Need a perfect paper? Place your first order and save 5% with this code:   SAVE5NOW

Reasons Why Indonesia Is Not an Islamic State

Introduction

Islam is regarded as the biggest religion in Indonesia, as approximately 86% of the citizens identify themselves as Muslims. In addition, Indonesia is the most populous Muslim-majority nation, with more than 230 million followers. However, even though Islam is the largest religion in Indonesia, the country lacks wider support for the ideals and doctrine of the Islamic State. Jeremy & Clifford (2017) define an Islamic State as a country with a type of administration founded on Islamic law. This phrase has been employed to explain different historical policies and administration doctrines in the Islamic nation. The absence of broader support for ideals and the Islamic State in Indonesia can be attributed to the fact that there have been two attempts to Islamize the country’s constitution, but both failed. The first attempt was in the settings of the arguments and politicking that characterized the efforts of the Konstituante from 1956 to 1959. The second trial, much more muted, was experienced during the final phases of the procedure of formally altering the initial 1945 Constitution for three years from 1999

Reasons Behind the Failure of the Two attempts

The first reason why the first attempt to make Indonesia a Muslim State failed was that there was an opinion among the Islamic groups that the country was already accomplishing many of the requirements of an Islamic State. It has to be noted that during the first attempt to Islamize the country, there was a division in the Masyumi Party between the more Westernized section and the more traditional, religiously educated members. However, the members consequently declared their preference for a republican type of governance and the exercise of popular autarchy and competitive democracy. However, the members had a condition that the government should operate within the boundaries of Islamic law. The Islamic group also preferred a form of governance that protected human freedoms and rights, such as the freedom of worship. Moreover, the group wanted a state that would respect ethnic disparities, which was evident in their proposal to establish two separate legislative chambers with a senate founded on the various regions (Jeremy & Clifford, 2017). However, it needed to be clarified how the teachings of Islam would be applied or to which group they would be applied, and this attempt to Islamize the country failed.

Another reason the trials failed was that the declared inclusiveness of the Islamic message could lead to serious disbelief among adherents of other religions on Muslim assurance that Sharia law would apply solely to believers of Islam. Sharia law was regarded indisputably as a significant threat to religious freedom, associated human freedoms, and definitely to the togetherness and sincerity of the Indonesian state itself. Jeremy & Clifford (2017) acknowledge that various leaders of the Indonesian National Party, such as Suwiryo, believed that abolishing Pancasila would result in the loss of liberty and freedom of the citizens of Indonesia. Furthermore, the country would need to realize a successful society. Other groups argued that establishing an Islamic State would result in the application of force to make citizens practice Islam (Jeremy & Clifford, 2017). The Socialist Party, on the other hand, argued that countries that followed sharia did not observe human rights and, thus, converting the country to an Islamic State would result in an abuse of human rights. Generally, the attempts failed as people needed clarification on whether human rights would be respected.

Conclusion

Indonesia is not an Islamic State despite the fact that the fact majority of the citizen are Muslims. This can be due to the fact that two attempts to Islamize the country failed. The opponents of these attempts argued that an Islamic State would abuse human rights and freedoms and thus thought it was better to uphold the Pancasila, which respected human freedoms and rights.

References

Jeremy R. Spendlove & Clifford E. Simonsen. (2017). Terrorism Today: The Past, The Players, The Future. Pearson ISBN.13: 978-0-134-54916-3.

 

Don't have time to write this essay on your own?
Use our essay writing service and save your time. We guarantee high quality, on-time delivery and 100% confidentiality. All our papers are written from scratch according to your instructions and are plagiarism free.
Place an order

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

APA
MLA
Harvard
Vancouver
Chicago
ASA
IEEE
AMA
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Need a plagiarism free essay written by an educator?
Order it today

Popular Essay Topics