FOLLOW US
A. Wahid: Islam and Democracy
Written by H. E. ABDURRAHMAN WAHID, Former President of Indonesia
Thursday, December 20, 2001
Delivered at IIFWP World Summit of Muslim Leaders, December 20-23, 2001
We gather from different parts of the world in this time of need to formulate what should be the position taken by the Muslims in the changing world after what happened on September 11 in New York. For me, the so-called terrorism that is perpetrated by different people from different religions and different nations is a response to something. And for the Muslims, it is a kind of response to the challenges found by Islam or facing Islam. Among the challenges, one of the most important is the challenge of modernization. Modernization came in the world in the form of westernization.
Now we see that the response to the challenge of modernization should be answered by us through education, through the development of values within the Islamic people. But, in order to educate the people we have to also fill the gap in the three different regions of Islam.
In Southeast Asia, especially in Indonesia, we see the non-governmental organizations are free to pursue their main fields. In Southwest Asia maybe a little bit less, but anyway the independence of the community to choose their Imam or leaders of praying and khutba (Sermon) (khatib) (who delivers the sermon), [and] also witnesses the independence joined there. But in the Middle East, I see that the government takes everything and lowers the tradition of NGO nearly to non-existence. Ayatullah Ruholla Khomeini in Iran began to challenge this during the time of Shah of Iran, and he succeeded in bringing up the new traditions of Ulamas (scholars). But the problem now is that this is limited wholly to Ulama (scholars), not yet to the various NGOs. So then we have to see the development further in Iran. In other parts of the Middle East, you see nearly-non-existent NGO traditions. We have to fill the gap. And reeducating ourselves means we have to understand each other in order to close the gap between us.
The second thing that should be remembered is that the Muslims stressed too much on institutions, physical or non-physical. The physical ones include Islamic parties and Islamic states. I think it is good to have an Islamic state or Islamic party but not to rely completely on them. The non-physical institution is like the fiqh (jurisprudence), the tasawwuf (mysticism) and so forth. So then we have to reeducate ourselves in promoting freedom for the layman, freedom for the ordinary man to go out.
I think, in this respect, the situation in the Islamic world requires us to take the first step to formulate what we have to do in the future. From Indonesia, I would like to present the case of our Ulamas; (scholars) maybe unknown to many of you back in 1935. The Ulamas (scholars) gathering in the Jam’iyyat Nahdlatul Ulama, the association of the awakened Ulama had a Mu’tamar, a congress in Banjarmasin, ten years before our independence. There, they faced the question of whether Muslims are obliged to defend the known kingdom of Netherlands India, as Indonesia at that time was known, which was ruled by non-Muslim, the Dutch, the imperialist. The answer by Mu’tamar attended by 6,000 Ulamas was that, yes, they are obliged to defend the Kingdom of Netherlands India, east India, because they are free to practice the teaching of Islam because the community has the right to implement Islam without seeking the approval of the Kingdom itself and because in the past, Islamic kingdoms existed there.
This is continued by our decree or our embracing “Pancasila,” the five principles of the state. So by this then we strengthen the decision in Banjarmasin that we are obliged to defend the state which is run also by non-Muslims beside the Muslims. Now in the Republic of Indonesia, so far, the four presidents have been Muslims and the obligation is clear. The problem came up with the question of Islamic Law. The question at that time was the so-called “Jakarta Charter,” the obligation for the Muslims to implement Shariah (Islamic laws). At first, everybody agreed that the Jakarta Charter on the obligation to implement Shariah (Islamic laws). Islam would be formulated in the constitutions of the new state. But one day later the Christians rejected that by saying that, if so, we will become second-class citizens. Because of this the representatives of the Islamic movements there, including my father, Abdul Wahid Hasyim, dropped the Jakarta Charter. So now all the citizens have the same status. Now, if the decision was wrong to abrogate the intervention of the state in the implementation of Shariah (Islamic laws) that Ulamas (scholars)would, of course, reject the position. But they accepted the position. So, that means we can continue to say that the Jakarta Charter is not necessary.
I realize that there are so many people, including Indonesia, who would like to see the state reflect this in the constitution. The obligation is to carry out the Shariah of Islam in one way or another. But there are still those who think that the state has no right to interfere in the religious life of each citizen who reject the Jakarta Charter, that the obligation to carry out the Shariah lies on the shoulder of the citizens of all the community, not on the state. I think this is the main problem we faced back in 1959; we already decided by 52 percent against 48 percent to reject the idea of Islamic state. I think now the number of those who would reject this Islamic state is greater. Because of this democratic trend, we have to say that Islam should develop in a cultural way in Indonesia but not in an ideological way.
Knowing this in the context of Indonesian history we can understand why there are so many people rejecting terrorism but there are also those who see Osama bin Laden as a hero. This is normal in a democratic society and I would like to see that this is something to be condoned by all of us. But I come with the idea of rejecting the use of violence because I am the follower of Mahatma Gandhi. Because of this I reject terrorism. This is very clear. In this respect democracy is a wise form of government for our people. It is very important for all of us and I will give all my life for it.