International Journal of Indonesian Studies Volume 1, Issue 3 | Page 196

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INDONESIAN STUDIES
SPRING 2016
modernist Muslims in approaching the secular President Soeharto who had been
searching for a way to balance or counter the rise in the power of the mili tary. It
was just possible for Soeharto to approach them following the acceptance of
Pancasila as the only foundation for socio-mass organizations as well as political
parties in 1985. It was likely that the hegemonic political power of Soeharto forced
the modernist Muslims to adjust to the acceptable political system by the regime.
In this regard, they did not pursue their political Islam via political parties, but by
securing bureaucratic positions as well as empowering social economic activities. In
fact, they did not develop a socio-cultural approach, but a structural approach from
modern ideology, as they tried to change the political structure of the state in the
long run. I agree with Benny Subianto that ‘ICMI was obviously political in nature or
had direct political implications’ (Subianto, 2008, p. 176).
Democracy as quasi-norm
Wahid has persuaded Muslims to accept the prevailing social systems as the most
appropriate and perhaps only medium for implementing universal Islamic values. He
understands that Islam and the social system in Indonesia are not exclusive of, but
interrelated with each other. This is in line with the holistic character of Islam that the
fulfilment of the spiritual aspect requires efforts from the material aspect. In other words,
the fulfilment of spiritual values is closely related to the material activities happening in the
societies or in the environment. For example, it is impossible to establish justice or freedom
outside the framework of social systems. In the case of Indonesia, he accepts the prevailing
socio-political system, namely the Republic of Indonesia with its national ideology of
Pancasila, and considers it as the final political aspiration of Muslims in Indonesia. In line
with this, he affirms the modern concept of democracy as the foundation of nation state
and considers it as the modern application of the principle of syuro (deliberation). Wahid
argued for the substantive form of Shari’a in the form of democracy as a quasi-norm which
would direct the course of the state (Abdurrahman Wahid, 2007b, p. 303). By so doing,
Wahid tried to synchronize the mission of Islam and that of the national state. In other
words, Wahid’s adoption of democracy was a kind of subordination of Shari’a into the
national law.
This subordination of Shari’a into the national law is the result of Wahid’s adoption
of the political approach to the relationship between Islam and the state : that he did not
want to establish an Islamic state, but to control the ruler in order to rule by the principle of
syuro. This is due his scepticism about the idea of an Islamic state in which rulers do not
always rule by Shari’a. Accordingly, he focuses on the idea of democracy as the standard for
developing a relationship between people and the rulers. Wahid argues that religion,
namely Islam, should civilize the secular nature of politics, but should refrain from being an
Islamic state. Moreover, he believes that secularization happens when the state is stronger
than Islam as he considers that Islam puts emphasis on its teachings, not on its
196 | P a g e