Hundreds of supporters of Indonesian Hizbut Tahrir (HTI) are present in a HTI conference at the Bung Karno stadium, Jakarta, Sunday (2/6/2013). HTI encourages all Muslims to return to living under an Islamic Caliphate that enforces Islamic Sharia.
"Prove that the Islamic political and administration system does not exist. Islam is complete and perfect, everything is arranged in it, including the caliphate as a governmental system." In a rather angry tone this statement was thrown at me by an Islamic activist from Blitar during a halaqah (religious gathering) at a Muhammadiyah meeting in East Java that I attended when I was still the chief justice of the Constitutional Court.
At that time, a friend of mine, Prof. Zainuri who is also a lecturer of the University of Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo, invited me to be a speaker at the forum and I was asked to speak about "the Constitution for Indonesian Muslims".
At that time I said that Indonesian Muslims had to accept the Indonesian political and administrative system, which is based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. The Pancasila state system based on pluralism, Bhinneka Tunggal Ika, is compatible with the diverse reality of Indonesia.
I also said that in the primary sources of Islamic teachings, the Qur\'an and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad SAW, there is no teachings regarding the standard system of politics, state administration and government. Indeed in Islam there is a living doctrine on the state and the term caliphate, but its system and structure is not regulated in the Qur\'an and Sunnah, but submitted to Muslims according to the demands of the place and era.
The state system of Pancasila
A caliphate as a government system is a human creation, with a form that varies from time to time and from place to place. In Islam there is no standard system of state administration and government.
Indonesian Muslims can have a system of government in accordance with the needs and reality of the Indonesian people themselves. The ulemas, who participated in establishing and building Indonesia, said that the Pancasila state was the final choice and not contrary to sharia so that it had to be accepted as mietsaaqon ghaliedzaa or the noble deal of the nation.
My explanation triggered the statement of the activist from the Muslim mass organization from Blitar by asking me to be responsible and prove that in the primary source of Islam there is no political system and state administration. In response to his statement, I made a counter-statement. There was no need for me to prove that the Islamic government system like caliphate did not exist because it really did not exist.
In fact, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the person who said there is a standard state administration and political system in Islam. "If you say that there is a standard system in Islam, please now you prove it, how the system is organized and where it is," I said.
In terms of jurisprudence, there has been ijma’ sukuti (agreement without announcement) among the ulemas that the system of government can be made by themselves as long as it is in line with the meaning of syar\'i (maqaashid alsya ’iy).
It turned out that he could not explain what the standard caliphate system was. To him I emphasized again, the standard system does not exist in the primary sources of Islam. It is all up to the people in line with the condition of the community and the development of time.
The proof is that the governmental systems in the Islamic world alone vary. There is one that uses a system of mamlakah (kingdom), there is one that uses the system of emirat (emirates),there is one that uses the system of sulthaniyyah (sultanate), and there is another that uses jumhuriyyah (republic), and so on.
That among Muslims themselves the implementation of governmental systems varies is clear evidence that in Islam there is no standard teachings on the idea of a caliphate. In terms of jurisprudence, there has been ijma’ sukuti (agreement without announcement) among the ulemas that the system of government can be made by themselves as long as it is in line with the meaning of syar\'i (maqaashid alsya ’iy).
If what is meant by the caliphate system is that which has grown after the Prophet died, there has been no standard system as well. Among the four khalifah rasyidah or Khulafa’ al Rasyidin, its system also varies. The appearance of Abu Bakar as a caliph also used the system of election. Umar ibn Khththab who was appointed by Abu Bakar, Utsman ibn Affan was chosed by a six-member formation formed by Umar.
So was Ali ibn Abi Thalib whose election was followed by a division that gave birth to Bani Umayyah caliphate. After Bani Umayyah there was Bani Abbasiyah caliphate, Utsmany (Ottoman) Turkish caliphate and others which also varied.
Which is the standard caliphate system? There seems to be no such thing. There has been only the ijtihad product, which is different from time to time and from place to place. This is different from the Pancasila state system, which has been standardized up to its institutionalization. It is an ijtihad product which is built on the reality of the pluralistic Indonesian society, similar to when the Prophet built the Medina State.
Dangerous
Supporters of the caliphate system frequently have said, the Pancasila state system has failed to build prosperity and justice. If that is indeed true, it is also true that from the history of caliphates, which is long and varies (so it is unclear which one is true), there have been many that failed and even were cruel and despotic toward their own citizens.
All the caliphate systems have given birth to both good and corrupt and despotic governments. If it is said that in the caliphate system there is the substance of moral teachings and high governmental ethics. In the Pancasila system there is also the noble values of morals and ethics. The problem is in its implementation. What is important is how to implement it.
Since the international conference of Hizbut Tahrir on August 12, 2007, in Jakarta, which announced that "democracy is haram" and that Hizbut Tahrir would fight for the establishment of a transnational caliphate from Southeast Asia to Australia, I have said that the movement is dangerous for Indonesia. If the idea, for example, continues to spread, what is threatened by division is not only the Indonesian nation, but also Muslims within a single nation.
Why? If the idea of caliphate is accepted, many alternative ideas will appear among different Muslims,with no clear ideal system because there is no standard based on the Qu\'ran and Sunnah. This will result in a situation in which different claims compete with each other over which one is the true system of a caliphate. The potential for chaos is very significant.
Therefore, the unity in diversity with the Pancasila state whose system has been clearly translated in the constitution is a necessity component of the Indonesian nation. This is what has to be strengthened as a mietsaaqon ghaliedzaa (noble agreement) for the entire Indonesian nation. The Indonesian ulemas and Muslim intellectuals have long concluded so.
MOH MAHFUD MD
Chairman of the Association of Lecturers of State Administration Laws (APHTN-HAN); Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of 2008-2013 Period
