The controversy of alleged treason against Gus Dur

There are two flaws in the controversial argument regarding "treason" (bughot), says Salim Segaf Al Jufri, chairman of the sharia board of the Justice Party. Excerpts of the interview follow:

Question: Gus Dur's supporters have mobilized themselves to declare jihad, to die as martyrs for him. What do you think about this?

Answer: I believe Islam does not teach anyone to die for another person. Syahid or martyrdom is only for the defense of the faith, for the cause of Allah. Muslims declare jihad to defend their faith based on the Koran and the Sunnah (Prophet's tradition and teaching).

This mobilization of (fighters) with the goal (of defending the President) is something that should be corrected. The NU ulema should be advised (of their mistake) but I am sure there are other NU scholars who do not think along the same lines.

If people go ahead and die in the process, I am afraid they would not die as a martyr. Because even if one goes to war to defend his faith and desires to be praised for his bravery, he would not die as a martyr but in accordance with his intention (to reap praise).

What about this concept of bughot?

A discussion by a group of NU scholars in East Java about the religious laws on bughot occurred when media reports intensified about the apparent inability of President Abdurrahman Wahid to carry out the mandate of reform, to cope with his physical and moral deficiencies and suspicions about his involvement in corrupt practices. The ulema discussed whether the criticism and opposition of the legislators, students and his opponents could be classified as bughot.

This is an Arabic and Islamic term, derived from the term baghi -- people who cause destruction on earth. Ulema have defined the term as groups of Muslims who abandon their loyalty toward their legitimate leaders for certain reasons, and who take up arms in their opposition.

Cessation of loyalty is defined as refusal to obey the words of their imam who enjoins them to do good, such as giving alms and participating in jihad.

The law on bughot, and all of its consequences, is applicable only in an Islamic administration that follows Islamic laws and whose leaders are legitimate according to Islamic values. In countries that do not implement Islamic laws and whose leaders have not been elected through Islamic means, this law cannot be applied. Just as those countries cannot apply Islamic law in cases of adultery and murder.

In Indonesia, consequently, treason can only be dealt with by existing law such as the constitution or the criminal code.

Is abandoning leaders, or bughot, permissible in Islam? It is forbidden (haram) but for those who initiate (bughot), it does not necessarily mean they have abandoned Islam because Allah calls the two (conflicting) groups the faithful (mu'min).

As is said in the Sura Al-Hujuraat verse 9: "And when two groups of you mu'min go to war, reconcile them. When one of the two groups bughot (act in excess or cruelty) against the other, take them to war until they return to Allah. When they have returned, (again) reconcile them in justice and be just. Verily, Allah likes those who are just."

Muslims who commit cruelty must indeed be fought against and the community should support their leaders in fighting against them. They should stop fighting them as soon as they have returned and obeyed the teaching of Allah. Prophet Muhammad said, "Do you know the law of Allah for those who bughot from their congregation? ... Allah has ruled that those who escape should not be pursued, those captured should not be killed, and those who are wounded must not be treated with cruelty."

(Scholar) Ash-Shan'ani, who wrote the book Subulus Salam (the path of peace), said that when a group of Muslims defect but do not take up arms, the government should let them be. Taking a different stance from a leader is no reason (for the ruler) to fight them.

The school of Syafi'i differs from other schools of ulema in its belief that there is no sin in committing bughot. They take a different stance citing legitimate reasons and because they have are capable of ijtihad (the ability to engage in intellectual exercise by coming up with new perspectives).

I am sure the ulema (of NU) would never arbitrarily brand another group of Muslims as bughot. They must refer to certain criteria before saying outright that so and so is guilty of bughot. (The label can only be given to) Muslims who oppose and want to remove their leaders, without good reason.

But if the group has justifiable reasons, for instance because the leader is cruel or corrupt, that is not bughot. Instead, it is the leader who should cease the cruelty and sins he has been committing. The community, in addition, must not support that leader, because to do so would be tantamount to facilitating cruelty and sin.

The second reason why the group can not be considered bughot?

When they do not take up arms in their opposition. Islam respects differences of opinion, which must be settled by referring back to the Koran and the Sunnah. The Muslims' obedience toward Allah and the Prophet should be absolute, while obedience toward leaders is relative.

Further, when a community elects a leader, they agree to recognize their leadership because they wish to feel safe and secure. When security no longer exists, that is because the leader is either weak or cruel. The members of that community are allowed to abandon that leader, or even demand that he step down.

So is it not the NU scholars' place to judge whether Gus Dur's enemies are bughot?

Citing Islamic arguments for the secular administration of Indonesia is a mistake. As is demanding the public demonstrate Islamic-style loyalty, with all its ramifications, to the government of Indonesia.

What is more important is for the ulema and the Muslims in Indonesia to do their best in implementing Islamic law in all spheres of their lives. They should work toward the implementation of Islamic law in the Indonesian constitution. (Santi W.E. Soekanto)