IT is not uncommon in the West to dismiss Islam as a relic from the past and judge it as a hindrance for progress and modernity. Including in this set of issue is the notion that Islam and democracy is not compatible. Examples abound, for sure.
Fully functioning democratic political system has not emerged in Iraq and Afghanistan notwithstanding 15 years of direct U.S.’s guidance – which stands as the guardian of liberal democratic world. Arab Spring – which was hailed as the triumph against authoritarianism – this far can only brings up one democratic state (Tunisia) yet at a cost of tree failed (or nearly failed) states in the form of Libya, Yemen, and Syria. The rest of the Middle-East has quietly returns to authoritarianism.
Part of the problem is how part of the Islamic community itself hosts hostile view towards democracy. Put it simply, they disregard it as system of the infidel; as something un-Islamic in nature. They hold that Sharia law (Islamic law that is derived from Quran and Hadits) does not prescribed it for running political system in a Moslem community – though the opposite, that the caliphate system is not directly mandated by either Quran or Hadits, is true as well.
Denounced by the West and rejected by part of Moslem community, Islam seems to be on a collision course with democracy. Or is it so?
THE answer here is marked by one aforementioned word: derived. It is clear that, arguably, the only thing standing between Islam and democracy is the Sharia law. It is widely used as a basis for rejection for the adoption of modern democratic system in an Islamic community. However, much to the neglect of the community, Sharia is largely a man-made law. It is inspired by Quran – the ultimate guidance for Moslem’s life, but it is not the Quran itself. While Quran cannot be modified, Sharia law can.
And to make it clear, Quran itself does not contain verses that contradict the value of modern democratic political system. After all, Prophet Mohammed (which was guided by Quran) is the ultimate promoter and protector of freedom in his age. For sure, he did indirectly embrace a limited form of democracy (though an advance one by that era’s standard) by declining to appoint his descendant as his direct successor. In fact, he did not appoint anyone so that opening way for an election and thereby establishing a tradition of democracy.
If the Prophet himself did not deem the spirit of democracy as un-Islamic, why the Sharia law deems it that way these days? Well, as it has been said, Sharia law is a man-made law. Words from Quran are nonnegotiable. Unfortunately, many of those words are so general or neutral in nature that made Quran as always open for interpretations – Quran itself predicted that its followers will split into 73 groups by the time of judgment day; each with its own interpretations of Quran.
It is no surprise then that throughout the history, the rulers of Islamic community has seized the chance to increase their legitimacy by choosing the interpretation of Quran that best suits their interests. For example, the Umayyad and Abbasid chose not to follow Prophet Mohammed’s mechanism for transferring power and instead they chose a hereditary system – and therefore, return to absolute monarchy. Consequently, they tried hard to interpret Quran and mold Sharia law that best justified their course of actions.
Facing decline and slow death during the course of 18th and 19th centuries, the Ottoman Empire (the last superpower of the Islamic world) acknowledges that its political system was outdated and consequentially decided to reform it. However, the Sharia law of the day prevented such reform from happening. What did they do? They simply re-interpreted their Sharia law. When the Sharia law stands in its way, Islamic states throughout history simply re-interpreted it and moving on. It is a fact and it is that simple. “As times change, law should also change,” remarked Ahmet Cevdet Pasha, an Ottoman statesman and Islamic scholar.
It is safe to conclude that it is clear that Islam is flexible when it comes to Moslem’s political life. Islam are clear and nonnegotiable when it comes to the matter of its subject’s relation with God, but when it comes to political system, it stands vaguely in the gray zone at best – and that is why it has always been open forinterpretations. It does not directly endorsing democracy while, at the same time, it clearly does not opposing democracy.
THUS it comes as no surprise when some Islamic community, such as here in Indonesia, succeeds with relative ease in enforcing democratic political system. For sure, we did have a long history of authoritarianism, but it is not an Islamic authoritarianism that is based on Sharia law – it is a secular one. Since the conception of Indonesia, Islamic leaders all around Indonesia are generally receptive to the idea of democracy and secularism. Had not because of their consent to both ideas, it is hard to imagine modern Indonesia becoming a fully functioning democracy as it is now.
History of Indonesia is a 70-years long history of modern and thriving Islamic community in a modern world. It is also a history, a success story of, and a triumph for democracy. The co-existence of both stories in one state within one, common timeframe clearly shows us that Islam and democracy are not incompatible toward each other. Written by: Zidny Ilman. The writer is the Coordinator of Indonesia Berbicara's Study Center (Pusat Kajian).
