Sumber ilustrasi: Freepik
24 Maret 2026 11.32 WIB – Umum
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Is inner purity something that can truly be attained? It is not a question that yields a simple answer. Some would insist that it can only be approached under certain conditions, even suggesting that the ability to address it at all reflects a particular moral position. The point, perhaps, is that purity is not something one reaches through method alone, but through an understanding of what it actually is.
This view is not without merit. Yet there is another possibility worth considering. What if this question belongs to the ordinary horizon of human life—one that anyone can engage with, without prerequisites? The very idea that only certain people are entitled to answer it may, in fact, lead us away from what purity is. For what is pure does not reserve itself for the worthy; it encounters anyone, including those considered unworthy.
If one speaks of returning to a state of purity, then it follows that human beings are, at their core, already bound up with it. To be human is not to be defined by wrongdoing, but by the capacity for goodness. The real question is whether this view is accepted. If one instead assumes that human beings are fundamentally a collection of flaws, then difficulty arises from the outset. A person who sees oneself in that way will struggle to recognize goodness—even within one’s own life.
At this point, a deeper form of reflection becomes necessary. Not reflection shaped by noise or urgency, but one that emerges in quiet, in solitude, in a moment of distance—even from oneself. Perhaps this is why certain cultural moments become meaningful. Eid al-Fitr, for instance, appears outwardly as a time of movement—people meeting, greeting one another, exchanging apologies. It is a visible ritual of asking for and granting forgiveness.
But what actually takes place within such a moment? Is it merely a social custom, or does it carry a deeper intention—to let go of what is negative and to preserve what is good? The tradition of halal bi halal seems to cultivate precisely this orientation: to forget the faults of others as quickly as possible, and to remember their kindness for as long as possible. The question, then, is whether this is truly possible—and whether such a practice might be understood as a cultural path toward inner purity.
To remember the good in others while letting go of their faults is not a simple moral gesture. It is a disciplined inner practice. In everyday life, memory tends to sharpen around mistakes rather than kindness. Minor faults linger, while significant acts of goodness fade. To reverse this tendency is to move against the natural pull of reactive emotion, and to cultivate a more deliberate form of awareness.
Human relationships, after all, are never free from imperfection. Every encounter carries the possibility of both kindness and error. To remember goodness does not mean ignoring shortcomings; it means choosing what becomes central in one’s judgment. In doing so, relationships are no longer shaped by suspicion or injury, but by recognition of what has been given.
Letting go of others’ faults is often mistaken for weakness. In reality, it requires considerable inner strength. Resentment and hurt exert a powerful pull, offering a sense of control—the illusion that holding onto someone’s wrongdoing provides justification to judge or retaliate. To release that hold is to relinquish an unnecessary burden, an act that demands courage.
From an ethical standpoint, this stance reflects a form of radical generosity. Generosity is not limited to material giving; it extends to how one responds to the shortcomings of others. When faults are not preserved as the center of memory, space opens for reconciliation and growth. When they are held onto, relationships harden and lose their capacity to evolve.
Yet letting go does not mean erasing what has been learned. Difficult experiences retain their value as sources of insight. What is released is the emotional weight, not the reflective meaning. In this way, one remains attentive without becoming bitter, and wise without becoming overly suspicious.
Prioritizing the memory of goodness also reshapes how one understands others. Rather than seeing people as defined by their mistakes, one begins to see them more fully—as complex beings capable of both error and kindness. This perspective allows empathy to emerge, grounded in the recognition of one’s own limitations.
Within shared life, the implications are significant. Communities in which people remember one another’s goodness tend to be more harmonious. Conflict does not escalate as easily, and trust finds room to grow. By contrast, environments shaped by remembered grievances are marked by suspicion and emotional distance.
At a deeper level, this way of remembering reflects a fundamental human freedom: the freedom to give meaning to experience. The same event can be carried in different ways. One may center life around wounds, or release them so they no longer define one’s existence. Meaning is not determined solely by events, but by how consciousness responds to them.
There is also a quiet relation to inner peace. A mind filled with memories of wrongdoing tends toward restlessness, even long after events have passed. A mind that holds onto goodness cultivates gratitude, enriching inner life. In this sense, remembering the good shapes not only relationships, but one’s own interior condition.
This is not an easy practice. Negative emotions arise unbidden, and memories of harm often return without invitation. What is required is a sustained exercise of awareness. Each time such memories appear, there is a choice: to hold onto them, or to let them go. It is through these repeated choices that character gradually takes form.
In the end, the call to forget wrongdoing and remember goodness is not merely a moral injunction. It is a way of living—one that demands clarity of mind, openness of heart, and emotional maturity. To live in this way is not only to improve one’s relations with others, but to free oneself from unnecessary burdens, allowing life to unfold with greater lightness and meaning. Perhaps it is not excessive to see in this path a way toward the purification of the soul.
Note: This article from Desanomia March 22, 2026 translated is dedicated to bringing the concept of social ethics closer to everyday life and to inspire curiosity in its readers
