Islamic state campaigners need syariah interpretation<\/p>\n
Nurrohman, Lecturer, Sunan Gunung Jati State Institute for Islamic
\nStudies, Bandung<\/p>\n
Two of the most important questions that arose from the recent
\ncontroversies surrounding Az-Zaitun Boarding School in Indramayu,
\nWest Java -- where Islamic separatists were allegedly at work --
\nwere these: Which form of an Islamic state did the activists
\naspire to establish, and how?<\/p>\n
Let us look to neighboring Malaysia for a lesson. Following
\nits vow to establish an Islamic state should it win the
\nelections, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) had a difficult time
\nanswering questions about the place of non-Muslim and women in
\ntheir concept of an Islamic state. Would women be allowed to
\nbecome national leaders, and would their Islamic state
\naccommodate demands from the international community on subjects
\nsuch as freedom of expression, religious freedom, and freedom to
\nassemble?<\/p>\n
Other questions include whether non-Muslim would be placed as
\n\"second-class citizens\" or dzimmi, as delineated in the classic
\nDarul Islam concept. Whether an Islamic state would respect and
\ndemocratically involve all interests in decision making. To what
\nextent could an Islamic state intervene in how people observe
\ntheir religion? Whether the sharia Islamic law would
\nautomatically be taken as positive law and be interpreted by
\nclerics with certain positions like those in Iran?<\/p>\n
Scholars such as Nurcholish Madjid and Amien Rais have
\nmaintained that an Islamic State (dauwlah Islamiyyah) is a modern
\nissue that cannot be traced back to the Qur'an and the traditions
\nof the Prophet (hadith), leading to a conclusion that the concept
\nis nonexistent in the Qur'an. One who studies the history of the
\nIslamic political thought, however, would note that propagators
\nof Islamic state often use the concepts of darul Islam and darul
\nharbi for their reference.<\/p>\n
The classic theory says there are three definitions of darul
\nIslam. The first defines darul Islam as a dar (region) inhabited
\nand led by Muslims and where the sharia or Islamic law can be
\nfully implemented. That is why Javid Iqbal in his book, The
\nConcept of Islamic State, requires three conditions for the
\nestablishment of an Islamic state, namely that it is ruled by
\nMuslims, the majority of its population are Muslim and the
\nIslamic law is used as the state law.<\/p>\n
Solahuddin Wahid in his paper entitled Negara Sekuler No,
\nNegara Islam No, also offered three criteria for an Islamic
\nstate: that it makes Islam the basis of the state, that it
\nregards Muslims as the first class citizens and relegates non-
\nMuslims to second-class citizenship, and that it implements the
\nsharia to all citizens.<\/p>\n
By these definitions, Indonesia is not a dar al-Islam or an
\nIslamic state.<\/p>\n
The second definition of darul Islam places emphasis on the
\nquestion of state ruler. Al-Rafi'i, one of the figures in the
\nSyafi'i school of thought, for instance, said that a country can
\nbe named dar al-Islam as long as the ruler is a Muslim. The last
\ndefinition deems the implementation of the sharia as the main
\ncriterion of an Islamic state.<\/p>\n
Imam Abu Yusuf, a figure in the Hanafi school, for instance,
\nsaid that a country was darul Islam as long as the sharia was
\nimplemented there even though the majority of its population were
\nnot Muslim. Conversely a country should be named darul harbi if
\nthe Islamic law cannot be implemented there even though the
\nmajority of its population are Muslim. By the second and third
\ndefinitions Indonesia can be called darul Islam because since its
\ninception its rulers have always been Muslim and people can
\nimplement the sharia freely here.<\/p>\n
Therefore, those who are not satisfied with this state and
\ncampaign for an Islamic state should first clarify the model of
\nan Islamic state that they wish to build. Do they want to imitate
\nthe Taliban regime, those of Iran, Sudan, Pakistan or Saudi
\nArabia? Abu Toto or Panji Gumilang who leads the Az-Zaitun
\nBoarding School should also explain what Islamic state he had in
\nmind.<\/p>\n
If the campaigners for an Islamic state chose the first
\ndefinition, they would be rejected by both Muslim and non-Muslim
\nalike because their wish would in effect go against the principle
\nof equality upheld by a democracy, and by most Muslims in
\nIndonesia who are affiliated to major organizations such as
\nNahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah.<\/p>\n
Learning from the constitutions of a number of Islamic
\ncountries, the place of religion (Islam, in this case) and the
\nsharia is classified as follows: The first group are states whose
\nconstitutions stipulate Islam as the official religion and decree
\nthe sharia as the primary source of legislation. Examples of such
\nstates are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Pakistan and Egypt.<\/p>\n
The second group consists of states whose constitutions
\nstipulate Islam as the official region but do not name the sharia
\nas the main source of legislation. The sharia is just one of many
\nsources of legislation. Examples of this group would be Malaysia
\nand Iraq.<\/p>\n
The third group consists of states whose constitutions do not
\nmention Islam as the official religion or the sharia as the main
\nsource of legislation, but acknowledge it as the one of the many
\nresources. Indonesia is an example.<\/p>\n
The fourth group is decidedly small, namely countries that
\nproclaimed to be secular states and campaigned against the
\ninclusion of the sharia in any of their legislation. An example
\nwould be Turkey.<\/p>\n
Problems concerning the employment of the sharia in the
\nconstitution usually stem from differing interpretations --
\nespecially when it comes to the question of human rights and
\ninternational demands. The establishment of Islam as the official
\nreligion in Malaysia, for example, is not a source of objection
\nfor the non-Muslim as long as their rights are guaranteed and as
\nlong as Islam here is understood as a cultural or symbolic
\nentity.<\/p>\n
The sharia, which is the core of an Islamic state, contains
\nvarious norms that are potential violators of human rights if
\nthey are taken literally. There is also the important question:
\nWill state decisions be attributed to divine reasoning rather
\nthan based on logic and reason? Unless there are clear provisions
\nin the constitution, a ruler can force arbitrary interpretations
\nof those norms, on his people.<\/p>\n
Abdullahi An-Na'im, a noted Muslim scholar of Sudan origin who
\nnow serves as a professor of law in the Emory University Atlanta,
\nin his book entitled Toward an Islamic Reformation, pointed out
\nthat countries that implement the sharia faced problems of global
\nnature such as international human rights and laws. He said
\nMuslim and non-Muslims alike might lose some of their fundamental
\nrights if the sharia is established as the public law.<\/p>\n
Campaigners of an Islamic state would not face as strong an
\nopposition from the public if they stopped fighting for the
\ninclusion of the seven words of the Jakarta Charter in the
\nconstitution, and started to employ this \"soft approach\" of
\nkeeping Article 29 (on religious freedom) as it is, even as they
\ncampaign to have Islam as the official religion.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/islamic-state-campaigners-need-syariah-interpretation-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}