Indonesian Interpretation of the Qur’an on Khilāfah: The Case of Quraish Shihab and Yudian Wahyudi on Qur'an, 2: 30-38

IF 0.3 0 RELIGION
M. Djidin, Sahiron Syamsuddin
{"title":"Indonesian Interpretation of the Qur’an on Khilāfah: The Case of Quraish Shihab and Yudian Wahyudi on Qur'an, 2: 30-38","authors":"M. Djidin, Sahiron Syamsuddin","doi":"10.14421/AJIS.2019.571.143-166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Today the issue of building al-khilāfah al-islāmīyah (Islamic Caliphate) has been raised by Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI). One of its arguments is that it is obligatory, because Qur’an, 2:30 mentions the term khalīfah. However, this argument has been questioned by many Muslim scholars. Some of them are Quraish Shihab and Yudian Wahyudi. In this article a comparative study is conducted in such a way we can provide readers with a ‘direct’ comparasion between Shihab’s and Wahyudi’s thoughts. The emphasis of their differences is shown more clearly than their similarities. Some important points that are discussed here are their interpretations of Qur’an, 2: 30-38. After analyzing their statements expressed in their writings and interviews, we have found that both have the same idea that Qur’an, 2: 30 does not talk about the Islamic Caliphate, and therefore, it cannot be used as an argument for its building. We have also found that they have exegetical differences that might refer to the fact that Shihab has much emphasis on the ‘historical meaning’ of the verses, whereas Wahyudi prefers their ‘significance’ for human beings.[Wacana khilafah Islam di Indonesia menguat seiring dengan kehadiran Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI). Salas satu argumen mereka adalah adanya istilah khalīfah dalam Qur’an, 2: 30. Namun argument tersebut justru menjadi persoalan bagi pemikir muslim lainnya, dua diantaranya Quraish Shihab dan Yudian Wahyudi. Dalam tulisan ini diharapkan pembaca dapat melihat secara langsung perbandingan dua pemikiran tersebut. Beberapa point penting yang diperdebatkan adalah tafsir ayat Qur’an, 2: 30-38. Berdasarkan analisis pada karya tulis dan wawancara, keduanya sama – sama menunjukkan bahwa ayat tersebut di atas tidak membahas al-khilāfah al-islāmīyah. Meskipun keduanya sependapat, masing-masing memberikan tekanan yang berbeda dimana Shihab lebih ke makna historis, sedangkan Wahyudi condong ke signifikasi bagi kemanusiaan.] ","PeriodicalId":42231,"journal":{"name":"Al-Jamiah-Journal of Islamic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Al-Jamiah-Journal of Islamic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14421/AJIS.2019.571.143-166","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Today the issue of building al-khilāfah al-islāmīyah (Islamic Caliphate) has been raised by Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI). One of its arguments is that it is obligatory, because Qur’an, 2:30 mentions the term khalīfah. However, this argument has been questioned by many Muslim scholars. Some of them are Quraish Shihab and Yudian Wahyudi. In this article a comparative study is conducted in such a way we can provide readers with a ‘direct’ comparasion between Shihab’s and Wahyudi’s thoughts. The emphasis of their differences is shown more clearly than their similarities. Some important points that are discussed here are their interpretations of Qur’an, 2: 30-38. After analyzing their statements expressed in their writings and interviews, we have found that both have the same idea that Qur’an, 2: 30 does not talk about the Islamic Caliphate, and therefore, it cannot be used as an argument for its building. We have also found that they have exegetical differences that might refer to the fact that Shihab has much emphasis on the ‘historical meaning’ of the verses, whereas Wahyudi prefers their ‘significance’ for human beings.[Wacana khilafah Islam di Indonesia menguat seiring dengan kehadiran Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI). Salas satu argumen mereka adalah adanya istilah khalīfah dalam Qur’an, 2: 30. Namun argument tersebut justru menjadi persoalan bagi pemikir muslim lainnya, dua diantaranya Quraish Shihab dan Yudian Wahyudi. Dalam tulisan ini diharapkan pembaca dapat melihat secara langsung perbandingan dua pemikiran tersebut. Beberapa point penting yang diperdebatkan adalah tafsir ayat Qur’an, 2: 30-38. Berdasarkan analisis pada karya tulis dan wawancara, keduanya sama – sama menunjukkan bahwa ayat tersebut di atas tidak membahas al-khilāfah al-islāmīyah. Meskipun keduanya sependapat, masing-masing memberikan tekanan yang berbeda dimana Shihab lebih ke makna historis, sedangkan Wahyudi condong ke signifikasi bagi kemanusiaan.] 
印尼对《古兰经》关于Khilāfah的解读:Qraish Shihab和Yudian Wahyudi对《古兰》的解读,2:30-38
今天,印度尼西亚解放党提出了建设伊斯兰哈里发的问题。其中一个论点是它是强制性的,因为《古兰经》2:30提到了khalīfah一词。然而,这一论点遭到了许多穆斯林学者的质疑。其中一些是库莱什·希哈布和尤迪亚·瓦尤迪。在这篇文章中,我们进行了比较研究,这样我们就可以为读者提供希哈布和瓦尤迪思想之间的“直接”比较。他们之间的差异比相似之处更为明显。这里讨论的一些要点是他们对《古兰经》2:30-38的解释。在分析了他们在著作和采访中表达的言论后,我们发现两人都有相同的观点,即《古兰经》2:30没有谈论伊斯兰哈里发,因此,它不能被用作建造哈里发的论据。我们还发现,它们在训诫上存在差异,这可能是因为希哈布非常强调诗句的“历史意义”,而瓦尤迪更喜欢它们对人类的“意义”。[伊斯兰在印度尼西亚的灾难随着印尼解放党(HTI)的出现而变得严重,他们的论点之一是《古兰经》2:30中的灾难。但这一论点只是其他穆斯林思想家的问题,其中两位是库莱什·希哈布和朱迪斯·瓦尤迪。在这篇文章中,读者可以直接看到这两种思想的比较。讨论的一些最重要的观点是对《古兰经》2:30-38的解释。他们两个长得很像。尽管双方都同意,但各自都给出了不同的压力,其中Shihab更具历史意义,而Wahyudi则倾向于对人类意义。]
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
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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