'Syariah' bid based on false assumption

'Syariah' bid based on false assumption

The People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) has decided to
postpone for a year deliberations on the possible inclusion of
syariah (Islamic law) in the Constitution. The rector of the
Syarif Hidayatullah State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN),
Azyumardi Azra, discusses the possible political and sociological
impacts of including syariah in the Constitution.

Question: After 55 years of Indonesian independence, why is
there a demand among some Muslim groups to reintroduce into the
Constitution a clause which will require Indonesian Muslims to
adhere to syariah, while the clause was dropped in 1945 for the
sake of national unity?

Answer: Certain Muslim groups apparently see that political
liberalization after the fall of former president Soeharto has
given them an opportunity to reintroduce the seven words into the
1945 Constitution demanding Indonesian Muslims adhere to Islamic
syariah.

Are their motivations political or religious?

Some have a genuine motivation to see the reinforcement of
Islamic law with political support from the state, but some
others want to use the issue to look for public support for their
own political interests.

Such a proposal can emerge if Muslim parties are politically
marginalized and they think they have no power to overcome their
problems. So such a proposal is a short-cut decision in solving
problems. But the proposal is not supported by political and
social reality.

Participants of the recent congress of the Mujahidin in
Yogyakarta said the main objective of the inclusion of syariah in
the Constitution was the establishment of a khilafah, or one
leadership for all Muslims in the world, like the leadership of
the pope in the Vatican for Catholics. Is that realistic?

They seem to have misunderstood the term khilafah. The pope's
leadership is limited to religious affairs only, while Khalifah,
the one holding the position of leadership, has political
authority. Perhaps the pope's leadership is, in some way, similar
to the imamah, or the leadership among the Shi'ite Muslims (as in
Iran). Anyway, khilafah is not workable and viable for nation-
states.

How much support does the proposal have in Indonesia's Muslim
society?

That's difficult to measure. As far as we know, the proposal
was supported in the MPR's Annual Session by small factions, such
as the United Development Party (PPP) and the Crescent Star Party
(PBB), while the big factions, including Golkar Party and the
Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), which
are supported by substantial numbers of Muslim constituents, were
against the proposal. Furthermore, mainstream Muslim
organizations like Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah are also
opposing the proposal.

What could happen if these factions continue to insist on
amending the Constitution's preamble and Article 29 on religion
to include the proposed clause?

That would cause social disintegration, not only between
Muslims and non-Muslims but also among Muslims themselves.

Non-Muslims, particularly Christians and Catholics, will fear
being discriminated against by the state and will doubt whether
their rights will be respected. Unlike Muslims, some of whom
think the state must play a role in the enforcement of Islamic
law, Christians and Catholics believe the government should not
interfere in religious affairs.

Meanwhile, because Indonesian Muslims have different levels of
understanding of and attachment to Islam, the reintroduction of
the proposed clause will cause friction among Muslims. The
abangan Muslims (those who do not adhere strictly to Islam) will
surely resist it on the grounds that they are not mentally
prepared to implement Islamic teachings.

Would the reintroduction of the clause in the Constitution
turn Indonesia into an Islamic state?

Some Islamic groups want to establish an Islamic country by
imitating other countries, like Saudi Arabia and Iran. But based
on Islamic norms, it is questionable whether such countries can
be said to be Islamic. Saudi Arabia, for example, is said to use
the Koran as its constitution but laws are not enforced fairly
there because there is legal discrimination between citizens and
foreigners. Moreover, whether a kingdom has an administrative
system acceptable to Islam is still debatable.

Thus we can say that their proposal is based on the false
assumption that it would, if implemented, solve problems. But, in
fact, there is no such guarantee. Legal problems are so complex.

Now that the MPR has decided to continue deliberating the
proposal at next year's Annual Session, what measures should we
take to reduce social friction?

Muslim organizations, like the Indonesian Ulemas Council,
should take the initiative to sponsor in-depth discussions about
the consequences of the implementation of syariah based on
normative, historical, sociological and political perspectives.

Dialogs should also be held between Muslim and non-Muslim
groups, so non-Muslim parties will not be haunted by exaggerated
fears about the implementation of syariah, which could encourage
them to make threats to take up a separatist movement. (Rikza
Abdullah)