History shows that the syariah is very easy to manipulate by despots, says one expert who does not support the insertion of the Jakarta Charter in the Constitution. Abdul Munir Mulkhan, a professor at the State Institute of Islamic Studies, IAIN Sunan Kalijaga in Yogyakarta shared his views with The Jakarta Post's Asip A. Hasani. Question: Regional autonomy has inspired the imposition of syariah in a number of regions. Do you agree with this move? Answer: Not all areas with a majority of Muslims are asking for syariah, given the higher awareness of the reality of diversity compared to a few decades ago.

Through experience, people have become aware that Islamic teachings do not stop at the "Islamic syariah." There is now a large body of writings clarifying the relative validity of syariah as formulated by the ulema.

History has also proven that the application of syariah does not guarantee expectations of improved welfare. This has led to the new understanding that what is meant by the syariah in the Koran goes beyond that expounded by the ulema -- that the core of Islamic teachings are actually moral teachings. Would the application of the syariah bring problems given the wide diversity among Muslims here?

I think so. People often think that Muslims are the majority here, so of course they will all agree to the syariah being applied in the country. Yet our national political history proves that even if all votes of Islamic-based parties were combined, they would never have gained a majority.

So there is a problem with the legitimacy of the demand for syariah. Maybe only 25 percent of Indonesian Muslims apply syariah in daily life.

In modern times with its high mobility, it is quite difficult for people to go about their activities if they are constrained by the syariah, which was established by ulema some 1,000 years ago in the ninth century.

Even if one region did issue a law on its application, would it be ready to apply the syariah consistently? Their jails could be full of people guilty of even the slightest violations.

There are many issues which do not match today's times. If we follow the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad, or check the chronology of the Koranic verses, the term (syariah) emerged after the Prophet settled in Madinah (the Prophet's migration or hijra from Mecca to Madinah, where the Prophet managed to build a community based on Islamic values, is considered the second stage of the Prophet's mission to construct an Islamic system -- Eds).

The problem is, has Islam in Indonesia reached (a condition similar to) the second stage?

Then there's still the academic problem, the increasing view that the essence of Islam is not the syariah but the tauhid (acknowledgement of unity of God). Those in support of the syariah say this will guarantee clean government. Your comment?

That's a good objective; but does the history of Islam show that the syariah has guaranteed freedom from corruption? No! Corrupt practices have flourished precisely because the syariah has been easily manipulated by power.

One commonly agreed illustration of this is the Islamic rule in the period of the Muawyiah and Abassiyah dynasties (that ruled from the mid-seventh to mid-eighth century and from the mid- eighth century to the mid-13th century respectively).

Apart from being corrupt, most of the khalifah or kings were repressive and ruled arbitrarily. Whoever dared to dissent were eliminated based on the legitimacy they claimed as rulers and the religious jargon they applied. Such behavior by the rulers continued after these dynasties.

During the rule of the Demak kingdom (in Central Java), Java's first Islamic kingdom, those who differed with the rulers and the Wali Songo (Java's nine first teachers of Islam) were purged, including (leading religious teacher) Syekh Siti Jenar.

Though available sources are myths, this shows the manipulation of Islamic teachings and the syariah by those in power. The concept of sin and the concept of God in the syariah are indeed very easy to manipulate. Two of the largest Muslim organizations here have indicated they reject the application of syariah in Indonesia. Would that leave only a few in support of syariah?

The demand to apply syariah has decreased over time, especially compared to 1945 up to the 1950s. Muslims have a new awareness of quality, experience and knowledge (of their religion). Many present problems cannot be resolved through outdated syariah rules. I am not very concerned about such demands. Would the polemic on the application of the syariah here waste energy, which could otherwise be spent on issues such as overcoming crises and upholding the reform agenda?

We must respect the right of everyone to express his aspirations. But the more urgent issue is how to make those religious values promote tolerance and solidarity for the weak, to enable a more rapid solution to our humanitarian problems.

Some say that the essence of Islam is to care for the underprivileged or poor; those treated unfairly. It would be very good, for instance, if we could push for laws which impose sanctions on the rich who ignore their neighbors who are starving -- compared to applying the syariah.

Muslims should think of better management of alms, for example, to resolve poverty. In a number of regions efforts to uphold syariah have started with relatively easy things like imposing a curfew on women and regulating their dress. In Afghanistan women are reportedly banned from working even if their husbands have died in battle. Your comment?

The case of Aceh is more historical; they can eventually question what they consider valid if they're open (on the issue).

Is it indeed true that Islam views that women were meant to suffer, that they cannot work? What should be a priority are legal provisions which enable people meet their needs and which encourage people to be fair.

So far the syariah implies (regarding the treatment of women) that Islam upholds their dignity, but how? The principle of upholding a woman's dignity should be enough, which could be interpreted as making them happy. Whether they stay at home or work outside the home depends on the situation.

What's also crucial is how to enforce firm legal actions against rapists. What about reforming institutions based on Islamic values such as government, banks etc.?

The core of the Islamic economic system regarding loans is how to enable a person with capital to achieve maximum profit, while others without capital have no space (to operate). That's the old concept. In the new one, it must be investigated whether the bank customer is in the position of being the disadvantaged, or the opposite ...

Those with enough money can derive income just from interest on their capital. But those who cannot pay back loans because they continually suffer losses will have accumulated debts. Is that fair? This needs thorough investigation. The Islamic economic system is indeed somewhere between socialism and capitalism, although there is much work needed to break this down. How do you see the concern of minorities regarding moves to have the Jakarta Charter back in the Constitution?

This can be understood. And the others (demanding the syariah) will say that Muslims will also have difficulties under a majority of a different religion. But I think the minorities need not worry. Such demands always fail (to succeed), given historical experience, and countries who have applied the syariah have not achieved their ideals.