Abstract
Indonesia and Malaysia offer comparative perspectives concerning the relationship between loyalties to the Muslim umma, local ethnicity, and the modern nation-state, and how interpretations of the sharia and modern constitution, laws, politics, and policies intersect in multiple and changing ways. This article seeks to compare and contrast some of the contemporary discourses on sharia and citizenship as demonstrated by Indonesian and Malaysian scholars, politicians, and activists. Both Indonesian and Malaysian constitutions were born out of the modern notion of citizenship that recognizes religious diversity. On the one hand, the Constitution of Indonesia does not specify Islam as the state religion, but the government promotes official religions. On the other hand, the Constitution of Malaysia makes it explicit that Islam is the state religion while recognizing religious diversity. The Indonesian government does not conflate particular ethnicity with Islam, whereas Malaysia integrates Islam and Malay ethnicity amidst Malaysian religious and ethnic plurality. Both cases prevent us from categorizing each case as either an Islamic legal conservatism or a modern legal liberalism. These two cases resist the binary opposition between sharia conservatism deemed against citizenship and modern legal liberalism deemed against religious laws. There are ambiguities, contradictions, as well as compromises and integration between conflicting ideas and systems concerning Islam and citizenship.
Highlights
Indonesia and Malaysia offer comparative perspectives concerning the relationship between loyalties to the Muslim umma, local ethnicity, and the modern nationstate and regarding how interpretations of the sharia and modern constitution, laws, politics, and policies intersect in multiple and changing ways
I compare and contrast the relationship between the conceptions of sharia and citizenship in Indonesia and Malaysia. Both cases prevent us from categorizing each case as either an Islamic legal conservatism or a modern legal liberalism. It resists the binary opposition between sharia conservatism deemed against citizenship and modern legal liberalism deemed against religious laws
In theory, a state with an official religion or a state with godly nationalism can recognize the political equality of all its citizens as long as the religion itself embraces some relevant sort of equality for everyone (Feldman 2002)
Summary
Vol 1, No 1, 2019 dalam cara yang beragam dan senantiasa berubah. Artikel ini berupaya membandingkan wacana kontemporer tentang syariah dan kewarganegaraan yang diusung oleh cendekiawan, politisi dan aktivis di Indonesia dan Malaysia. Konstitusi Indonesia dan Malaysia keduanya lahir dari gagasan modern tentang kewarganegaraan yang mengakui keragaman agama. Konstitusi Indonesia tidak menjadikan Islam sebagai agama negara, tetapi pemerintah mempromosikan agama-agama resmi yang diakui oleh negara. Konstitusi Malaysia secara jelas menyatakan Islam sebagai agama negara sambil mengakui keragaman agama. Pemerintah Indonesia tidak menggabungkan kesukuan tertentu dengan Islam, tetapi Malaysia mengintegrasikan Islam dan Melayu di tengah keragaman agama dan suku. Kedua kasus ini tidak bisa dikategorikan satu pihak sebagai konservatisme hukum Islam dan pihak lain sebagai liberalisme hukum modern. Keduanya tidak bisa disimpan dalam oposisi biner antara konservatisme syariah yang menolak kewarganegaraan dan liberalisme hukum modern yang menentang hukum agama. Dalam kasus Indonesia dan Malaysia ini, terdapat ambiguitas, kontradiksi, kompromi dan integrasi antara ide-ide dan sistem yang bertentangan mengenai Islam dan kewarganegaraan. Katakunci Syariah, kewarganegaraan, konstitusi Indonesia, konstitusi Malaysia, suku-bangsa, konservatisme hukum, liberalism hukum
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
