Accommodating Non-Muslim Rights: Legal Arguments and Legal Principles in the Islamic Jurisprudence of the Indonesian Supreme Court in the Post-New Order Era

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
Muhammad Lutfi Hakim, Khoiruddin Nasution
{"title":"Accommodating Non-Muslim Rights: Legal Arguments and Legal Principles in the Islamic Jurisprudence of the Indonesian Supreme Court in the Post-New Order Era","authors":"Muhammad Lutfi Hakim, Khoiruddin Nasution","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwad004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Most Islamic legal literature describes non-Muslims as ‘second-class citizens’. They do not have equal rights to Muslims, particularly under Islamic inheritance law. This article attempts to re-evaluate this general assessment by presenting cases of Islamic inheritance involving non-Muslims in post-New Order Indonesia. Using five decisions of the Indonesian Supreme Court, we argue that whilst the judges’ legal arguments are relatively progressive and inclusive by accommodating non-Muslim rights, their analogical interpretation of the waṣiat wājibah (mandatory will) is still trapped in classical fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) norms that position religious differences and apostasy as an obstacle to inheritance. Although their analogical interpretation has in some cases resulted in equal rights, the protection of non-Muslim rights has not been fully realized. The legal arguments and principles they adopt are made acceptable to the Muslim community because they maintain traditional fiqh in the context of a multicultural Indonesian society. This study has implications for equal rights among Indonesian citizens and the realization of the state’s ideals that uphold the right to freedom of religion.","PeriodicalId":44058,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwad004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Most Islamic legal literature describes non-Muslims as ‘second-class citizens’. They do not have equal rights to Muslims, particularly under Islamic inheritance law. This article attempts to re-evaluate this general assessment by presenting cases of Islamic inheritance involving non-Muslims in post-New Order Indonesia. Using five decisions of the Indonesian Supreme Court, we argue that whilst the judges’ legal arguments are relatively progressive and inclusive by accommodating non-Muslim rights, their analogical interpretation of the waṣiat wājibah (mandatory will) is still trapped in classical fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) norms that position religious differences and apostasy as an obstacle to inheritance. Although their analogical interpretation has in some cases resulted in equal rights, the protection of non-Muslim rights has not been fully realized. The legal arguments and principles they adopt are made acceptable to the Muslim community because they maintain traditional fiqh in the context of a multicultural Indonesian society. This study has implications for equal rights among Indonesian citizens and the realization of the state’s ideals that uphold the right to freedom of religion.
包容非穆斯林权利:后新秩序时代印尼最高法院伊斯兰法学的法律论据和法律原则
大多数伊斯兰法律文献将非穆斯林描述为“二等公民”。他们没有与穆斯林平等的权利,特别是在伊斯兰继承法下。本文试图通过介绍后新秩序印度尼西亚涉及非穆斯林的伊斯兰遗产的案例来重新评估这一总体评估。通过印度尼西亚最高法院的五项判决,我们认为,虽然法官的法律论点通过容纳非穆斯林的权利而相对进步和包容,但他们对waṣiat wājibah(强制性遗嘱)的类比解释仍然被困在经典的fiqh(伊斯兰法学)规范中,这种规范将宗教差异和叛教视为继承的障碍。虽然它们的类比解释在某些情况下产生了平等权利,但对非穆斯林权利的保护尚未充分实现。他们采用的法律论点和原则为穆斯林社区所接受,因为他们在多元文化的印度尼西亚社会背景下保持了传统的伊斯兰教。本研究对印尼公民的平等权利及国家维护宗教自由权利的理想的实现具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of religion in public life and a concomitant array of legal responses. This has led in turn to the proliferation of research and writing on the interaction of law and religion cutting across many disciplines. The Oxford Journal of Law and Religion (OJLR) will have a range of articles drawn from various sectors of the law and religion field, including: social, legal and political issues involving the relationship between law and religion in society; comparative law perspectives on the relationship between religion and state institutions; developments regarding human and constitutional rights to freedom of religion or belief; considerations of the relationship between religious and secular legal systems; and other salient areas where law and religion interact (e.g., theology, legal and political theory, legal history, philosophy, etc.). The OJLR reflects the widening scope of study concerning law and religion not only by publishing leading pieces of legal scholarship but also by complementing them with the work of historians, theologians and social scientists that is germane to a better understanding of the issues of central concern. We aim to redefine the interdependence of law, humanities, and social sciences within the widening parameters of the study of law and religion, whilst seeking to make the distinctive area of law and religion more comprehensible from both a legal and a religious perspective. We plan to capture systematically and consistently the complex dynamics of law and religion from different legal as well as religious research perspectives worldwide. The OJLR seeks leading contributions from various subdomains in the field and plans to become a world-leading journal that will help shape, build and strengthen the field as a whole.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信