The Pancasila State and Khilafah
Ilustrasi: Handining
In recent days, conversations on the concept of the nation-state have been growing warm again. Several public figures have expressed their opinions, a few have even agreed in arguing that the foundation of the state must be reviewed.
In my opinion, this phase is a setback. If we return to the debate on the foundation of the state, then we are not only not making progress, but instead we are experiencing a very significant, even grievous, setback.
As Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) stated in The Illusion of the Islamic State (Ilusi Negara Islam), nationalism is defined by the philosophical foundation of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), Pancasila, along with the 1945 Constitution, and is the final form and national consensus (muahadah wathoniyah) of our nation-state and not an expression of political opportunism. This was born of true awareness which is in alignment with the historical reality, culture, national traditions and the religious teachings in which we believe.
If we look more closely, intensive discussions about Islam and its relationship to the birth of nationalism were conducted by three cousins, namely HOS Tjokroaminoto, Hadratussyaikh KH M. Hasyim Asyari, and KH Abdul Wahab Hasbullah. These three have carried out more in-depth, discursive assessments on the Islamic view of nationalism since 1919.
This awareness of nationalism is, in my opinion, the voice and movement that emerged from the collective conscience of the Indonesian nation. It is transcendent and esoteric. Indonesian nationalism is not born from memorizing a series of complicated theories about the concept of nationalism, social contracts, and other subjects. On the contrary, nationalism is born from the genuine sense of belonging to and loving the motherland.
The dictum of hubbulwathon minaliman, which was initiated by Hadratussyaikh KH M Hasyim Asyari, was not a grandiose concept that emerged from theoretical studies and academic assessments on the concept of the nation and state. The dictum was born precisely from the deepest conscience, that which is pure and holy and sincere in the spiritual framework of love for his country.
From there, the concept of love of the homeland (cinta tanah air) aspart of spiritual faith was born. In this the dictum, hubbulwathon minaliman, was really a sublimation of ulemas\' thinking on the various foundations of the concept. One of them is taken from Surah An-Nisa: verse 66 of the Quran.
Saying that loving and defending our homeland does not have theological footing, in my opinion, is a fatal mistake. In fact, at a certain stage, it becomes very dangerous.
Borrowing the thesis of Said Aqil Siroj (2016), Indonesia is very fortunate to have intelligent kiai (ulemas) of nationalistic typology. Nationalistic ulemas or religious experts can ring thebells for the growth of the spirit to love the country. Such ulemas only exist in Indonesia. In any other part of the world, such as in the Arab countries and the majority of the Middle East, we will not find ulemas who have a strong nationalistic spirit.
Final consensus
In 1936 at the 11th Congress of the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) in Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan, NU firmly decided that Indonesia constituted dÃru Islam. KH Ahmad Shiddiq in his Piagam Kebangsaan (2011; charter of nationality) provided an interpretation of the results of the congress. He said that the term “dÃru Islam” in the congress’s decision was not the political terminology that refers to a state’s political order, but a fully religious term that is more correctly identified as wilÃyatul Islam (Islamic area).
Therefore, it was clear that with this decision, long before Indonesian independence was proclaimed, the NU had taken the firm stance that Indonesia was an Islamic area that was occupied by colonialists, so that a jihad against the invaders was a duty and a religious call to arms.
NU\'s nationalist stance does not stop there. When the issues surrounding the establishment of Darul Islam (DI/TII) led by Sekarmadji Maridjan Kartosoewirjo was in full swing, NU issued a decree that President Soekarno was waliyyulamri ad dhoruri bissyaukah (legitimate emergency leader). The decree was issued following intense discussions among ulemasfrom1952-1954.
Members of the Kirab Gunungan Limo parade carry statues of the Garuda Pancasila state symbol from the town square to the graveyard of Indonesia’s founding father Soekarno in Bendogerit subdistrict of Sananwetan district, Blitar, East Java, on Wednesday evening (31/5/2017). The parade was part of the 18th Grebeg Pancasila event held by the Blitar administration, and was attended by local artists and residents.
The decree had a tremendous impact. Aside from delegitimizing Kartosoewirjo\'s declaration and claims, the decree also had the capacity to put down the existing turmoil, raised the legitimacy of President Soekarno, and at the same time declared that Muslims, especially NU, remained loyal and became an integral part of the reigning government.
The peak of NU\'s expression of nationalism was translated in the decision of the 1983 Congress of NU ulemas held at the Salafiyah Syafi ’iyah Asembagus Islamic boarding school (pesantren) led by Kiai As’ad Syamsul Arifin in Situbondo, East Java. At the pesantren, the NU formulated its declaration of Pancasila’s relationship to Islam.
Crucial points of the NU declaration are that first, Pancasila, as the founding philosophy of the state of the Republic of Indonesia, is not a religion, cannot replace a religion and cannot be used to replace a religion. Second, the founding principle of “Belief in One God”, according to Article 29 Paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution, which strengthens other principles, reflects monotheism according to the Islamic view. Third, for NU, Islam is aqidah and sharia. The acceptance and application of Pancasila is a manifestation of the people of Islam’s effort to practice sharia.
Practicing sharia without ‘khilafah’
In looking at this experience, the process of "becoming Indonesia" which we have been through together, I deeply regret if we must turn backwards to debate the form of state and government which is most appropriate for our beloved country. The form of our state is established.
I always say in various forums, let us reflect together in a thorough manner about the nature of Pancasila. It consists of five principles which enable us, a nation which has a very high degree of plurality, to live in harmony, complement each other, to mutually respect one another, and to have tolerance, tepo sliro (a Javanese saying to tolerate the feelings of others), and to tolerate one another.
The foundation of our state, which includes “Belief in One God”, shows that Indonesia does not separate religion from power. Power must be used upon the basis and with the spirit of religious values; this is the meaning of believing in one God. As Al-Ghazali (1988) said, religion and power are twin brothers. They are two sides of a coin. A religion constitutes a foundation, while a ruler acts as guardian. That without a foundation will collapse; similarly, that which has no guard will be destroyed.
The concept of khilafah (a universal Islamic state), which is assumed to be a solution for a better civilization, I think, no longer has a point of relevance. The concept of the modern nation, the nation-state, is one of the fundamental reasons why movements that want to break down demographic barriers to nationalism, such as the struggle for a khilafah, are losing momentum.
This struggle, which assumes the full application of sharia in all aspects of life, in my opinion and in reference to various studies, constitutes an excessive ideal, if not to say a utopian one.
In fact, in our country, the spirit of religion has been translated into various laws and regulations. The breath and spirit of our legislation finds its origins in religious teachings and values. Say, for example, the Religious Judicature Law, the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Zakat (Alms), and also Haj Management Law. Enforcing the laws substantively is the same as implementing sharia. Thus, in another way of speaking, we actually have sharia without a khilafah.
It is obvious that the idea to implement sharia in a pluralistic place like Indonesia is contrary to the philosophical foundation of the state, which was long ago formulated by the founders of the nation and which we have striven furiously to achieve. This is contrary to the very principle of democracy, and this is indeed the reality.
Abdul Qadim Zallum, one of the great promoters of the khilafah movement, said in his Manhaj Hizb at-TahrÎr fÎ TaghyÎr– one of the obligatory books for teaching khilafah to supporters – that "democracy is a system of the infidel which has nothing to do with Islam. Therefore, it is haram for Muslims to adopt and implement or even simply to endorse it". This makes it clear that the movement to promote khilafah regards democracy as a system that must be fought against.
Al akullihal (“All praise be to Allah in all circumstances”), at the 2014 NU Congress in Jakarta, it was firmly decided that struggling to uphold the substantive values of Islamic teachings in the country was far more important than struggling for the establishment of Islamic symbols alone. Perhaps our condition today is identical to what the kiai ask in the question: "Should we buy camel oil with a pig brand or pig oil with a camel brand?" Faced by these two choices, the kiai advise us to of course choose the first option.
This is “nationalism ala kiai”, who understand the true meaning of life in diversity. Wallahu a’lam bishhowab. (“Allah knows best what is right.”)
A HELMY FAISHAL ZAINI
Secretary General, Central Executive Board of Nahdlatul Ulama (PBNU)
