Sharia State or Secular State

For the last year, the campaign of sharia formalization has enlivened the national political discourse. Its echo is reverberating not only in the center, but across the regions. At the least, the birth of the regional regulation which encourages sharia has strengthened the assumption that the group which demands sharia as a political “blue print” has gained in strength. The annual session addressing the issue was flooded by thousands people from religious organizations like Hizbut Tahrir, FPI among others, so as to bring “political pressure” to bear on the legislative assembly and so as to highlight the Jakarta Charter in the constitution.

That phenomenon is affirming the polar paradigmatic goals of whether this country becomes a “sharia state” or a “secular state”. Even though the national political map indicates the superiority of the secular state, it is difficult to eliminate the support for a “sharia state”. We have to celebrate this diversity in a space conducive to discourse and avoid any kind of violence and force so that we are able to actualize the common dream of becoming a nation that honors diversity and freedom of opinion.

ShariaState

The discourse of “sharia state” actually is not a new one in political Islam discourse. It is central discourse in all muslim countries and the central aim off many religious organizations which loudly advocate the “sharia state” like Ikhwan Muslimin (Egypt), Jamaat Islamiyah (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) and FIS (Aljazair).

Ahmad Sanhuri (926) describes the attempt of enforcing sharia through the terms al-hukumah al-islamiyah al-naqishah (a minimalist Islamic government). He means that previously when Islamic supremacy was widespread and articulated in the khilafah system, the pinnacle of Islamic authority lay in a leader. But, currently political Islam is expressed in the minimal form of an Islamic government enforcing a “sharia state”. This tendency is characteristic of the Islamic world since the fall of the Ottoman dynasty.

People question the main agenda of the “sharia state”? If they merely desire “Islamization”, why should the use state as a tool? This question is important as it is pro-”sharia state” advocates who were said to be fundamentalist. Cannot sharia be executed freely by its disciples without using a “sharia state” system?

In looking into sharia formalization we can draw two important conclusions. Firstly, the “sharia state” is born as an alternative to the failure of the secular system. This motive is often mentioned for building an Islamic society. Yusuf al Qardlawi for instance, a muslim thinker who argues that the “sharia state” is an alternative to the secular system’s destruction of values and morality. To Qardlawi, Islam has a set of value and thoughts useful for building a just and civilized society using al Qur’an and Sunnah as the building blocks.

This is a common view used by all sharia advocates. The idea is that sharia in its perfection can solve all the problems facing this nation. Nevertheless they forget that sharia as a religious doctrine can be understood in different ways. Sharia practiced in the form of fikh (Islamic jurisprudence) invites different opinions (ikhtilaf). Fikh certainly relates to socio-cultural matters, mainly politics. Socio-anthropologically, the choice of a mazhab (Islamic school of thought), is more of a political choice than a doctrinal one. Why is mazhab of Syafiie implemented in the Eastern Arab world, and why do Western Arabs choose Hanafi and Maliki instead? This relates to political factors of the rulers who believe in a mazhab and seek unification. Hence, the opinions of post modernist thinkers such as Michel Foucault, who mentioned that religion is a political force, can be justified. In those terms, there is functional relation between this discourse and power. The question is this, if eventually “sharia state” becomes a mere “political movement”, wouldn’t it endure a similar failure whenever it is unable to disseminate humanity, justice and equality.

Secondly, the “sharia state” is said to be resistant towards modernity. Religious thinkers like Karen Amstrong are included in this school. In her observations of contemporary religious movements, she affirmed the existence of a common tendency working against modernity which may be symbolized as global capitalism. Herein modernity doesn’t carry blessings only, but also disasters for local identities. Therefore this sort of movement, to her, could be used to build resistance. The discourse against modernity is not only a common view in religious movements but also a central theme in the third world’s discourse.

If the “sharia” state is positioned in the context of resistance to modernity, it might gain support of the people of the world since no one can side with global oppression. But the main problem is that the “sharia state” as a form of resistance to modernity is only a secondary target. The main target is its “maximal state” which has a political dimension, though the leader of Muhammadiyah, Syafi’i Ma’arif, is right to say that should that happen the pro -”sharia state” movement would only gain the cup of failure.

Secular State

The “secular state” discourse is not detached from defect and weakness. On the national scale, we find the incapability of the secular system to solve problems like ethnic conflict and economic crisis. On the global scale, the global secular system has trapped the third world through political and economic hegemony. Thus the “sharia state” advocates want to destroy the secular system.

Therefore, we should understand the secular system, in this case democracy. As a system, democracy is a “middle way” between extremes. The sacred word in democracy is institutionalization based on the values of equality, plurality, humanity and equality. Democracy needs the realization of justice so that it can avoid authoritarianism and minimize every kind of oppression based on religion, politics or economy.

Olivier Roy (994) in The Failure of Political Islam had a sharp critique of the political Islamic circle who are intent on supremacy and who ignore the dimensions of humanity, plurality, justice and equality. To him, Iran is the best example provided in a Muslim community since it has institutionalized religious thinking. Hence, our problem is not merely establishing a “sharia state” or “secular state”, but an endeavor to institutionalize justice, humanity, equality and diversity.

---

Zuhairi Misrawi. Alumnus of al-AzharUniversity, Cairo-Egypt and Coordinator of Emancipator Islam Network, P3M, Jakarta.

(Translated by Lanny Octavia, edited by Jonathan Zilberg)