, The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Thu, 08/15/2002 7:36 AM | Opinion
Abdul Mu'ti, Chairman, National Board Muhammadiyah Youth Movement, Jakarta
The People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) finally reached an agreement on the second alternative among three alternative amendments to Article 29 of the 1945 Constitution on religion. Previously, Islamic parties proposed the adoption of sharia, or Islamic law, as formulated in the Jakarta Charter (Piagam Jakarta).
The second alternative, the one agreed on by the Assembly, was proposed by the nationalist parties and recommended that the MPR maintain the original phrasing of Article 29: ""The state is based on the One God"".
This decision was crucial, especially if we note that the majority of the MPR members are Muslims; and that Islamic parties themselves did not put up a serious struggle for the amendment. Does the decision mean that the adoption of sharia is no longer important?
Although Muslims believe in the significance of sharia, there is disagreement among the ulema. There are the ""scripturalists"", who see sharia as detailed and complete guidance from God for all aspects of life. Sharia deals with religious or spiritual fields, as well as social and political arenas. According to this view, it is obligatory for every Muslim to set up an Islamic state based on sharia. Rejecting this doctrine is regarded as kafir (unbeliever).
The scripturalists' argument goes that Indonesia is not yet a Muslim country since sharia has not been fully implemented. The criminal laws of Indonesian are inconsistent with the law dictated in the Koran and the Sunnah, the written tradition of the Prophet Muhammad. For example, there is no death penalty for murderers and no whipping for adulterers. This inconsistency is said to be the main source of social injustice in Indonesia.
The modernists take a different view. Sharia is believed to be the global guidance from God, as revealed in the Koran and the Sunnah. Sharia consists of two main fields -- spiritual (ibadah) and social or political (muamalah).
According to the argument of the modernists, Ibadah is strictly regulated; no additions, reductions or modifications are permitted. While in muamalah there are no strict regulations from the sharia; just general rules not the details, stressing the essence and the values rather than format.
Political affairs, including the system of state, fall under the muamalah; there is no certain format for an Islamic state, either in the Koran, the Sunnah or in Islamic history. From this perspective, a non-Muslim or secular country might be called Islamic if the political system and its implementation correspond to the sharia.
In this modernist perspective, which is currently more dominant in the country than the scripturalist view, sharia in Indonesian politics is no longer important, and inserting sharia into the Constitution is seen as a possible trigger for conflicts among Muslims and national disintegration.
Despite the fact that attempts to insert the Jakarta Charter in the Constitution have been unsuccessful, this does not necessarily mean that sharia does not or will not work in Indonesia. The second verse of Article 29 of the Constitution clearly states that the government guarantees the freedom of religion and supports the practice of religion.
True, Indonesia is a secular country. There is no Islamic Criminal Code. But there are three national laws specifically for Muslims: the Islamic family law, the alms-giving law and the law on the haj. These laws reflect the government's concern for the needs of Muslims; however Muslims have shown little commitment to these three laws.
Available data shows that most Muslims tend to resolve family problems in state courts rather than courts for religious affairs. And most Muslims prefer secular or conventional banks to Islamic banks.
So if Muslims are really concerned with implementing sharia, the more important issue at hand is developing their commitment to Islam in daily life. This is far more strategic and beneficial than spending all that energy debating sharia. Legal problems in Indonesia are not caused by the absence of sharia or an Islamic Criminal Code, but rather by the failure of the government to enforce the law.
Any possibility of adopting sharia in the future depends on Muslims' commitment to their religious teachings, and how they practice these teachings in a country based on the Pancasila ideology.
No comments:
Post a Comment