Indonesian Muslims and the commitment to sharia

Indonesian Muslims and the commitment to sharia

Abdul Mu'ti, Chairman, National Board Muhammadiyah Youth Movement,
Jakarta

The People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) finally reached an
agreement on the second alternative among three alternative
amendments to Article 29 of the 1945 Constitution on religion.
Previously, Islamic parties proposed the adoption of sharia, or
Islamic law, as formulated in the Jakarta Charter (Piagam
Jakarta).

The second alternative, the one agreed on by the Assembly,
was proposed by the nationalist parties and recommended that the
MPR maintain the original phrasing of Article 29: "The state is
based on the One God".

This decision was crucial, especially if we note that the
majority of the MPR members are Muslims; and that Islamic parties
themselves did not put up a serious struggle for the amendment.
Does the decision mean that the adoption of sharia is no longer
important?

Although Muslims believe in the significance of sharia, there
is disagreement among the ulema. There are the "scripturalists",
who see sharia as detailed and complete guidance from God for all
aspects of life. Sharia deals with religious or spiritual fields,
as well as social and political arenas. According to this view,
it is obligatory for every Muslim to set up an Islamic state
based on sharia. Rejecting this doctrine is regarded as kafir
(unbeliever).

The scripturalists' argument goes that Indonesia is not yet a
Muslim country since sharia has not been fully implemented. The
criminal laws of Indonesian are inconsistent with the law
dictated in the Koran and the Sunnah, the written tradition of
the Prophet Muhammad. For example, there is no death penalty for
murderers and no whipping for adulterers. This inconsistency is
said to be the main source of social injustice in Indonesia.

The modernists take a different view. Sharia is believed to be
the global guidance from God, as revealed in the Koran and the
Sunnah. Sharia consists of two main fields -- spiritual (ibadah)
and social or political (muamalah).

According to the argument of the modernists, Ibadah is
strictly regulated; no additions, reductions or modifications are
permitted. While in muamalah there are no strict regulations from
the sharia; just general rules not the details, stressing the
essence and the values rather than format.

Political affairs, including the system of state, fall under
the muamalah; there is no certain format for an Islamic state,
either in the Koran, the Sunnah or in Islamic history. From this
perspective, a non-Muslim or secular country might be called
Islamic if the political system and its implementation correspond
to the sharia.

In this modernist perspective, which is currently more
dominant in the country than the scripturalist view, sharia in
Indonesian politics is no longer important, and inserting sharia
into the Constitution is seen as a possible trigger for conflicts
among Muslims and national disintegration.

Despite the fact that attempts to insert the Jakarta Charter
in the Constitution have been unsuccessful, this does not
necessarily mean that sharia does not or will not work in
Indonesia. The second verse of Article 29 of the Constitution
clearly states that the government guarantees the freedom of
religion and supports the practice of religion.

True, Indonesia is a secular country. There is no Islamic
Criminal Code. But there are three national laws specifically for
Muslims: the Islamic family law, the alms-giving law and the law
on the haj. These laws reflect the government's concern for the
needs of Muslims; however Muslims have shown little commitment to
these three laws.

Available data shows that most Muslims tend to resolve family
problems in state courts rather than courts for religious
affairs. And most Muslims prefer secular or conventional banks to
Islamic banks.

So if Muslims are really concerned with implementing sharia,
the more important issue at hand is developing their commitment
to Islam in daily life. This is far more strategic and beneficial
than spending all that energy debating sharia. Legal problems in
Indonesia are not caused by the absence of sharia or an Islamic
Criminal Code, but rather by the failure of the government to
enforce the law.

Any possibility of adopting sharia in the future depends on
Muslims' commitment to their religious teachings, and how they
practice these teachings in a country based on the Pancasila
ideology.