Islam and Secularism in Indonesia: Caliphate

Showing posts with label Caliphate. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Islamic caliphate revival unnecessary, unrealistic

Published on The Jakarta Post (http://www.thejakartapost.com)

, The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Fri, 08/10/2007 1:00 PM | Opinion

Muhamad Ali, Hawai, Manoa

Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) will host an international caliphate conference on Sunday in Jakarta, inviting speakers from various Islamic organizations. It remains to be seen the extent to which the idea of an international caliphate gains support in Indonesia and the Muslim world, but the revival of the world Islamic caliphate is neither a religious obligation nor a realistic endeavor.

According to the HTI, the caliphate is a form of leadership aimed at unifying all Muslim people around the world, with the objective of implementing Islamic sharia and conducting Islamic proselytizing (da'wa) throughout the world. The Islamic caliphate is a political system with a caliph or imam as the head of government with his deputies and functionaries.

In their reading, the last Islamic caliphate had to end in 1924 when the Ottoman Empire fell during the World War I. For them, the Muslim community today is no longer under the true Islamic leadership that is the caliphate, and they have lived under a secular political order which appears to have failed to meet Islamic needs.

According to them, it is not the existing presidents, monarchs or prime ministers of the nation-states that should lead, serve, and protect the Muslim people. Only one world Islamic leader, a sort of Muslim papacy, should lead Muslims; the caliph has to be trustworthy and should base his policies upon Islamic sharia only.

The goal of this modern caliphate movement remains the unity of both sentiment and politics, which has been a compelling but unrealized dream. Hizbut Tahrir was intellectually founded by Taqiyuddin al-Nabhany (1905-1978) in Lebanon.

He produced a number of works, including Nizham al-Islam (Islamic government) in which he promotes the ideas of Islamic unity, male leadership, of Arabic as the only Islamic language, the punishment for Muslim conversion to other religions.

He also proposed the prohibition of political parties not based on Islam, the unlimited period of the caliph, the definition of jihad as the military force, the shu'ra as the right of Muslims and not the right of non-Muslims, and other ideas.

There is some appeal to unite all Muslims when they feel under siege and they see they are subjugated by ""foreign"" forces. There is a strong spirit among its leaders and followers to pursue an Islamic order they believe is not being achieved within the existing political order.

The above observation seems to make sense among desperate and utopian Muslim scholars and leaders. However, there is no instruction to create a political caliphate system in the Koran and in the Hadith. The term khalifah in one verse of the Koran denotes vice regent in its general term.

The history of Muslim rulers, imams, sultans, or caliphs, is not a perfect history; Islamic history is not a history without dark sides of its actors; it contains glories and weaknesses, rises and falls, justice and exploitation, successes and crises, integration and conflicts. There is no guarantee that having caliphs solve all problems.

It is misleading to believe that to revive an Islamic political caliphate is a religious obligation for every Muslim. This argument is not based on a sound interpretation of the Koran, the Hadith, and complex Muslim history.

It is also misleading to view Western civilization as the opposite of an Islamic civilization. It is historically untrue to believe that there is one unified Western civilization and that there is only a destructive Western civilization.

There is no such thing as an Islamic civilization without interaction with other civilizations and cultures. There is no such thing as a unique Western civilization without interactions with various cultures. A shared civilization is the rule rather than the exception when Muslims and non-Muslims lived together and protected their common countries.

The caliphate system is more historical than normative; it cannot be seen as a universal practice to be applied today and in the future. A political system has changed and will change according to time and place. To strengthen the ties of the Muslims wherever they may be does not demand such world political unity as caliphate.

It is historically wrong to blame that all rulers in the West were corrupt, despot, and anti-Islamic. Muslim societies had different experiences under non-Muslim rulers. Many Muslims lived peacefully and could be good Muslims under different religious and non-religious rulers. A more objective reading of both Muslim and non-Muslim histories is crucial.

Today the rulers of Muslims as well as others are the presidents, the prime ministers, the governors, the regents, and other titles within different strata. There is no necessary conflict between the Islamic ummah and the nation-state. The meaning of nation varies and changes, but it has a soul or spiritual principle.

It is a community of people who feel that they belong together in the double sense that they share significant elements of a common heritage and that they have a common destiny for the future. The scope of an Islamic ummah can be international, but can also be national, regional, local, and organizational.

The real challenge facing Muslims today is not the unified political leadership such as caliph, let alone with characteristics promoted by scholars unaware of diverse local histories, cultures, and political systems of Muslims, such as in Indonesia.

Strong, clean and good governance, improved education, cleanness and health, law and order, and other more fundamental issues can be achieved within the existing nation-state system. The real challenges for Muslims today include law enforcement without the formalization of sharia, cultural empowerment without changing the basic political system of the Indonesian nation-state. Other challenges are how to strengthen civil society, and the consolidation of civilized democracy with strong and good governance. Muslims today do not need a caliphate to solve their real problems.

Criticisms against the revival of the caliphate are usually attacked as cynical, secular, anti-Islamic, Islamophobic, and given other labels. If this still comes from some people, they need to reread and reexamine their interpretations of the Koran, the Hadith, Muslim history, and world history, by developing more objective and contextual interpretations.

The writer recently earned his PhD from the University of Hawaii at Manoa under the East-West Center and was a lecturer at the Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University. He is now an assistant professor in Islam at the University of California Riverside. He can be reached at muhali74@hotmail.com.

Source URL: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2007/08/10/islamic-caliphate-revival-unnecessary-unrealistic.html

Islamist group blames democracy for Indonesia's woes

Published on The Jakarta Post (http://www.thejakartapost.com)

, The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Mon, 08/13/2007 1:06 PM

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Despite a national consensus that a democratic system of government is the best solution for Indonesia, an Islamist group says democracy is one of the main reasons why the country is lagging behind others.

Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia spokesman Muhammad Ismail Yusanto said the situation had worsened since the economic crisis hit a number of Asian countries, including Indonesia, in the late 1990s.

""What has democracy brought us?"" asked Ismail during a press conference at the International Caliphate Conference here Sunday.

""Democracy only brings us secular policies, like what's happening nowadays,"" he told reporters, while referring to secularism as being against sharia.

About 100,000 Muslims gathered Sunday at the Bung Karno sports stadium in Senayan, Central Jakarta, for the conference. It was a much bigger crowd than attended the group's first conference, also in Jakarta, in 2000, which was only attended by 5,000 people.

Ismail said the establishment of an Islamic caliphate would help solve this country's problems and increase development.

Official statistics show that currently 39 million Indonesians live in poverty and 22 million people are unemployed.

Millions of children also suffer from malnutrition and are unable to continue at school, Ismail added.

According to Ismail, the establishment of the caliphate would mark the application of sharia in all aspects of life and the reunification of Muslim countries all over the world.

The concept of implementing sharia in Indonesia is not new. During the constitutional debates of 1945, a clause on sharia was briefly incorporated into the constitution, but was then quickly dropped from the draft.

The clause -- ""dengan kewajiban menjalankan syariat Islam bagi pemeluk-pemeluknya"" (with the obligation to live according to Islamic law for Muslims) -- was an add-on to the first principle of Pancasila, which declares belief in ""the one supreme God"".

Muhammadiyah chairman Din Syamsuddin, however, said the idea of caliphate (Khilafah in Arabic) concept in Indonesia would have to conform to the state ideology Pancasila.

""Khilafah shouldn't undermine the inclusivism and pluralism of the nation,"" Din said.

He added that non-muslims did not have to be afraid of the discourse on Khilafah as it was part of the democratic process.

""Khilafah is a good Islamic teaching. We shouldn't reject it,"" he said.

Both Ismail and Din also stated that Hizbut Tahrir was strongly against violence. They urged the international community to be fair in its treatment of Hizbut Tahrir as a Muslim group.

""Hizbut Tahrir doesn't support any (form of) radicalism, especially not terrorism,"" Din stated.

Hizbut Tahrir was founded in Baitul Maqdis, Palestine, in 1953. It is banned in several Arab and Asian countries, but Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia has grown rapidly in recent years since its arrival here in the early 1980s.

Ismail claimed that Hizbut Tahrir has about two million members in Indonesia. (08)

Source URL: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2007/08/13/islamist-group-blames-democracy-indonesia039s-woes.html

Caliphate campaign puts national unity at risk

Published on The Jakarta Post (http://www.thejakartapost.com)

, The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Tue, 08/21/2007 7:21 AM | Opinion

Muhammad Nafik, Jakarta

Friday was the 62nd anniversary of Indonesian independence. We celebrated it as usual, with flag-raising ceremonies, speeches and games as well as other community festivities nationwide.

The celebrations reminded us of how this plural Indonesia was built into the prosperous nation that spans Sabang in Aceh on Sumatra island to Merauke in Papua province, the most eastern part of the country.

""Unity in diversity"" is the key to the soul of this huge nation's survival amid separatist challenges from community groups in several regions disadvantaged by the country's socio-economic development.

A serious threat to national integration is also emerging now from Islamist groups that have been campaigning for the enforcement of sharia in the world's third-largest democracy, after India and the United States.

Yet, many of us, the government in particular, seem to be ignorant that increasing fundamentalism and sectarianism could pose a real danger to national integration and development.

This year's independence anniversary was a timely moment to renew and strengthen the nation's commitment to the unity-in-diversity principle and pluralism mandated in the state ideology Pancasila and the Constitution.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono alluded to this issue in his state-of-the-nation address Thursday, saying the four basic pillars of the state -- Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution, the Unitary State of Indonesia and pluralism -- are non-negotiable and final.

But the statement lacked clarity and weight since the President failed to unveil specific measures to deal with Islamist movements that offer sectarian ideologies to replace Pancasila and reject democracy.

It would have been laudable if the President had used the annual address to heed the repeated calls from the Muslim moderates for the central government to revoke the sharia ordinances being enforced in some regencies and provinces across the nation.

In this case Yudhoyono, who is likely to run for reelection in 1999, appeared hesitant to get tough on sectarian groups, fearing he would lose support from Muslim voters.

The fundamentalism issue is more relevant for a serious discussion today as trans-national Islamist groups, including Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, are increasingly propagating national disintegration through their campaigns for sharia and an Islamic state.

Five days prior to Independence Day, Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia convened in Jakarta for a conference on Aug. 12 to call for a caliphate, khilafah in Arabic, or an Islamic state to govern the world.

The hardline group, banned in several Middle Eastern countries, aims to unite all Muslim countries in a caliphate, ruled by Islamic law and led by an elected head of state or caliph.

It says the caliphate, which was applied during the early years of Islam after the Prophet Muhammad, should be revived because it is the only system that enables Muslims to enforce sharia comprehensively.

Failure or refusal to establish a caliphate is a ""big sin"" for Muslims, the group claims.

At the conference Hizbut Tahrir spokesman Muhammad Ismail Yusanto blasted secularism as ""the mother of all destruction"" on earth, and called for an end to it by establishing a caliphate based on the prophetic tradition.

The International Caliphate Conference got significant attraction worldwide as it received wide coverage from the foreign media.

Since the massive rally held at the national Bung Karno sports stadium attracted some 80,000 Hizbut Tahrir supporters, it created an image that suggested Indonesian moderate Islam was now shifting to fundamentalism.

The claim gained justification with the presence at the forum of prominent Muslim scholar Din Syamsuddin, who leads the country's second largest Muslim organization Muhammadiyah, and the once popular preacher Abdullah ""Aa Gym"" Gymnastiar.

What is called a caliphate is merely a historical romanticism by Hizbut Tahrir because it is not be viable in the changing and modern Muslim world.

There are no authentic references in the Koran and the Sunnah or throughout Islamic history for Muslims to establish an Islamic state and enforce sharia as understood by some Muslims here today.

The term of khalifah is only mentioned in Verse 30 of Sura Baqara, concerning the creation of humans on earth.

Interpreting this verse, most classical Muslim scholars said the mandate of khalifah on earth is not to establish a caliphate but to ensure a prosperous life in the world (in any democratic political system).

The caliphate, according to famous Muslim historian Ibnu Khaldun, as quoted by noted Indonesian scholar Azyumardi Azra, ended with the deaths of the four al-Khulafa al-Rasyidun -- Abu Bakar, Umar bin Khattab, Utsman bin Affan and 'Ali bin Abi Thalib.

And the Islamic political entities -- the dynasties of Umaiyah, Abbasiyah and Utsmaniyah -- which existed after the al-Khulafa al-Rasyidun period, were not caliphs, but Islamic kingdoms or sultanates, Azyumardi further said in an opinion piece published Saturday in a national newspaper.

In this way, Hizbut Tahrir's campaign for the revival of a caliphate to reign over the world is reasonably questionable and misleading since the idea has lost its historical context and textual references in Islam.

But the Aug. 8 conference at the Bung Karno stadium should remain a grim concern for all of us because the event will give further weight to the movement for the enforcement of sharia in Indonesia by the Hizbut Tahrir, the Indonesian Mujahidin Council of former terror convict Abu Bakar Ba'asyir and other Islamist groups including the Prosperous Justice Party.

Any claim that the state can enforce sharia should be completely rejected because the idea undermines democracy and endangers pluralism, thus triggering disintegration.

What the government should do is to join hands with the moderate Muslim groups to perpetually counter the campaign with concrete action to oppose such an anti-pluralist idea.

Public debate is to be promoted consistently among all levels of Muslim communities, focusing on the idea that Islam should stay away from the state and that sharia is an individual obligation, not a state one.

The author is a staff writer at The Jakarta Post.

Source URL: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2007/08/21/caliphate-campaign-puts-national-unity-risk.html

Questioning theocratic caliphate

Published on The Jakarta Post (http://www.thejakartapost.com)

, The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Fri, 08/24/2007 1:28 PM | Opinion

Nurrohman, Bandung

After discussions on political Islam with caliphate activists on and off my campus, I've got the impression that their ideal caliphate system is still the same as that described by EIJ Rosenthal in his book Islam in the Modern National State -- that sovereignty belongs to God and authority is vested in the khalifa as the vicegerent of the prophet, the messenger of Allah.

It is the duty of the caliph to implement sharia to defend the faith against heresy and the faithful against attack, and to ensure their ability to live by the prescriptions of sharia and thus attain happiness in this world and in the hereafter.

If it is translated into a state constitution the formulation will be close to Iran's constitution: All legislation for the administration of society will revolve around the Koran and Sunnah. Accordingly, the exercise of meticulous and earnest supervision by just, pious and committed scholars of Islam is an absolute necessity.

In the caliphate system it is the elites, rather than people, who represent God's absolute power. Therefore, in criticizing this system, Khaled Abou El-Fadl, in his book Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law, said that while Muslims in general, arguably, are God's viceroys on this earth (khulafa fi al-ard), it is the rulers and jurists who traditionally have enjoyed the power to speak for the divine law.

So if the caliphate will be reestablished in Muslim countries the challenges might come not only from non-Muslims but also from Muslims themselves who believe that a democratic and secular or at least neutral state would be more suitable and better for them.

However, the two traditional duties of the caliphate, harasatu al-din (protecting religion) and siyasatu al-dunya (managing the world) might be still relevant if their application is adjusted to the current demand. Harasatu al-din in the current context should be translated into protecting religion in its broader meaning, not merely the religion of the mainstream, which means that every religion or sect has the right to exist and must be protected.

Meanwhile siyasatu al-dunya should be understood as the effort to establish a world order based on peace, equality, justice and welfare for all.

The caliphate should be based on principles agreed upon by all elements in society, as exemplified by the prophet Muhammad through Madina charter. It should be focused on systems rather than figures.

But considering the spirit of nationalism embedded in the heart of every Muslim in various nations, the idea to establish the caliphate as the sole theocratic political system for Muslims in the world is unrealistic if not utopian.

Since the Koran is polyphonic in nature, and since everyone has the inner power that can illuminate from within no one deserves a monopoly on understanding the Koran. In religious matters, the problem faced by Muslims is how they can respect each other by keeping unity in diversity and by leaving the final decision to God.

The main problem faced by Muslim countries in worldly matters is the low quality of human resources, which in turn produce unemployment, poverty and dependency. Muslims, especially in Indonesia, need concrete answers to their economic difficulties not merely political rhetoric such as dengan khilafah hidup menjadi berkah (by the caliphate the life will be blessed). Muslims as well as well non-Muslims should work together to create a better world order.

In discussion with fellow non-Muslims it is difficult to answer when they ask me to show them an example of a sharia state that has successfully brought welfare and social justice to its people. Speaking frankly, I dare not point to Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan as examples of the good governance mandated by Islamic political ideals.

In a democratic atmosphere, it is the right of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia to promote the caliphate, but it also the right of others to criticizes the content of this concept, particularly that which has no relevance the current situation.

The writer is a lecturer at the Department of Law and Sharia at Bandung State Islamic University. He also manages the Institute for Study and Human Resource Development in Bandung, West Java.

Source URL: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2007/08/24/questioning-theocratic-caliphate.html

Sharia and caliphate for a better Indonesia

Published on The Jakarta Post (http://www.thejakartapost.com)

Muhammad Ismail Yusanto , Jakarta | Wed, 04/23/2008 1:07 AM | Opinion

The Jakarta Post recently published Prijosusilo's opinion "Comparing the Ahmadiyah and the Hizbut Tahrir" (The Jakarta Post, April 16, 2008). Obviously, there are critical points that ought to be addressed.

Prijosusilo has not backed up his statements with clear arguments or facts. For instance, he has accused HT of adopting Lenin's and Trotsky's styles of political movement. It is unfortunate that such an accusation did not cite any evidence gathered from any HT official literature. Rather, he cited largely an opinion of former HT activist, Ed Husain, without further references.

Furthermore, Prijosusilo has chosen to hide the fact that the verdicts of Muslim scholars against Ahmadiyah was due to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim of messengership and prophethood, not because of being a messiah after the death of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Accusation against Hizbut Tahrir is not new. In December 2004, The Nixon Center published a book entitled Hizb at-Tahrir: Islam's Political Insurgency by Zeyno Baran. Both Baran and Prijosusilo voice highly similar opinions regarding HT, including opinions that HT instigates hatred against the West, propagates anti-Semitic expression, supports terrorism and adopts communist methods of political struggle.

With regard to the accusation of instigating hatred, one must see the object of the hatred itself. As a political party, HT has vehemently opposed Israeli occupation in Palestine and the American brutal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. One must ask again, is it wrong to hate those clear oppressions?

Prijosusilo seemed oblivious to the reason why HT has expressed certain opinions, conveniently accusing HT of merely spreading wholesale hatred against America and its western allies. Prijosusilo must know that HT has maintained consistent opposition against capitalism.

Furthermore, hatred against American capitalist policies has become commonplace in different parts of the world as shown by massive demonstrations against capitalism and the "war on terror".

One must also be clear that HT resisted the formation of the Israeli state at the expense of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, Islam has never been interested in purging Palestine from its Jewish or Christian inhabitants. Therefore, anti-Semitic accusation is misplaced, since the Islamic mission is ultimately providing justice to humanity.

History has witnessed the coexistence of Jewish and Muslim populations under the shade of the Islamic Caliphate for 13 centuries. Jewish citizens of the Islamic state enjoyed living standards that were at par with their fellow Muslim citizens. Non-Muslim and Muslim citizens both had protected access to welfare, peace, tranquility and security, as documented by Will Durant in his book The story of civilization.

Second, HT has adopted a nonviolent method to changing society, which begins with changing prevalent thoughts in society itself without the threat of violence. HT is an intellectual political entity seeking to challenge the current societal frame of thought via public discussions, seminars and debates. HT forbids the use of violence and armed struggle to overthrow current rulers as methods to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate.

Acknowledgement of this nonviolent method was expressed by Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan in an interview with Al-Jazeera on May 17, 2005. Moreover, Bill Rammell, who served as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, also stated there is no incriminating evidence of HT involvement in violence or with al-Qaeda (Hansard, 19/4/04). There is not a single European state banning HT's existence on the grounds of terror involvement.

Third, HT's method is clearly different from the communist movement. There will be no armed struggle or violence to justify the acquisition of power.

Baran has fallen into the fallacy of composition (a misplaced generalization). Obviously, the hierarchical structure of any organization cannot be said to be an exclusive trait of communist party structure. Following Baran's logic, military and parochial organizations should be labeled communists as well.

In addition, Baran also pointed out that both HT and the Communist party have pursued utopian objectives, as stated in their manifesto. Baran's statement may be true for communism, which never established a true communist state from the very day of its inception. However, Islamic ruling system (the Caliphate) is not a utopian dream, since it has existed for 13 centuries and has been led by many successors (Caliphs) of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Fourth, Prijosusilo has not disclosed the facts that the majority of Muslim states banning HT are repressive and dictatorial states like Uzbekistan, Egypt, and Syria. Dictatorial regimes have killed, tortured and imprisoned HT activists for criticizing injustice and calling for a just Islamic system of governance.

Fifth, the duty to reinstate a Caliphate cannot be compared with the deviancy of Ahmadiyah. The obligation to have an Islamic State is a mainstream opinion adopted by well-known orthodox Sunni scholars. Shaykh Abdurrahman al-Jazairi stated, "Scholars of the well-known Sunni school of legal thought, such as Abu Hanifah, Malik, Syafi'iy and Ahmad, have reached a consensus that the existence of a Caliphate is a must. The Muslim community must appoint a ruler (Caliph), who has duty to propagate the Islamic call and empower the frail and downtrodden."

Similar thoughts are also stated by Ibnu Hazm in al-Fashlu fil Milal wa al-Ahwa wa an-Nihal. The rest of the classical scholars have also expressed similar opinions in their books, such as Ibnu Khaldun in Muqaddimah, Imam Al-Mawardi in Ahkbm as-Sulthoniyah, Imam al-Qurthubi in his tafseer al-Jami li Ahkam al-Qur'an al-Azhim and Imam An Nawawi in Syarh Shahih Muslim.

Last but not least, does HT present a clear and present danger to the Republic? Within the Indonesian context, HT's call for Caliphate symbolizes a resistance to neocolonialism imposed by western capitalists in this nation. Therefore, the call for sharia and Caliphate is a civic duty of the HTI (HT Indonesia) to implement true independence from exploitation in all shapes and forms.

Asked about national sentiments and territorial integrity, HTI has maintained an unapologetic stance to resist any separatist movements. If national commitment means siding with national interests and its people, HTI has voiced loud opposition against policies that are not in favor of our citizens, such as legislations regarding oil and energy, water resources and capital investments.

Those legislations are heavily ladened with capitalist interests and exploit Indonesia's natural resources. However, if nationalism means unconditional allegiance to secularism, HTI takes a firm opposition for a simple reason -- secularism has failed Indonesia time and again. To embrace a better Indonesia, sharia and Caliphate is a strategic choice.

The writer is spokesperson of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia.

Source URL: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/04/22/sharia-and-caliphate-a-better-indonesia.html

Caliphate and sharia law

Published on The Jakarta Post (http://www.thejakartapost.com)

Mohamad Abdun Nasir , Jakarta | Sat, 05/10/2008 10:34 AM | Opinion

This newspaper ran an article by Muhammad Ismail Yusanto, a spokesperson of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI), about sharia and the caliphate (April 23), as a reaction to an article written by Bramanto that appeared several days before. Such a discourse is very healthy. We can have different views and the readiness to appreciate other views -- although probably we do not agree at all -- and an exchange of views will be very helpful not just to promote Islam as a tolerant religion but also to enrich people's horizons.

With this strong spirit to enrich our horizons, I am interested in joining the debate on the issues of sharia and the caliphate.

HTI offers two central discourses: the establishment of a caliphate and the application of sharia law. Both seem to be inseparable; without a caliphate, the sharia application will never be totally accomplished. Therefore, both are complementary to each other. These grand themes in fact constitute the global discourse applied by most Hizbut Tahrir movements in the world and have become the main idea that links their global ideological ground and commonality.

To the HTI, the caliphate constitutes a basic Islamic political institution that will unite all Muslims in the world regardless of their ethnicity, language or culture into a single community called the ummah, which is headed by a caliph. In this view, a caliph merely serves as a God's representative on earth whose duties are to obey God's commands and realize His rules.

Consequently, it denies modern secular political thoughts such as democracy and nationalism. Democracy is seen to be contrary to God's sole sovereignty. Moreover, inconsistencies and double standards in the realization of democracy have strengthened Islamists' criticism of it. Similarly, nationalism, as a logical consequence of the emergence of nation-states, is rejected because it is a Western invention contrary to the concept of ummah.

However, if we closely examine politics in Islam, it is obvious that there is no such strict concept of political Islam like a caliphate. It is a historical creation rather than a normative concept. The power transformation from the Prophet to the subsequent four caliphs took place in different ways.

Abu Bakar became the first caliph through a public pledge of allegiance by the majority of Muslims.

Umar, the second caliph, was elected by a team comprising seven members. While Usman and Ali, the third and the fourth caliphs, reigned after being preceded by political chaos. In this period, a caliph was strictly appointed through a familial lineage. Following this pattern, there is no fixed political system in Islam. It was during the Muslim empires that the concept of caliphate took its firmest definition, formulated through the writings and work of Muslim scholars and jurists who served for the caliph.

As for sharia, with the open era and democratization in Indonesia after reformasi, several Muslim political parties and organizations wish to retrieve the seven lost sharia words -- the obligation to implement sharia for Muslims -- once incorporated in the Constitution but later deleted.

Although this effort has never been successful in the national context due to lack of a national consensus and disagreement among Muslims themselves, it works on provincial and regional levels.

Some local governments have successfully imposed sharia law in regional ordinances and bylaws. Despite its blurry and weak conception, sharia does apply in certain provinces and regencies, like Cianjur, Tasikmalaya and Garut in West Java and in Bulukumba, South Sulawesi. Each sharia ordinance has addressed different legal issues in different regions, and thus reflects the disparity and partiality of the sharia legal conception.

This has become a major critique, that the sharia application lacks fundamental conception and articulation and thus is ineffective. This reflects more the vested interests and ambitions of politicians rather than idealism. Political parties and Islamic organizations that support this issue are a minority.

Islam in Indonesia is not monolithic, but pluralistic. It consists of diverse Islamic organizations, political affiliations, languages and ethnic-cultural identities. The majority of Muslims represented by the two largest Muslim organizations in the country, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah, which decline the idea of an Islamic state, remain moderate. This suggests that the majority of Muslims remain obedient to "Indonesia's diversity in unity" and are attempting to develop Islam in this pluralistic manner. Both sharia and the caliphate thus appear to be less than popular to the Muslim majority.

The writer is a lecturer at Mataram State Institute for Islamic Studies and a Fulbright scholar who is pursuing his PhD in religion at Emory University, Atlanta. He can be reached at sier1975@yahoo.com [1]

Source URL: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/05/10/caliphate-and-sharia-law.html

Links:
[1] mailto:sier1975@yahoo.com

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

'Khilafah' is not compatible

Published on The Jakarta Post (http://www.thejakartapost.com)

, The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Sat, 08/25/2007 1:33 PM | Opinion

Ahmad Amir Aziz, Mataram

The trend for the promotion of the caliphate appears to be a consistent agenda among certain Muslim groups. Thousands of delegates attended Hizbut Tahrir Britain 's national caliphate conference at Alexandra Palace in London on Aug. 4. The conference is part of a month of global activities to revive the caliphate system of government in the Muslim world.

On Aug. 12, Hizbut Tahir Indonesia also hosted a similar activity in Jakarta.

It is important to discuss the caliphate's nature. The caliphate (khilafa in Arabic) is a political system from the ideology of Islam. The legislative sources are the Koran and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. Islam was established as a state in Madinah, beginning a new age in which the Muslims introduced Islam to humankind, opening new lands to Islam. Thereafter, the caliphate shielded the Ummah for centuries, unifying them as a single state and implementing Islam over them.

But in this modern world, the ideology seems too formalistic, if not conservative. Adopting this ideology will spark conflicts not only between Muslims and non-Muslims, but even among Muslims themselves.

Relevant to this context, Abdullah Ahmad An-Naim, a professor at the School of Law at Emory University in Atlanta, said the experiences of his country of origin, Sudan, in the past 20 years should teach other countries not to let the government get involved in sharia. He argued sharia was a private domain (Islam and Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Sharia)

The groups who fight for the implementation of the caliphate are often described as ""soft jihadists"". They are waiting for the establishment of the caliphate before conducting jihad, while ""hard jihadists"" must conduct jihad long before the caliphate's establishment.

This ideology is not compatible with modern and moderate Islam. Indonesia has proved that Islam is compatible with democracy and is the world's third largest democracy after India and the United States. The caliphate is clearly anti-democratic.

Indonesia is a secular state -- although many of us do not like the term ""secular"". As a secular state, it strictly separates state authority from religious authority. This suggests Indonesia is a pluralistic nation-state that rejects the idea of state religion.

We are glad that Indonesia is the largest Muslim country that applies democracy and the principles of a secular state. It needs to remember, however, that once state declares itself secular, it must give every citizen the freedom to accept religion or not. In a more concrete way, secularism is the separation of state and religious affairs. It benefits both religion and the state.

Every religion will be under the protection of the state, which is neutral, rational, and susceptible to critiques, because it is not a part of a sacred institution. Every party in the secular state can be criticized, evaluated, reformed, and even substituted by parties that may be able to lead and prove that they are capable of doing things better.

The state institution becomes neutral, profane, has no divine mandate or sacred values, as are the claims of every religion. The state is liberated from dogmatism. Besides, religion will be free from political intrigue to gain power. So religion can play its role in morality.

I do believe that the majority of Indonesian Muslims prefer to implement their religion in open meaning under a modern, multicultural society without the label of a caliphate. We should not repeat our failure to engage and deal with sharia and conservative groups as we did in Aceh, as well as in other predominantly Muslim countries.

Many of us do not want to see Islam being exploited by conservative groups to promote something new, a different type of Islam that is against local traditions and the nature of Islam itself.

The writer is a lecturer at the State Institute for Islamic Studies in Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara. He can be reached at ahamiraziz@yahoo.co.id.

Source URL: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2007/08/25/039khilafah039-not-compatible.html-0