opposing IFM couple. This happens because each of them over-idealize their own beliefs, that is, each partner strongly believes in his or her religion and that their own religion is better than their partners. I don’t take the relativist position that we have to admit to the truth of all religions. If one sees one’s own belief as right for themselves they don’t have the right to say that another person’s belief is wrong, and especially not to blame or abuse their partner verbally or psychologically.
No comments:
Post a Comment