Has sharia brought justice?

Has sharia brought justice?

Lily Zakiyah Munir, Director, Center for Pesantren and
Democracy Studies (CePDeS), Jombang, lilyzm@hotmail.com

Presidential Decision No. 11/2003 inaugurating the Sharia
Court (Mahkamah Syariat) in Aceh was issued on March 3. The
Sharia Courts in Aceh will be the first of their type in
Indonesia and will have the authority to examine, decide and
settle civil law cases, material cases and crimes such as murder
and torture punishable by qishas (punishment equitable to the
crime). The stoning to death punishment (rajam) is not yet
incorporated into the system.

In the history of Islam, including in Indonesia, formalization
of the sharia has always raised controversy. Its proponents argue
that as Muslims are the majority in the country, it is just
logical that sharia be formally enforced as a legal basis in
Indonesia. They appeal that Muslims return to the Koran and
Prophet's sayings (Hadith) so that all social, political and
economic problems can be resolved.

The opponents do not oppose sharia, but refuse the first
group's interpretation and understanding of it. Sharia is often
understood by the first group as no more than fiqh, Islamic laws
codified by Islamic scholars centuries ago.

The problem arises when a particular madzhab (fiqh school) has
to be chosen and adopted as the formal legal reference. There are
various schools equally recognized and accepted by Muslims. The
largest Islamic organization, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), for example,
recognizes four major schools and all of them are regarded as
valid.

How can we now choose only one of them and refuse the others?
Isn't forcing a version of sharia and nullifying the others
against the spirit of Islam itself? This group, moreover, argues
that for centuries Muslims have been living under the guidance of
sharia. Regardless of the fact whether sharia is formalized or
not, they have practiced it, anyway.

Let us learn from history. Let us look at Iran back in the
1980s. Two years after the victory of the Islamic revolution,
Khomeini put restriction on women's space in the public sphere.
He obligated women to wear jilbab (headscarfs) and imposed it on
women in markets, offices, schools and other public places. Under
the banner of sharia, the Imam brought women back to the domestic
sphere as if it were advocated by sharia. While women were
Khomeini's strong supporters in the revolution, they turned out
to be marginalized and rigidly controlled after all the
victories.

Let's see Afghanistan. In the name of sharia, Taliban laid off
all of their women employees regardless of their status and
positions. They did not care whether the job was the sole source
of income for the women and their families. Women were banned
from education. Women teachers and women doctors were not allowed
to work. Those who secretly continued the work in their homes
were whipped when discovered.

A book titled My Hidden Face written by an Afghan teenage girl
vividly illustrates her testimony about all the atrocities. And
all of these were committed in the name of the sharia.

One may argue that sharia in Aceh will have its own form,
which does not resemble Iran or Afghanistan. "We are obviously
different from those in Afghanistan or Iran. We are Indonesian,
with our own cultures," said a government official in Aceh in an
interview. But who can guarantee it? Who can ensure that sharia
in Aceh will do justice to women, when many prominent ulema
understand the Koran textually to refer to men's superiority over
women?

A study was conducted in January this year in Aceh to document
people's understanding, opinions and feelings about sharia.
Ordinary people, teachers, housewives, activists and
intellectuals were interviewed in depth. Interestingly most
respondents felt misled by the formalization of sharia. They
understand sharia as all embracing to include justice, peace and
welfare for all.

When sharia was first enacted, they were hopeful that it would
do justice to them, imposing qishas (equal punishment) to
perpetrators of violence or chopping the hands of corruptors who
have stolen people's money. But they were disappointed when, two
years later, sharia was concerned more with jilbab, controlling
women and formal rituals.

The sign of formal sharia can also be seen in the use of
Arabic letters on name boards, street signs or billboards. None
has been done about people's welfare, justice or combating
corruption, as if they were not within the scope of sharia.

According to some respondents, there has been no change after
sharia was formalized two years ago. "Social ills such as KKN
(corruption, collusion and nepotism), prostitution or violence
against women remains unchanged," said one of the informants.

What is actually the raison d'etre of sharia? The ultimate
goal of sharia (maqasid al syari'ah), as widely understood and
accepted is the welfare of all people.

The basic teachings of Islam, that should be reflected in the
implementation of sharia, can be summarized in a few words. The
Prophet Muhammad, when asked about this, referred to a verse in
the Koran: "Allah commands justice (adl), the doing of good
(ihsan), and giving (of your wealth) to kith and kin " (an-Nahl:
90).

These three teachings, when summarized into one, means
justice. The ultimate goal of sharia, welfare of all human beings
should be achieved within the framework of justice, the basic
essence of Islam. Have we done justice in the formalization of
sharia?