Indonesia\'s Ideology and Islam
In the Investigating Committee for Preparatory Work for Indonesian Independence (BPUPKI)in May-June 1945, a conflict broke out between Indonesia\'s ideology and Islam, namely when the "Islamic nationalists" proposed the foundation of an Islamic state and the "Pancasila nationalists" proposed the basis of the state of Pancasila.
The compromise was the "Charter of Jakarta," which contained the basis of the Pancasila state with the first principle of a "divinity with the obligation for its Muslim adherents to carry out Islamic law/sharia.”
Apparently, the compromise was still rejected by "non-Muslims" on August 17, 1945. Therefore, the Islamic leaders gracefully approved the elimination of the clause and agreed with the formula: "Belief in God.”
That was the first stride made from efforts to integrate Indonesia\'s ideology and Islam.
The second was when ulemas (Muslim clerics) under the leadership of KH Hasyim Asy’ari issued an edict on Jihad Resolution (October 22, 1945), which inspired and encouraged young Muslims to fight against the Allied Forces on November 10, 1945. Jihad, a religious term, was used for the national struggle.
The Muslim leaders managed in the struggle to establish the Ministry of Religious Affairs in January 1946 – the third major development borne from efforts to integrate Indonesia\'s ideology and Islam.
In 1951, Minister of Religious Affairs KH A Wahid Hasyim and Minister of Education, Teaching and Culture Bahder Johan (both from the Masyumi Party) signed a memorandum of understanding for the establishment of Islamic schools madrasah ibtidaiyah, madrasah tsanawiyah and madrasah aliyah.
This was the fourth major step in integrating Indonesia\'s ideology and Islam, which provides space for Islamic education within the national education system.
Islamic education in the form of pesantren (Muslim boarding schools) had actually been active 500 years before the Dutch established schools in the Dutch Indies in 1840, which became the forerunner of the Indonesian national education system.
Accepting the principle of Pancasila
The conflict between the Indonesia\'s ideology and Islam reappeared when the Islamic parties — Masyumi, the Nahdlatul Ulama Party (NU), the Indonesian Islamic Union Party (PSII), the Islamic Educators Association (Perti) and the Islamic Victory Force (AKUI) —struggled for the basis of an Islamic state in the Constituent Assembly in 1956-1959. The struggle failed because they lost the vote.
The conflict between the Indonesia\'s ideology and Islam continued in the 1971 general elections, when the NU, PSII, Perti and the Indonesian Muslim Party (Parmusi) campaigned for the foundation of an Islamic state. The Armed Forces (ABRI) and the New Order government worked to defeat the Islamic parties by all means necessary.
The seats obtained by the Islamic parties in 1971 were far below the number of seats in the 1955 General Elections. This means that the position of the Islamic parties within the House of Representatives was very weak.
In 1973, the House started discussions on the Marriage Bill, several articles of which were considered by ulemas to be contrary to Islamic law. The most important was Article 2, the first iteration of which was: "Marriage is lawful if it is done according to this law.”
Syuriah of the Nahdlatul Ulama Executive Board (PBNU) led by Rais Aam KH Bisri Syansuri (the student of KH Hasyim Asy’ari) rejected the clause and proposed that it be changed to: "Marriage is lawful if it is done according to the law of each religion and belief.”
Non-Muslims, of course, rejected the proposal because it meant accepting an element ofsharia in our legislative system. However, then president Suharto approved the proposal. This was the fifth major development in Indonesia’s efforts to integrate its ideology with Islam.
In the early 1980s, the government strived to make Pancasila the one and only principle for political parties and mass organizations in Indonesia. Faced with such a situation, Syuriah PBNU formed a team to examine "the relationship between Islam and Pancasila.”
The team consisted of a number of leading ulemas led by KH Ahmad Siddiq, an alumnus of Pesantren Tebuireng who once studied directly under KH Hasyim Asy’ari.
Based on the document "Pancasila Islamic Relations," which was drafted by the above team, an NU Congress in 1984 in Situbondo regency, East Java, decided to officially accept Pancasila as the foundation of the state. The move was then followed by the United Development Party (PPP) and all other Islamic organizations, except for a very few number of groups. This was the sixth step in the efforts to integrated Indonesia\'s ideology and Islam.
In 1989, the House of Representatives discussed the Religious Court Bill as a follow-up of Law No. 14/1970 on Basic Provisions of Judicial Power. Again, there was a conflict between Pancasila and Islam, which led to a heated debate between those who agreed with and rejected the bill.
On December 29, 1989, the bill was approved into Law No. 7/1989, which was acknowledged an appreciated in the 1989 NU Congress held in Pesantren Krapyak in Yogyakarta. This was the seventh development in the efforts to integrate Indonesia\'s ideology and Islam.
A series of developments followed, such as the Sharia Banking Law, Haj Law and Wakaf Law. More than that, the National Education System Law (2003) incorporated pesantren in the Indonesian educational nomenclature, thereby providing wider opportunities for pesantren to develop themselves.
Indonesia is seeing an increasing interest among parents to send children to study in pesantren and among communities to establish new Islamic boarding schools.The number of pesantren in the archipelago, which reached nearly 10,000 in 1999,is now approaching 30,000. They are entirely privately owned.
Current condition
Currently, the country is witnessing a re-emergence of conflicts between Indonesia\'s ideology and Islam. The phenomenon occurred in connection with the Jakarta gubernatorial elections.
There are groups who consider themselves as "most Islamic," and in contrast, there are others who think they are "most Indonesian.”
Those who voted for Ahok and Djarot Saiful Hidayat as Jakarta governor and deputy governor, respectively, are considered anti-Islamic and hypocritical; while those who chose running pair Anies Baswedan and Sandiaga Uno are considered anti-Indonesian, intolerant and anti-diversity. However, both assumptions are wrong.
If we review the process ofdrafting the 1945 Constitution, there was a desire among Islamic figures for the president to be indigenous Indonesian and Muslim.
After a thorough deliberation, they agreed to omit the latter — which showed tolerance.
However, those who do not choose non-Muslims for religious reasons cannot be considered intolerant, or violating the Constitution or undermining diversity—it is based on Article 29 Paragraph 2 of the 1945 Constitution. What needs to be guarded is how to convey that opinion and to avoid using language that is offensive or contains the tone of hatred. The place and time for expressing such an opinion must also be taken into consideration.
Actually, the conflict marring Jakarta’s gubernatorial elections was not between Muslims and non-Muslims.It occurred between groups of Muslims; between those who approve non-Muslim candidates and those who reject non-Muslim candidates. This difference of opinion occurs because of different interpretations of Surat Al-Maidah Paragraph 51 and a number of Quranic verses.
Since the first Hijriah century, there have been major groups within Islamic circles who had different interpretations of sacred verses. One group argued that Islamic law was dogmatic and must adhere to the pure nash text without the use of reason. The main figures of this group were Abdullah bin Umar, Ibnu Abbas and Amr bin Ash.
The second group argued that sharia was rational, so when interpreting the sacred text, we need to optimize the mind’s potential. The main figures of this group were Abdullah bin Mas’ud,Umar bin Khattab and Ali bin Abi Thalib.
Responding to the existence of these groups, the two parties must respect each other\'s choices; there is no need to blame each other, attack each other or mock each other.
Conflict between Indonesia\'s ideology and Islam can possibly expand in the regional elections in 2018. If such conflicts still occurin the Presidential elections in 2019, it could potentially threaten the unity of Indonesia. There needs to be an effort to defuse it.
An inter-group dialogue is required within Islam and with other religious groups to curb such conflicts. In the dialogue, there needs to be detailed discussions on what is meant by "religious politicization" and what is meant by the "SARA issue" (ethnicity, religion, race and inter-groups).
The dialogue must be done with cool heads in order to produce a deal that can be followed in daily practices. It may take some time to ease tensions.
Now the questions remain: Who will initiate the dialogue and who will represent both parties? How many people will be involved in the dialogue? When is the right time to start the dialogue? Where will it be held?
Initiators of the dialogue should be figures who can be accepted by the two parties. Ramadhan and Syawal are the perfect times such a dialogue. The venue must be approved by both parties. The building of the People\'s Consultative Assembly (MPR) and the house on Jl. Imam Bonjol, Central Jakarta, where the founders formulated the proclamation manuscript in August 1945, can be used as alternative venues.
The dialogue should clearly and openly state the wishes of both parties. Successful efforts to integrate Indonesia’s ideology and Islam should be referenced in the dialogue.
The group that issued a call to safeguard Indonesia\'s ideology following the North Jakarta District Court\'s verdict on Ahok’s blasphemy case needs to understand that what also needs to be guarded is the integration of Indonesia\'s ideology and Islam because it is the main factor of Indonesian unity.
SALAHUDDIN WAHID
Caretaker of Pesantren Tebuireng