RSS Feed (xml)
As a matter of fact, the need of Islamic law reform in Indonesia is not a new requirement. The spirit of reform had appeared far before the era of the struggle for Indonesian independence. It can be traced back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries or even earlier. The promotion of these reform efforts, however, really only began to successfully gain greater attention since the tentative emergence of era of the Indonesian struggle for independence by the beginning of twentieth century.
Ever since the period of the Dutch government, Islamic law really underwent fluctuation inside the religious courtroom. However, there were also dynamics and developments in the realm of Islamic legal thought, in the form of fatwa as well as fiqh, outside the courtroom. It was the role of the students, according to some scholars, who upon their return from Egypt and Makkah at the beginning of twentieth century breathed life into Islamic law and with the the spirit of reform in society.
It was precisely at this juncture, the comparison of Islamic legal schools had just begun to be introduced to the students and pupils in those of modern schools. Books such as Bidayah al-Mujtahid of Ibn Rushd, Nayl al-Awthar of al-Shawkaniy and Subul al-Salam of al-San‘aniy are of the Islamic classical works most often referred to in the comparison study of Islamic legal schools. It seems to be this type of learning that inspired and encouraged the students to write works on Islamic law which no longer strictly abided by one particular school of law, such as Abdul Hamid Hakim’s al-Mu‘in al-Mubin, and Zainuddin Labai el-Yunusi’s al-Durus al-Fiqhiyyah. These events obviously had a significant impact on the social role of Islamic law in Indonesia outside the courtroom, yet the Shafī‘i School of law was still applied formally inside the religious courtroom.
The use of comparison in the discourse of Islamic law seems to have become a trend among Indonesian Muslim intellectuals who have come later. It has been systematically developed, substantially and methodologically as well. Significantly, more intellectual public figures and reformists of Islamic law were involved such as Ahmad Hassan (1887-1958), Hasbi ash-Shiddiqie (1904-1975), and Hazairin (1906-1975), the three leading public figures in the discourse of Islamic law in Indonesia.
This obviously attracted a growing public interest in the characteristics of Islamic law, which is pluralistic in nature, and in getting rid of madhhab fanaticism. More importantly, it gave intellectual awareness to give to the living spirit of Islamic law which makes an enormous contribution towards giving social and practical guidance daily life. It was not always plain sailing the fact that Indonesian Muslim society has been typically shafī‘iyyah. What was felt to be a straying from the chosen path, the use of comparison method in the study of Islamic law were felt to be shocking to the larger parts of the community.
Alongside inspiring an intellectual awareness in many Muslim thinkers that Islamic law should be more socially dynamic, the use of comparison method also opened the wide horizon of new intellectual exercises and ijtihad at the beginning of Indonesian independence, which conveyed brilliant ideas of Islamic law as a living entity and a great contribution to civilization. It was in this context, I postulate, that the trend of comparison in the discourse of Islamic law gained significant momentum and meaning. This was signalled by the first embryo of the great idea of “Indonesian Fiqh” as proposed by Muhammad Hasbi as-Shiddiqie (1904-1975) and the “National Madzhab” which was the idea of Hazairin (1906-1975).
The idea of Hasbi’s Indonesian fiqh emerged as response to the actual conditions prevailing in Muslim societies which had lost their interest in fiqh. He believed this was simply because the prevailing fiqh was Arabian fiqh, Hijazy, Hindy or Misri fiqh variants which were out of kilter with Indonesian culture and way of life. This is why he suggests creating Indonesian fiqh, i.e fiqh that embodies elements of Indonesian culture and way of life in line with Islamic principles. Meanwhile, Hazairin also adduced similar idea, but he specified his concern only to Islamic family law, i.e. the bilateral inheritance law of Islam.
Despite differences in the contents which they discuss and the specific contexts upon which the two ideas are based, the soul and spirit put forward are in the same line and on the same wave-length with each other. They are aimed at breathing life into the inner spirit of Islamic law after it had stagnated under the dual assault of taqlid and madhhab fanaticism. Moreover, they constitute serious attempts to put Islamic law into real practice in the local and specific context of Indonesia, while at the same time, they represent the search for identity in the uncertainty of facing new social and political circumstances at the beginning of intensive contact with modernity. Therefore, these two similar ideas, of course, went beyond the traditional uses of comparison method in their attempts to use it as a tool to bust madhhab fanaticism. At the same time, they suggest a new way of thinking in the discourse of Islamic law in the early of Indonesia republic.
Ever since the period of the Dutch government, Islamic law really underwent fluctuation inside the religious courtroom. However, there were also dynamics and developments in the realm of Islamic legal thought, in the form of fatwa as well as fiqh, outside the courtroom. It was the role of the students, according to some scholars, who upon their return from Egypt and Makkah at the beginning of twentieth century breathed life into Islamic law and with the the spirit of reform in society.
It was precisely at this juncture, the comparison of Islamic legal schools had just begun to be introduced to the students and pupils in those of modern schools. Books such as Bidayah al-Mujtahid of Ibn Rushd, Nayl al-Awthar of al-Shawkaniy and Subul al-Salam of al-San‘aniy are of the Islamic classical works most often referred to in the comparison study of Islamic legal schools. It seems to be this type of learning that inspired and encouraged the students to write works on Islamic law which no longer strictly abided by one particular school of law, such as Abdul Hamid Hakim’s al-Mu‘in al-Mubin, and Zainuddin Labai el-Yunusi’s al-Durus al-Fiqhiyyah. These events obviously had a significant impact on the social role of Islamic law in Indonesia outside the courtroom, yet the Shafī‘i School of law was still applied formally inside the religious courtroom.
The use of comparison in the discourse of Islamic law seems to have become a trend among Indonesian Muslim intellectuals who have come later. It has been systematically developed, substantially and methodologically as well. Significantly, more intellectual public figures and reformists of Islamic law were involved such as Ahmad Hassan (1887-1958), Hasbi ash-Shiddiqie (1904-1975), and Hazairin (1906-1975), the three leading public figures in the discourse of Islamic law in Indonesia.
This obviously attracted a growing public interest in the characteristics of Islamic law, which is pluralistic in nature, and in getting rid of madhhab fanaticism. More importantly, it gave intellectual awareness to give to the living spirit of Islamic law which makes an enormous contribution towards giving social and practical guidance daily life. It was not always plain sailing the fact that Indonesian Muslim society has been typically shafī‘iyyah. What was felt to be a straying from the chosen path, the use of comparison method in the study of Islamic law were felt to be shocking to the larger parts of the community.
Alongside inspiring an intellectual awareness in many Muslim thinkers that Islamic law should be more socially dynamic, the use of comparison method also opened the wide horizon of new intellectual exercises and ijtihad at the beginning of Indonesian independence, which conveyed brilliant ideas of Islamic law as a living entity and a great contribution to civilization. It was in this context, I postulate, that the trend of comparison in the discourse of Islamic law gained significant momentum and meaning. This was signalled by the first embryo of the great idea of “Indonesian Fiqh” as proposed by Muhammad Hasbi as-Shiddiqie (1904-1975) and the “National Madzhab” which was the idea of Hazairin (1906-1975).
The idea of Hasbi’s Indonesian fiqh emerged as response to the actual conditions prevailing in Muslim societies which had lost their interest in fiqh. He believed this was simply because the prevailing fiqh was Arabian fiqh, Hijazy, Hindy or Misri fiqh variants which were out of kilter with Indonesian culture and way of life. This is why he suggests creating Indonesian fiqh, i.e fiqh that embodies elements of Indonesian culture and way of life in line with Islamic principles. Meanwhile, Hazairin also adduced similar idea, but he specified his concern only to Islamic family law, i.e. the bilateral inheritance law of Islam.
Despite differences in the contents which they discuss and the specific contexts upon which the two ideas are based, the soul and spirit put forward are in the same line and on the same wave-length with each other. They are aimed at breathing life into the inner spirit of Islamic law after it had stagnated under the dual assault of taqlid and madhhab fanaticism. Moreover, they constitute serious attempts to put Islamic law into real practice in the local and specific context of Indonesia, while at the same time, they represent the search for identity in the uncertainty of facing new social and political circumstances at the beginning of intensive contact with modernity. Therefore, these two similar ideas, of course, went beyond the traditional uses of comparison method in their attempts to use it as a tool to bust madhhab fanaticism. At the same time, they suggest a new way of thinking in the discourse of Islamic law in the early of Indonesia republic.
