Inside Indonesia has published an article “Islam and Democracy cannot meet!”
I just copied that part what interest us most and is disclosed in the title here above.
What would you say to those who reject Islamic law, particularly non-Muslims?
Even among Muslims there is a negative stereotype of the term ‘Islamic Sharia’.
There is a discriminatory view in Indonesia and the rest of the world towards various conflicts. People frequently look at Muslims’ stance towards non-Muslims. Currently, people think that Islam is a hardline and a threat to non-Muslims. But it’s not fair to ignore the attitude of non-Muslims to Muslims. What about the 500 people slaughtered in Nigeria, and the hundreds slaughtered in Pattani and what about America stripping naked prisoners in Iraq in a clear violation of human rights, and Britain as well. Why do they commit these crimes? Is it religion, a political mission, or something else? We need to get to the bottom of that, and then people can be fair towards Islam. In Islam, all humans of whatever religion or ethnicity are objects for proselytizer. Not objects to attack.
How can you convince people that Islamic law will bring them blessings and help them in their lives?
It would be much easier to convince them if Muslim intellectuals all had the same stance. But talk won’t convince people that Sharia is His mercy for the universe. That is why MMI’s main aim is the formalization of Islamic law in state institutions. When there is a legal and political umbrella for the implementation of Islamic law, people will be able to see how effectively Islamic law can provide benefits and how effective it is in destroying kemungkaran (evil, harmfulness). This will be clear if Islamic law becomes the law of the state. But if we just give speeches or write about it in books, then it can never be proven. People will look more at the negative side.
One of the main causes of this opposition between secular people and religious people is secular democracy. Robert Hefner once asked me, ‘What’s the biggest obstacle to Islamic law being adopted in Indonesia?’. I answered, ‘Democracy!’
Firstly, democracy has driven out Allah SWT from national life. Allah’s sovereignty has been replaced by the people’s sovereignty. If the people hold sovereignty, then almost all of Islamic law is useless. Then people say, ‘Don’t bring Islamic law into national life,’ and, ‘Why must be the state handle religion, it’s a private matter?’.
Secondly, democracy states that truth lies with the majority. Whatever the majority says is correct. In Islam truth comes from Allah.
Thirdly, democracy uses the principle of ‘one man, one vote’. In democracy, a professor, a prostitute, a thief and a religious scholar all have the same say. In Islam, an educated Muslim has greater say than a layperson. Martin van Bruinessen asked me, ‘What if the prostitute is clever?’ But what does that matter if they have no morals?
Finally, democracy says nothing of the hereafter, so people don’t care about morals. In secular democracy, nudists are more valued than those wearing jilbab (Islamic headscarf). In France, people who wear jilbab are demeaned, while people are free to go nude in demonstrations. In all democratic countries, in the name of human rights people who drink, gamble or engage in prostitution have greater status than people who declare all of this forbidden. This is because democracy doesn’t deal with judgment in the hereafter. In Islam, it’s extremely important to build a virtuous life in this world and the hereafter.
What is MMI’s ( Indonesian Council of Mujahidin) strategy in struggling for Islamic law?
At present we are conducting socialization of Islamic law. Even at this stage, the obstacles are extraordinary. Imagine if we ever got to apply it. The socialization involves seminars, producing publications and holding dialogues with officials and the People’s Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, DPR).
To achieve formalization of Sharia, MMI will need to work through existing state institutions, such as the parliament and through Islamic political parties. When Islamic parties have struggled for Sharia, they haven’t gained majority support. Their electoral support has steadily decreased since 1955. The secularization of politics in Indonesia has succeeded. In view of this, does Indonesian society still need Islamic law?
Indonesian society itself, rather than just its leaders, is mostly Muslim and almost everybody longs for Islamic law. This is because they see Islamic law as a part of their faith, and because they’ve seen that living without Sharia is no better [than living under it]. When secular people reject the formalization of Sharia because there are non-Muslims who do not agree, we can turn around and ask when there are Muslims who reject secular legislation and demand that Islamic law be adopted, do people listen to them?
With so many Islamic parties, they never win. Imagine if there was one Islamic party in Indonesia and the entire Islamic community and all Muslim leaders had the same vision to uphold Islamic law and instead of confusing the Islamic community and making them afraid.
Islam and democracy each seek to develop their own civilizations. The two cannot meet; in fact each defeats the other. So don’t expect that Islamic law will be enforced under secular democracy. That will never happen, it’s a fantasy.
After reading all the above I thing “Democracy is individual freedom, a freedom of the human mind, which the Islam and any other religion does not allowed. I prefer Democracy because I have learned to think, period.