Political 'fatwa' for presidential election is not legally binding

Ahmad Najib Burhani, Jakarta

On Thursday, 3 June, several influential ulema of the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), the country's largest Muslim organization, in East Java issued a fatwa (edict) ordering its members to vote against any woman candidate as president. In February 2004, an extended plenary meeting or mini tanwir (the second highest assembly) of the Muhammadiyah -- the country's second largest Muslim organization -- in Yogyakarta also issued a fatwa that supported Amien Rais, a former chairman of the Muhammadiyah, as a presidential candidate.

A fatwa is an opinion on a point of law. It is usually related to civil and religious matters, such as the dates of the fasting month or Ramadhan, and interreligious marriage. In the political sphere, a fatwa may cause friction, however.

As a legal opinion, the fatwa is regarded as binding. While, in an Indonesian political context, such as the presidential election, issuing an edict to support a certain candidate is controversial and debatable. In this regard, some people believe that such an edict misuses religion for political purposes.

What role do ulema have in politics? Is a fatwa a kind of divine opinion? Why have some clerics issued fatwa for the presidential election?

Ira M. Lapidus defines ulema as "a category of people ... permeating the whole of society ... they play a crucial role in the process through which social communication occurs and, thus, in the integration of society as a working whole" (1984).

According to Clifford Geertz, ulema are cultural brokers, "to stand guard over the crucial junctures of synapses of relationships which connect the local system with the larger whole..." (1960).

In Java, and in many parts of Indonesia, ulema are brokers between local culture and global cultures. Their function is guiding and giving direction to the umat (followers of Islam) on how they should deal with foreign cultures. As a logic extension of their role as brokers, they may become involved in other aspects of life, including politics. In this case, ulema often cast themselves as political brokers.

There is nothing wrong with being a political broker, it is a worthy and essential role. However, the participation of ulema in the political hurly-burly often creates the view or assumption that ulema are critical people, particularly if they collaborate with a certain party. In this context, they may lend authenticity to a politician's candidacy. Thus, their duty is merely to provide political legitimization. The issuance of an edict becomes a way in which they can support a certain political camp. In this case, religion is abused for non-religious ends.

The Muhammadiyah tanwir (in Makassar, 2003), provided good guidance for its members. One of the decisions of the tanwir was that Muhammadiyah would support the "best son" of Indonesia to be president. Tanwir is an assembly of Muhammadiyah ulema and leaders.

The tanwir gave sound advice, not only to Muhammadiyah members, but to the entire population.

The syuriah of the NU did the same thing. They did not discriminate against certain people, but provided wise guidance for NU members. In contrast, the fatwa from ulema of the NU on 3 June, and the fatwa from Muhammadiyah in February 2004 are a kind of partisan fatwa. This kind of edict is often regarded as unreasonable and unintelligent guidance for the umat.

Usually, more than one fatwa is issued for a single problem -- fatwa on jihad in Afghanistan, or fatwa on Ajinomoto food seasoner, for instance. People who do not agree with a particular edict can ask a certain religious authority to issue a different fatwa. It is, thus, no wonder that we find contradictory fatwa on one case.

Fatwa from different religious bodies, such as the Muhammadiyah, the NU and the Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI), and Islamic scholars do not have the same religious authority. Hence, people can choose the fatwa that suits them best, based on their own rationalization.

Fatwa does have religious, political and social implications. However, its implications usually affect only the members and followers of the religious bodies, and the ulema that issued the edict. Although a fatwa functions as a legal opinion, it does not act as law. Nor can it determine punishment, unless the state accommodates the fatwa into state law.

In conclusion, can we claim that ulema who issue an "unreasonable" fatwa are critical ulema? We cannot simply give that answer. In their everyday actions, these ulema are good and true believers. It is supposed that they issued such a fatwa wholeheartedly, not critically. They adopt a certain understanding of religion to make their decision. Of course, some ulema may do so critically, but the majority do so consciously. Thus, the fatwa is a reflection of their ideology and understanding of religion.

We cannot easily blame those who use religion in politics. They do not intend to misuse religion for political interests.We must understand them so that we may better understand their religious doctrines and teachings.

The writer (najib27@yahoo.com) is a lecturer of the Faculty of Ushul al-Din and Philosophy at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, Jakarta