By: Abdurrahman Wahid
In al-Quran mentioned: “you come into Islam (peace) in full (udkhulû fi al-silmi Kaffah)” (Surah alBaqarah : 208). Herein lies a fundamental difference of opinion among the Muslims. If the word “al-silmi” translates to the word Islam itself there should be a formal Islamic entity, with the necessity to create an Islamic system. While they are translating the word peace adjective, referring to a universal entity, which does not need to be spelled out by a certain system, including the Islamic system. For those who are familiar with the formalization, of translation used the word al-silmi the Islamic word, and thus they are bound to a system that is supposed to represent the whole embodiment of the teachings of Islam in life as something innocuous. This carries implications of the need for a system that can be representative of the overall aspirations of the Muslims. Therefore, it is understandable why there is considered an important manifestation of “Islamic political party” in political life.
Of course, democracy teaches us to respect to Islamic parties existence, but this does not mean having to follow them. On the other hand, we also have to respect the rights of those who are questioning the presence of the Islamic system, which will automatically make them non-Muslims as citizens of the world who lost to the Muslims. It also means, that within the framework of a “nation state”, an Islamic system automatically creates a non-Muslim citizen are understanding citizens are Muslims, aka become second-class citizens. It should be questioned, because it will also have an impact on the Muslims who do not live the teachings of Islam in full. Muslims like this, -often called nominal or abangan Muslims, would be considered less Islamic than those who are members / citizens of the party / organization that runs the full teachings of Islam, which is also commonly known as “the students”.
If there is an opinion about the need for an Islamic system, then why is there non-organizational provisions should be applied in the holy book of the Muslims by the al-Quran? A paragraph stating that there are five requirements to be considered a “good Muslim”, as mentioned in the verses of al-Quran holy book, which accepts the principles of faith, the teachings (pillars) of Islam as a whole, to help those who need help (relatives, orphans, the poor, and so on) to uphold professionalism and be patient in the face of trials and tribulation. Loyalty to the profession, described by al-Quran holy book with the term, “they are fulfilling their promise to give” (wa al-mûfûna bi ‘ahdihim idzâ’ âhadû) (QS alBaqarah : 177). Is there a promise of more value than a promise to each profession, which was delivered when read pledges Prasetia accept a position at the time?
If the five conditions above are implemented by a Muslim, without accepting the existence of an Islamic system, by itself is no longer required a systemic framework according to the teachings of Islam. Thus, to realize an Islamic system does not include a requirement for a person to be considered “devout Muslim”. It became a point of dispute is very important because in many places have grown to understand that is not concerned with the meaning of the system.
So when NU (Nahdlatul Ulama) states the declaration of the PKB (National Awakening Party), without mentioning that the party is the party of Islam, the author sharply between ma bombarded with criticism for months from those who want the party declared as an Islamic party. This is done by those who are not aware, that NU from the beginning has been to accept the presence of different efforts within a state or a nation’s life and do not want to be stuck in an-nushush tasyis al-muqaddasah (politicization of religious texts).
In the NU Congress 1935 in Banjarmasin, the conference had to answer a question: should for the Muslims defend the region then called the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) The people are ruled by non-Muslims (the Dutch colonialists)? Answer congress at that time; compulsory. Because in the region, which later was named Indonesia, Islam can be practiced in everyday life by the free citizens of the nation, and there first Islamic kingdoms in the region. Thus, the Islamic system does not have to be made, and appreciated the different ways and opinions among the Muslims in the region.
NU dictum in the Banjarmasin, allowing NU to support the leadership of the late President Soekarno and Hatta to lead this nation. Similarly, the establishment of formal bodies of Islam is not the only medium for the struggle to implement the teachings of Islam in the archipelago. NU is officially a Muslim community organization rather than political institutions, may have aspirations about the implementation of Islamic teachings in the region through Golkar (Functional Group) as an Islamic organization that is not official. The difference in the struggle between the agency adopts Islam as a system on the one hand, and those who do not want to carry the struggle through the official channels of Islam, appreciated and accepted by the supporters of Ibn Taymiyyah a few centuries ago.
Then, what is known adage that Islam; “There is no Islam without the group, no group with no leadership, and no leadership without subordination” (La Islama Illa Jama’ah bi bi Emirate wala wala Jama’ata Illa Illa Bi Imarata Tha’ah). Is not this already indicates the existence of a system, then the answer is that there is nothing in the phrase that shows specifically the existence of an Islamic system. Thus, every system is recognized by the expression of the truth, as long as he fought the enactment of Islamic teachings in the life of a nation / state.
Because the authors argue, in the view of Islam is not compulsory presence of an Islamic system, this means that there is no necessity to establish an Islamic state. It is important to remember, because even now there are those who want to enter the Jakarta Charter into the Constitution (Basic Law) us. With claims to establish a state for the sake of Islam is clearly opposed to democracy. Because it is meaningful understand the rule of law on the one hand and equal treatment of all citizens before the law on (the Act) on the other.
Islamic countries, is there a concept?
There is a very interesting question to know the answer; what exactly is the Islamic concept of the state?
To what extent this is felt by the thinkers of Islam itself? And, what is the consequence of this concept if there ever? The series of questions above need to be addressed here, because in the last few years a lot of thought about the proposed Islamic State, which has implications for people who do not use thought it was judged to have left Islam. The answers to a series of questions that can be simplified in view of the author with the words: no. The writer considers Islam as a way of life (Shariah) does not have a clear concept of the state. Why did the author think so? Because throughout his life, the author has searched in vain creatures called the Islamic State. Until even this day he has not found it, any, it is wrong to conclude Islam does not have a concept of how the state should be created and maintained.
The basis of that answer is the lack of raw opinion in the Islamic world about two things. Firstly, Islam does not recognize a clear and definite views about the succession. Replaced Prophet Sayyidina Abu Bakr-three days after his death. During that time the community of the Muslims, at least in Medina, waiting patiently for instructions on how scarcity it solved. After three days, all agreed that Sayyidina Abu Burn which replaces the Prophet through bai’at / Prasetia. The promise was made by the chiefs / their representatives, and thus, the Muslims will avoid disaster.
Sayyidina Abu Bakr before she died, told the community of the Muslims, Umar Bin Khattab should be appointed to replace him, which means the appointment of a replacement has taken way, before being replaced died. This is certainly the same as the appointment of a Vice-President by a President to replace him in modern times. When Umar was stabbed Abu Lu’luah and are at the end of his life, he asked that the council appointed a selector (ahl halli electoral college wa al-aqdli), which consists of seven people, including his son, Abdullah, who should not be elected as his replacement . Then, they agreed to raise Uthman ibn Affan as head of state / head of government.
Henceforth, Uthman was replaced by Ali ibn Abi Talib. At that time, Abu Sufyan was preparing his grandchildren to fill the above position, in lieu of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Thus was born, the kingdom with a clan system which lowers the candidate king / sultan in Islam until the caliphate Usmaniyyah / ottoman empire that by the “political Islam” is considered as a prototype of government should be adopted simply as a “formula Islamic”. Similarly, the magnitude of which is drafted in accordance with Islamic states, also unclear size. The Prophet left Medina without any clarity as to the form of government for the Muslims. In the Umar bin Khattab, Islam is the world empire from the Atlantic to the east coast of Southeast Asia. It turns out that there is no clarity whether an Islamic state or a nation-sized global course (insight ethnicity), is also not clear; nation-state (nation-state), or city-state (city-state) the conceptual form. In this case, Islam became like communism: Which comes first, the socialization of a nation-state as the state ideology of the parent, or wait until the entire foundation of the world of Islam, new thought forms of the state and its ideology? Responding analogy Communist countries, which of precedence between the opinion of Joseph Stalin or Leon Trotsky?
Of course, this debate does not like Stalin to kill Trotsky in Mexico. This becomes very important, because it suggests the idea of an Islamic state without conceptual clarity, means letting the ideas were torn apart because of differences of opinion leaders of Islam itself. For example, chaos in Iran, between the “moderate leader” like President Khatami with the conservative mullahs like Khamenei, today. The one thing they agreed upon was the name “Islam” itself. Perhaps, they also disagreed about the “kind” of Islam that will be applied in the country, should Shia Islam or something more “universal”? If it should follow that Shi’ism, is not the idea of an Islamic state then becomes a mere minority-owned? Would not be the views Shi’ism was only one of the eight people in the world are Muslims?
It is clear that the idea of an Islamic state is not something that is conceptual and is not followed by the majority of the Muslims. He was only considered by a number of leaders, who is too see Islam than mere institutional angle. Not to mention if discussed further, in the sense of how it is with those who reject this idea, are there they still deserve to be called Muslims or not? In fact, it is the majority who reject the religion? If forwarded to another question, the idea would be messy: in what way he will be realized? By way of terror or to “punish” non-Muslims? What about the Muslim thinkers who defend their rights, such as the writer lived? Eligible authors called terrorists, even though he strongly opposes the use of violence to achieve a goal. Then, why the author should also be responsible for the actions of a minority group who become terrorists?
From: Islamku, Islam Anda, Islam Kita