Indonesia
With the purification of the functional dimension of human khilafah (vicegerency), the principle of “ennobling and humanising humanity” is strengthened, the principle of “hominisation” is uprooted, and the principle of humanisation takes firm root on earth. No one feels superior or arrogant before their fellow human beings; what grows and strengthens instead is mutual cooperation working together to uphold truth, wisdom, and virtue.
This idealism is, in essence, the radiant light of a theology of humanity, a model of applied faith, a practical piety unobstructed by the barriers of ideological interests, politics, ethnicity, race, primordialism, or even religiosity itself. Such faith renders everyone who holds it clear in conscience and sharp in mind when confronting the presence and roles of others.
Individuals of this character are obligated to concentrate their constructive energy in the sphere of “universal service” always keeping the eyes of their heart open to the suffering, oppression, and complications that afflict society, while their conduct remains shielded from the many forms of personal adventure and syndicate scheming disguised as exclusive interests, which ultimately castrate and deprive the public good.
It is precisely this kind of person whom the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) classified as “a believer who loves others as he loves himself.” Another prophetic tradition further affirms: “The believers are those who have faith in Allah, His Messenger, the Last Day, and who love their neighbours.” This prophetic teaching establishes the principle of universality that human life in this world is not lived for oneself alone.
The Prophet’s teaching lays down an emancipatory framework that ideally must be observed by all of humanity. A person of faith will not be counted among those who love Allah if their life is not dedicated universally to their fellow human beings. Equally, as long as Indonesians remain in the grip of egocentrism, individualism, and hedonism, idolising themselves and the material values attached to them, they are not yet worthy of being called a faithful servant, a servant who surrenders to and loves their Lord.
It is not only the rights of citizens to practise their religion that must be respected and granted democratic space by Indonesians, but also the rights to a dignified life, freedom from fear, and full human worth, all of which must equally be realised.
If only the right to practise religion is honoured, while other fundamental rights as social subjects and agents of development remain “dehumanised,” unpopularised, and left bare of any foundation of justice and civilisation, then such respect is merely exoteric. It has yet to touch the substance of an emancipatory-humanistic theology: a construction of social faith grounded in equality, upholding the principles of solidarity and cooperation, and penetrating the empirical depths of communal life.
The “universal service” that is genuinely rendered and immortalised will give birth to a social order freed from destructive polarisation, cliques, and divisive barriers for each individual will demonstrate dynamism and democratisation imbued with a spirit of struggle, competing with one another to eradicate poverty and unemployment, refusing to allow destitute children to suffer from malnutrition or be denied their right to a decent education, and engaging actively in resolving the challenges of human welfare.
This model of prophetic service constitutes a “guarantee” for the formation and preservation of a socially “righteous” integrity. The development of social life will, for instance, be difficult to steer away from the spread of chaos, criminality, and destructive expressions of social jealousy such as the emergence of terrorism and extraordinary crime. Whenever a segment of the elite, such as law enforcement officials who have publicly proclaimed themselves as an elite community, design their lifestyles, institutional relations, and political structures in corrupt and manipulative ways, or collude with the bureaucratic elite to produce abundant “social injustice.”
“If life were a reward that could be purchased with money, the rich would choose to live and the poor would choose to die” so goes an old adage, cited from Jenny Taichman (1996), which is in truth a radical critique directed at a group of elites entrusted to carry and hoist the sacred message of the state, yet who in reality treat the state as nothing more than a symbol, a paradigm, and a structural slogan for the perpetration of deception, human rights violations, and the endless production of the “transgressions” of power.
The author is the Head of the Master’s Program in Law, Postgraduate Program, Universitas Islam Malang, and the author of several books.
This article was previously published at duta.com
