Nurrohman, Lecturer, Sunan Gunung Jati State Institute
for Islamic Studies, Bandung, [email protected]
Reports by Muslim scholars concluding that most Muslim
countries are undemocratic comes as no surprise. Although musyawarah
mufakat (deliberation directed by wisdom to reach consensus)
is widely accepted among Muslims, not all of them can easily
accept democracy.
To some scholars, deliberation is not the same as democracy.
Deliberation is ordered by the Koran, while democracy is not. The
main argument rejecting democracy is that the truth and the good
cannot be dictated by the vote of the majority. Gambling,
adultery, liquor are all forbidden under religious teaching, which
cannot be changed even if the majority of people so desire. The
truth and the good should come from God. God is the final measure
of the truth. Human beings did not understand the truth and what
is good until God revealed them through His prophet.
Therefore, the attitude of Muslims toward regulations that are
clearly featured in the Koran is just taken for granted. These
type of regulations are deemed sacred and immutable. It should be
imposed wherever and whenever. They are outside the domain of ijtihad
(interpretation). To the mutasyabihat (verses that have no
clear meaning), laymen are not allowed to interpret them. Muslims
should leave these matters to ulemas who are qualified to
understand Islamic teaching. This is because just one opinion is
right while the other is wrong. Clerics should search for it
individually or collectively. In this regard, ulemas behave on
behalf of God.
In this regard, the view that only a limited form of democracy,
called teo-democracy, which is held by some Muslim scholars, such
as al-Maududi a noted Pakistani scholar, has a big influence in
Indonesia. According to this view, democracy must be directed by
religious tenets or sharia (Islamic law). To guarantee that the
law does not contradict sharia, the body, made up of ulemas,
should be established to oversee the law-making process that is
commonly conducted by the legislature.
Therefore, that body should have the power to halt or revoke
the law, even though it has been accepted by the legislature, if
they deem it to be not in accordance with sharia.
This type of thinking is based on the premise that religion
cannot be separated with politics or state (al-Islam din wa
dawlah). Sharia is viewed as an exclusive law rather than an
inclusive law which offers laymen the opportunity to participate
in formulating its rule. Iran adopts this view. Taken from the
concept suggested by Khomaeni, Iran has a body named the Guardian
Council that can veto legal affairs. This model of interpretation,
although it is not democratic, has large numbers of followers in
Muslim countries.
To develop democracy in Muslim countries, therefore, another
model of interpretation should also be introduced. Of course, this
model may be the opposite of the former model. Muslims should
begin to accept that the truth not only came from revelations
carried by the Prophet but that it possibly came from the human
mind itself through common sense. The combined effort of human
minds, known as ijtihad, should be defined. Borrowing
Fazlul Rahman words, it is a multiple effort of thinking minds --
some naturally better than others, and some better than others in
various areas -- which confront each other in an open arena of
debate, resulting eventually in overall consensus.
In an open arena of debate, all opinion, wherever it comes from
and whoever addresses it, should be treated equally. Nobody should
be given a privileged position. Everybody has the right to
participate in decision making, especially when it is concerns
public matters. If consensus cannot be achieve through debate, a
majority vote will be taken.
This thinking is based on the assumption that human beings
actually know what is good and bad. With or without revelations,
men and women, irrespective of their religion, are actually aware
of what is wrong and right, as long as their opinion is guided by
their consciousness. Consciousness is the spirit of God that is
given to each person, man or woman, from the early beginning. That
is what makes human beings different to animals.
Therefore, in public matters, as long as there is no political
engineering or oppression, vox populi vox Dei (the voice of
the people is the voice of God).
Prophet Muhammad was once asked by his friend, who was unable
to make a decision, for suggestions. He answered that it is better
to ask your own consciousness.
From the above explanation, it is clear that there are two
types of thinking that can be used to encourage or discourage the
process of democratization in Indonesia. It is also clear that
these two types of thinking are linked to theology. Since both of
them are rooted in Islamic teaching, it is up to each Muslim to
choose. What we must bear in mind is that someone or some group
should not be allowed to undermine the other. Freedom of thinking
should be preserved.
I personally choose the second type of thinking because it is
more appropriate to develop democracy in Indonesia.