1. The Moderate-transformative Group
This group has a number of features. Firstly, they believe that Islam is a humanist religion which has universal tenets. Secondly, they are more stressing in solving social problems, teaching civil rights, and divesting people from backwardness and social injustice rather than struggling Islamic-formalistic symbols. Thirdly, Islamic values should be implemented in community empowering activities by creating social institutions such as NGO. Fourthly, the values have to be reflected into advantageous works which have a noble goal: people welfare (see Al-Hamdi 2013: 281).
Sociologically, they are academicians and social activists in NGOs. Their thoughts occasionally became a heated issue in public spaces. …show more content…
Pancasila is an excellent contemplation of Indonesian intellectuals in searching its identity. Thus, Pancasila is not only an identity for Muslims but also for Christians, Catholics, Buddhist, Hindu as well as Confucians. Moreover, Rahardjo believes that the emergence of Pancasila will eliminate extremist-radical Muslim movements. On the contrary, if Islam–social Islam, cultural Islam, and political Islam is feeble, Pancasila will suffer similar fate.
“…The history for a long time has created Islam as main aspect for nationality. Pancasila without Islam like a skeleton without meat and soul,” Rahardjo wrote in his book (2002).
Meanwhile, Mulkhan evaluates that Muslim people sadly not consider real circumstances. They are more normative and romantic. As shown by the history that the Jakarta Charter repeatedly copes with the failure. Therefore, Mulkhan supposes that the implementation of seven words is no longer compatible with recent Indonesian …show more content…
“For the future of sha’ria, when Muslim people in Indonesia have an obvious objective and most members of parliament concur to establish Islamic state, that’s a precise time to decide it,“ Rais added (2008: 13).
Muhaimin has a similar thought that theo-democracy is the greatest way for the state principle. If Indonesia utilises secular system like America and Turkey, it will curb human rights to conduct worship, conversely, if Indonesia applies theocracy system, it will discriminate the plurality among Indonesian society. Although Muhaimin agrees with Pancasila, he still criticises that Pancasila, however, has no an obvious goal. As a matter of fact, Pancasila cannot guarantee people rights in the case of Prita Mulyasari, Bu Minah, and other marginal citizens.
“They are some victims of the ambiguity of Pancasila. Thus, the government must rule this affair. The grains of Pancasila not merely to be memorised,” Muhaimin said at the office of Department of International Relation, Universitas Gadjah Mada, 29 October,
This group has a number of features. Firstly, they believe that Islam is a humanist religion which has universal tenets. Secondly, they are more stressing in solving social problems, teaching civil rights, and divesting people from backwardness and social injustice rather than struggling Islamic-formalistic symbols. Thirdly, Islamic values should be implemented in community empowering activities by creating social institutions such as NGO. Fourthly, the values have to be reflected into advantageous works which have a noble goal: people welfare (see Al-Hamdi 2013: 281).
Sociologically, they are academicians and social activists in NGOs. Their thoughts occasionally became a heated issue in public spaces. …show more content…
Pancasila is an excellent contemplation of Indonesian intellectuals in searching its identity. Thus, Pancasila is not only an identity for Muslims but also for Christians, Catholics, Buddhist, Hindu as well as Confucians. Moreover, Rahardjo believes that the emergence of Pancasila will eliminate extremist-radical Muslim movements. On the contrary, if Islam–social Islam, cultural Islam, and political Islam is feeble, Pancasila will suffer similar fate.
“…The history for a long time has created Islam as main aspect for nationality. Pancasila without Islam like a skeleton without meat and soul,” Rahardjo wrote in his book (2002).
Meanwhile, Mulkhan evaluates that Muslim people sadly not consider real circumstances. They are more normative and romantic. As shown by the history that the Jakarta Charter repeatedly copes with the failure. Therefore, Mulkhan supposes that the implementation of seven words is no longer compatible with recent Indonesian …show more content…
“For the future of sha’ria, when Muslim people in Indonesia have an obvious objective and most members of parliament concur to establish Islamic state, that’s a precise time to decide it,“ Rais added (2008: 13).
Muhaimin has a similar thought that theo-democracy is the greatest way for the state principle. If Indonesia utilises secular system like America and Turkey, it will curb human rights to conduct worship, conversely, if Indonesia applies theocracy system, it will discriminate the plurality among Indonesian society. Although Muhaimin agrees with Pancasila, he still criticises that Pancasila, however, has no an obvious goal. As a matter of fact, Pancasila cannot guarantee people rights in the case of Prita Mulyasari, Bu Minah, and other marginal citizens.
“They are some victims of the ambiguity of Pancasila. Thus, the government must rule this affair. The grains of Pancasila not merely to be memorised,” Muhaimin said at the office of Department of International Relation, Universitas Gadjah Mada, 29 October,