, The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Sat, 05/11/2002 7:41 AM | Opinion
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment