Prof. Komaruddin Hidayat, the rector of Syarif Hidayatullah State
Islamic University (UIN), wrote an interesting column in Jakarta’s
leading newspaper on Indonesian Islamicity. His article is a rejoinder
to a study conducted by Scheherazade S. Rehman and Hossein Askari from
George Washington University.
Published in the Berkeley-based Global Economy Journal, Volume 10, 2010, this study examines if policies of the Muslim world were founded on Islamic teachings in comparison to those in non-Muslim countries. All up, 208 countries were studied. (source)
Published in the Berkeley-based Global Economy Journal, Volume 10, 2010, this study examines if policies of the Muslim world were founded on Islamic teachings in comparison to those in non-Muslim countries. All up, 208 countries were studied. (source)
Indicators such as economic opportunity, economic freedom, equal access to education, corruption, financial systems and human rights were used to measure the degree of Islamicity in those countries. The results were hilarious. “Most self-declared and labeled Islamic countries are not conducting their affairs in accordance with Islamic teachings — at least when it comes to economic, financial, political, legal, social and governance policies.”
Thus, this study was basically a critical assessment of the Muslim world with respect to their social, economic and political practices, which did not seem to confirm the substance of Islamic values. Not only that, this study put the Muslim world at the lower end of the list, but it also put many of the non-Muslim countries at a much higher position. New Zealand, for instance, was listed near the top as a result of this study. Luxembourg came second. The highest among the Muslim countries was Malaysia, at 38th place, whereas Indonesia, as the largest, predominantly Muslim country, ranked 140th.
In fairness, this is not a novel study. It may be the first to provide a theoretically based piece of empirical research, but certainly not the first to offer such a substantive opinion.
More than two decades ago, Imaddudin Abdulrahim, one of the country’s leading thinkers on Islamic monotheism, had often claimed that Ames, Iowa, was a microcosmic, or an exemplar, of an Islamic state. Of course, he understood well that this small Midwestern city was part of the United States, which is in no formal or informal sense regarded as being administered on the basis of Islamic sharia (law).
On one occasion, Mohammad Natsir, the former premier and leader of the Islamic party Masyumi, who became one of the principal advocates to the idea of Islam as the basis of state, considered the US a Christian nation — something that wasn’t that difficult to accept especially during the presidency of George
W. Bush. This is notwithstanding the fact that many students of American society and politics tend to see the US as a secular (democratic) state, where it is often perceived that the affairs of the state and religion are separated.
But Imaddudin did not see Ames in the light of religious formality. Being a former student of Iowa State University for so many years, he knew well that no reference to Islam had ever been made in Ames’ day-to-day social, economic and political practices. Instead, recollecting my interview with him a long time ago when I was conducting my dissertation research, he weighed the day-to-day or regular practices of the people in Ames and regarded these as his parameters to judge this city as an Islamic abode. In doing so, he treated trust and justice as the two most important areas of reference.
Undoubtedly, he was so impressed by the fact that the people of Ames did not have to lock their houses when they were not at home, and yet no one in the community trespassed. Similarly, grocery workers would always be willing to exchange unsatisfactory goods or merchandise that was bought by customers — including broken eggs.
Trust and justice that had made the life in Ames so peaceful and secure was the key requirements he cited to call it Islamic. The realization of the principle of trust and justice in the people of Ames’ daily activities was for him a translation of Islamic sharia.
Imaddudin’s perception of Islamicity was comparable to that of Nurcholish Madjid, another prominent Muslim thinker.
Both the Muslim intellectuals saw Islam beyond sharia, and beyond its textual appearances.
Given the universal values of Islam (or any religions for that matter), they emphasized more the substantive elements of Islam. This was the reason why Imaddudin and Nurcholish were of the opinion that as long as a state adheres to the principle of trust and justice, and practices the substantive values of Islamic teachings, it suffices for them to be regarded as Islamic. Under such circumstances, the formal adoption of Islam as a referent point is not terribly important.
In light of what has been presented, the study mentioned above saw religiosity or Islamicity more in a substantive than a formal or legal sense. Given the evaluation of the study, which puts many Islamic countries at lower ranks compared to their non-Muslim counterparts, it can be suggested that even in Muslim states, the day-to-day practices of their citizens do not always conform to or remain in accordance with Islamic teachings.
In the meantime, the day-to-day practice of non-Muslim countries does not necessarily contradict Islamic doctrines. In fact, as demonstrated by New Zealand, the day-to-day practices of its citizens can be viewed as Islamic.
Had Imaddudin and Nurcholish remained alive, they would have definitely shared this rejoinder.
The writer is dean of the School of Social and Political Sciences at the State Islamic University in Jakarta.
No comments:
Post a Comment