Islamic state campaigners need syariah interpretation

Islamic state campaigners need syariah interpretation

Nurrohman, Lecturer, Sunan Gunung Jati State Institute for Islamic
Studies, Bandung

Two of the most important questions that arose from the recent
controversies surrounding Az-Zaitun Boarding School in Indramayu,
West Java -- where Islamic separatists were allegedly at work --
were these: Which form of an Islamic state did the activists
aspire to establish, and how?

Let us look to neighboring Malaysia for a lesson. Following
its vow to establish an Islamic state should it win the
elections, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) had a difficult time
answering questions about the place of non-Muslim and women in
their concept of an Islamic state. Would women be allowed to
become national leaders, and would their Islamic state
accommodate demands from the international community on subjects
such as freedom of expression, religious freedom, and freedom to
assemble?

Other questions include whether non-Muslim would be placed as
"second-class citizens" or dzimmi, as delineated in the classic
Darul Islam concept. Whether an Islamic state would respect and
democratically involve all interests in decision making. To what
extent could an Islamic state intervene in how people observe
their religion? Whether the sharia Islamic law would
automatically be taken as positive law and be interpreted by
clerics with certain positions like those in Iran?

Scholars such as Nurcholish Madjid and Amien Rais have
maintained that an Islamic State (dauwlah Islamiyyah) is a modern
issue that cannot be traced back to the Qur'an and the traditions
of the Prophet (hadith), leading to a conclusion that the concept
is nonexistent in the Qur'an. One who studies the history of the
Islamic political thought, however, would note that propagators
of Islamic state often use the concepts of darul Islam and darul
harbi for their reference.

The classic theory says there are three definitions of darul
Islam. The first defines darul Islam as a dar (region) inhabited
and led by Muslims and where the sharia or Islamic law can be
fully implemented. That is why Javid Iqbal in his book, The
Concept of Islamic State, requires three conditions for the
establishment of an Islamic state, namely that it is ruled by
Muslims, the majority of its population are Muslim and the
Islamic law is used as the state law.

Solahuddin Wahid in his paper entitled Negara Sekuler No,
Negara Islam No, also offered three criteria for an Islamic
state: that it makes Islam the basis of the state, that it
regards Muslims as the first class citizens and relegates non-
Muslims to second-class citizenship, and that it implements the
sharia to all citizens.

By these definitions, Indonesia is not a dar al-Islam or an
Islamic state.

The second definition of darul Islam places emphasis on the
question of state ruler. Al-Rafi'i, one of the figures in the
Syafi'i school of thought, for instance, said that a country can
be named dar al-Islam as long as the ruler is a Muslim. The last
definition deems the implementation of the sharia as the main
criterion of an Islamic state.

Imam Abu Yusuf, a figure in the Hanafi school, for instance,
said that a country was darul Islam as long as the sharia was
implemented there even though the majority of its population were
not Muslim. Conversely a country should be named darul harbi if
the Islamic law cannot be implemented there even though the
majority of its population are Muslim. By the second and third
definitions Indonesia can be called darul Islam because since its
inception its rulers have always been Muslim and people can
implement the sharia freely here.

Therefore, those who are not satisfied with this state and
campaign for an Islamic state should first clarify the model of
an Islamic state that they wish to build. Do they want to imitate
the Taliban regime, those of Iran, Sudan, Pakistan or Saudi
Arabia? Abu Toto or Panji Gumilang who leads the Az-Zaitun
Boarding School should also explain what Islamic state he had in
mind.

If the campaigners for an Islamic state chose the first
definition, they would be rejected by both Muslim and non-Muslim
alike because their wish would in effect go against the principle
of equality upheld by a democracy, and by most Muslims in
Indonesia who are affiliated to major organizations such as
Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah.

Learning from the constitutions of a number of Islamic
countries, the place of religion (Islam, in this case) and the
sharia is classified as follows: The first group are states whose
constitutions stipulate Islam as the official religion and decree
the sharia as the primary source of legislation. Examples of such
states are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Pakistan and Egypt.

The second group consists of states whose constitutions
stipulate Islam as the official region but do not name the sharia
as the main source of legislation. The sharia is just one of many
sources of legislation. Examples of this group would be Malaysia
and Iraq.

The third group consists of states whose constitutions do not
mention Islam as the official religion or the sharia as the main
source of legislation, but acknowledge it as the one of the many
resources. Indonesia is an example.

The fourth group is decidedly small, namely countries that
proclaimed to be secular states and campaigned against the
inclusion of the sharia in any of their legislation. An example
would be Turkey.

Problems concerning the employment of the sharia in the
constitution usually stem from differing interpretations --
especially when it comes to the question of human rights and
international demands. The establishment of Islam as the official
religion in Malaysia, for example, is not a source of objection
for the non-Muslim as long as their rights are guaranteed and as
long as Islam here is understood as a cultural or symbolic
entity.

The sharia, which is the core of an Islamic state, contains
various norms that are potential violators of human rights if
they are taken literally. There is also the important question:
Will state decisions be attributed to divine reasoning rather
than based on logic and reason? Unless there are clear provisions
in the constitution, a ruler can force arbitrary interpretations
of those norms, on his people.

Abdullahi An-Na'im, a noted Muslim scholar of Sudan origin who
now serves as a professor of law in the Emory University Atlanta,
in his book entitled Toward an Islamic Reformation, pointed out
that countries that implement the sharia faced problems of global
nature such as international human rights and laws. He said
Muslim and non-Muslims alike might lose some of their fundamental
rights if the sharia is established as the public law.

Campaigners of an Islamic state would not face as strong an
opposition from the public if they stopped fighting for the
inclusion of the seven words of the Jakarta Charter in the
constitution, and started to employ this "soft approach" of
keeping Article 29 (on religious freedom) as it is, even as they
campaign to have Islam as the official religion.