Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences Widyawati

Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 8(2) February 2014, Pages: 82-89
AENSI Journals
Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences
ISSN:1995-0772 EISSN: 1998-1090
Journal home page: www.aensiweb.com/anas/index.html
Islam and Democracy: The Thought of Abdurrahman Wahid
Widyawati
Faculty of Shari‘a and Law, Sunan Gunung Djati State Islamic University, Bandung, Indonesia
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 20 January 2014
Received in revised form 17
March 2014
Accepted 23 March 2013
Available online 10 April 2014
Key words:
Islam Democracy
ABSTRACT
Islam and democracy has been a subject of intense debate among Muslim scholars.
Some argue that Islam is a religion based on divine revelation and therefore it is
contradictory to democracy which grounded on human values. Others maintain that
democratic values are in line with religious ones, so that the latter should support the
former. This paper discusses the subject with specific reference to Abdurrahman Wahid
thought. It argues that Wahid believes in the possibility of harmonization of religious
values with democratic ones. Moreover, he maintains that religious and democratic
values have common goals, because they maintain human equality, freedom and
tolerance.
© 2014 AENSI Publisher All rights reserved.
To Cite This Article: Widyawati., Islam and Democracy: The Thought of Abdurrahman Wahid. Adv. in Nat. Appl. Sci., 8(2): 82-89, 2014
INTRODUCTION
Abdurrahman Wahid was the fourth president of the Republic of Indonesia who was widely known for his
liberal thought and actions. Before, he was chairman of the greatest Islamic traditional organization in
Indonesia, Nahdlatul Ulama, with approximately 30 million members. He did not resign from this position until
he was appointed as the fourth president of the Republic of Indonesia. Gus Dur, as he is popularly called, often
launched controversial ideas and perfomed “odd” actions confusing many people, including his followers. Emha
Ainun Najib [37] once said, “No figures are the most difficult to understand exceeded Gus Dur. And no one is
more confused about Gus Dur than his followers.” The following examples support this proposition. In 19831985, Wahid was appointed as the chairman of the Jakarta Board of Art (DKJ) and consequently in 1986 served
as the chairman of jurist council of Indonesian Film Festival (FFI). No doubt, such positions were confusing
since he was a leader of organization of religious scholars. To this objection Wahid responded that Imam alShafi„i, the founder of one of the four school in Islamic law, also became a critic of literature (naqid al-adab) in
his time. If he still alived, Shafi„i might be became chairman of Art Board like him [44].
Moreover, when Soeharto‟s government supported the establishment of All-Indonesian Muslim Intellectual
Association (Ikatan Cendekiawan Muslim se-Indonesia, ICMI) in 1990, Wahid rejected to joint this organization
considering that this organization will be sectarian. Otherwise, together with his colleagues, he established
Forum of Democracy (Forum Demokrasi/Fordem). In 1994, on his return from Israel to see the peace process in
the Middle East and to present a speech on peace at the Harry S. Truman Institute for Peace, he suggested that
the government of Indonesia should open a diplomatic relation with Israel. Such actions no doubt made him a
controversial figure, and even he was sometimes charged with “enemy of Islam from within” or “agents of
Zionism.”
Although Wahid‟s ideas are very diverse, there are three main aspects of his concern, namely revitalization
of traditional Islamic heritage, modernity and search for solutions to the concrete problems faced by Indonesian
Muslims [22]. Greg Barton [7], on the other hand, emphasizes that Wahid‟s thought is mainly concerned with
Islamic boarding school (pesantren), the dynamic of Islam, tolerance and humanity or humanism. Again, Laode
Ida and Thontowi Jauhari [25] saw that the major pilar of Wahid‟s thought is nationalism, Pancasila and
democracy.
Masykuri Abdillah [2] argues that Indonesian Muslim intellectuals generally accept and support the concept
of democracy on the basis of political reality in that they accept it in practical sense, but they consider the power
of God remains a baseline measure. Wahid, on the contrary, “is the only Muslim intellectual who accepts and
advocates democracy recognising popular sovereignty in the context of the life of the nation.” Because his view
on democracy is rooted in people sovereignty, William Liddle [31] considers “Abdurrahman is perhaps the most
„secular‟ contemporary Indonesia Islam leader; in the sense that he aspires to a future democratic Indonesia
without a religion-based party.”
Corresponding Author: Widyawati, Faculty of Shari„a and Law, Sunan Gunung Djati State Islamic University, Bandung,
Indonesia
83
Widyawati, 2014
Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 8(2) February 2014, Pages: 82-89
This paper examines Wahid‟s view of democracy and the values underlying it. Against the previous views,
this paper argues that Wahid‟s thought of democracy cannot be separated from religious basis as well as
Indonesian national ideology, Pancasila. This paper starts with the discussion of religious and ideological
sources of Wahid‟s thought on democracy followed with its values found in Islamic doctrines.
METHOD AND MATERIALS
To discuss the above issues, this paper uses content analysis as method of discussion [11]. Moreover, this
paper also utilizes political as well as theological approaches. This is because democracy is a political concept,
but religious ideas cannot be separated from this concept. The materials used in this paper are the main writings
of Wahid and the writing of others that are related to the issues under discussion.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
a.
Theological and Ideological Bases of Democracy:
Wahid believes that Islam has universal values, as reflected in the belief in unity of God (tawhid), law (fiqh)
and ethics (akhlaq), leading to a deep concern for human destination. He argues that “such principles as equality
before the law, protection of citizens from the pressure and authoritarianism, for their weakness and disability
caused by the rulers” all clearly show that concern [44]. Moreover, Islamic theology has posited human being in
high position in the order of universe. They have free will, but it should be subject to God‟s power. This
freedom indicates that people should respect the meaning and value of life in the highest manner (Wahid, 1981:
40). In Islamic law, Islamic universalism manifested in five protections known as al-usul al-khamsah (five
principles) or maqashid al-shari‘ah (the ultimate purposes of Islamic law). They are: (1) protection of religious
belief; (2) protection of life; (3) protection of intellect; (4) protection of lineage; and (5) protection of wealth
(1995: 546). Based on these principles, Muslims had to place the whole system of life in terms of human rights,
and to maintain principles of freedom in managing life and to spend maximum opportunities for personal
development they choose. These principles, in Siradj‟s view, are similar to human rights, and since “there is no
democracy without human rights, and in general human rights cannot exist without democracy” [2], then Islam
supports human rights which in turn indicate the values of democracy.
Wahid also maintains that Islam is a religion of democracy. There are at least three reasons why Islam can
be considered democratic religion. First, Islam is a religion of law, meaning that Islamic law applies to all
people regardless of class. Second, Islam has a principle of consultation (shura), which means that Muslims
have an opportunity to decide any solution to their problem in free and open agreement. Third, Islam is religion
that inspires development (din al-islah) in that it is revealed to develop human life. This is in line with the main
purpose of democracy as a joint-effort of peoples to improve their life. Quoting „Ali „Abd al-Raziq, Wahid
maintains that the principles of freedom (al-hurriyyah), justice (al-‘adalah), and consultation (al-shura) together
serve as foundations of democracy.
However, these universal values, Wahid believes, are applicable only if they are supported with the nature
of cosmopolitanism of Islamic civilization. That is to say that the universal values cannot be applicable to
human life, unless they interact with and absorb other existing civilizations. History showed us how Muslims
accepted other cultures confidently and absorbed a variety of cultural manifestations in order to found „new‟
civilization. This implies that Islamic civilization is a civilization that is able at protection of all peoples and can
be applied by all Wahid. According to Wahid, this is exactly the meaning of Islam as rahmatan li al-‘alamin,
“mercy for all mankind.”
Basen on this cosmopolitanic character of Islamic civilization Wahid promoted the notion of indigenization
(pribumisasi) or contextualization of Islam. This is because religion and culture have symbiotic relationship, in
which one can be distinguished from another, but one cannot be separated from another since they are
overlapping. Wahid maintains,
The source of Islamic religion is revelation with its own norms. Due to its normative characters, it tends to
be eternal. Culture, on the contrary, is a human creation and therefore it develops in accordance with social
changes. However, these differences do not hinder the manifestations of religious life in the cultural forms.
By the idea of the indigenization, Wahid does not mean that it is another form of syncretism. For him,
syncretism is an attempt to harmonize belief in supernatural forces with pre-Islamic eschatological belief,
whereas indigenization is merely an attempt to take local context into account in issuing Islamic law. This is
based on the legal maxim al-‘adat muhakkamah (local tradition can serve as source of law). To illustrate this
notion of indigenization, Wahid cites an example as follows.
The contextualization [or indigenization] of Islam is a part of Islamic history both in its native country,
Saudi Arabia, and other countries, including Indonesia. The histories of the two countries form a wide and long
river, whose branches are manifold. If a new branch of the river is united together with them, it will give a new
color of its water that affects the color of the entire river. At certain times, the flow of water can be polluted of
84
Widyawati, 2014
Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 8(2) February 2014, Pages: 82-89
the industrial wastes. But the water and the river remain the same. The meaning of this illustration is that the
involvement of Islam in the history does not change Islam itself, but it just changes the manifestation of the
Islamic religious life.
In other words, the universal values of Islam basically will run well insofar as they can relate themselves
with and absorb other civilizations, including modern civilization. Wahid‟s ability to harmonize Islamic thought
with the demands of modernity leads Greg Barton [7] to categorize him as a “neo-modernist” thinker. According
to him, one of the requirements to be a neo-modernist is the ability to harmonize traditional and modern
thoughts, and Wahid meets it.
In the Indonesian context, whose society is a very pluralistic in terms of ethnicity, language and religion,
the application of the universal values of Islam should take this diversity into account, because Islam is not the
one and only religion in this country. For Wahid, universal values of Islam can “play [their role] as a
complementary factor to other components, not as competing factors that will disintegrate national life as a
whole”. In this regard, Islam can serve as the spirit of country in line with the universal principles above. He
argues,
Religion as the spirit of country is a religion of human nature. That is humanitarian religion which is
defined as a “submission” to the One God in the personal context and as commitment toward collective moral
values in social context such as justice, fraternity, liberty and equality before the law, as well as values that are
respected by human society in general.
In other words, as pluralistic country, Indonesia should not be based on an ideology of particular religion,
including Islam, because Islam is just one religion among others.
The ideological debate before Indonesia‟s independence is a case in point. At the time, Muslims demanded
Islam as the basis of the state, since a majority of Indonesia‟s population is Muslim. This can be seen in the
Jakarta Charter where the first pillar of Pancasila, “Belief in the One God,” should be followed “with the
obligation to apply sharia to Muslims.” However, the sentence was deleted to accommodate the demands of the
non-Muslims who represent a specific region of Indonesia [42]. The formulation of Pancasila is finally accepted
today as the basis of the state which constitutes a common word of all components of the nation. In line with
this view, Wahid rejects the notion of “Islamic society” because the recognition of Pancasila implies that
Muslims should practice their religious life under Pancasila. Moreover, the notion of “Islamic society” will only
bring about differences of the status of citizens that should be avoided on the basis of Pancasila. Wahid argues,
I disagree with those who aspire to build an “Islamic community.” In my view, the Islamic community in
Indonesia is a betrayal againts constitution, because it will locate the community of non-Muslims as the secondclass citizens. However, “Indonesian society” where Muslims become strong society properly is something that
I think good [42].
For Wahid, democracy means all improvement for the nation with the participation of all components.
According to him, democracy is not a monopoly of Muslims, but the whole citizens should participate in it. And
this cannot be done only by a particular religion, but it should start from Pancasila. This is to say that beside
theological bases, Wahid also believes that Pancasila is an important source of democracy in Indonesia. It is
political compromise that unites the nation. Its essence is the tolerance and mutual respect among the various
religious groups, geographical regions, ethnic groups and races. As a political agreement, Pancasila provides an
opportunity for Indonesian people to develop a healthy national life in a unitary state. Therefore, for Wahid,
“without Pancasila, Indonesian republic never exists” [42].
The compromistic trait was reflected, among others, from the values contained in Pancasila itself. Wahid
said,
Pancasila is derived from Islam, nationalism and communism. Indeed, it banned the PKI, but the spirit of
equality and egalitarianism exists in the Pancasila. The spirit of “social justice” belongs to communism
(Marxism), because there is no concept of “social justice” before the birth of communism. The term of “social
justice” did not exist before. So, Pancasila is a summary of various ideologies of the world. From the theocratic
ideology (Islam) the first pillar flows, and this occurs due to the wisdom of our fathers. It was their wisdom that
led the establishement of free and independent nation from communism (the excessive opposition groups) as
took place in India.
This indicates that the followers of these ideologies have given up in aspiring their own ideology, and
instead they accept Pancasila as the intersecsion.
For Gus Dur, such a compromise has posited Pancasila as the rule of the game that connects all religions
and beliefs in public life, state and nation. This does not only mean that positing one religion, including Islam,
as the state official religion should be avoided [42], but also means that Pancasila should not condone any
religion. Otherwise, Pancasila will cease being a rule of the game that has been agreed upon together. Therefore,
Pancasila should treat all religions in equal manner before the law and in the social interaction.
This view is based on the historical fact that the political agreemant on August 18, 1945, involving the
entire elites of nation has considered Pancasila the final basis of the state. Therefore, any group who struggles to
posit Islam as the basis of the state, basically they violetid or betrayed the agreements made by the founding
85
Widyawati, 2014
Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 8(2) February 2014, Pages: 82-89
fathers of this nation [68]. In fact, an attempt to make Islam as basis of the state has been done by Muslims, but
it does not gain the support of all components of the nation. This, for Gus Dur, was in line with Islamic law
based on the legal maxim, ma layudraku kulluh layutraku kulluh (“if a thing cannot be obtained entirely, it
should not be left all”). From Islamic political perspective, Indonesia‟s position, in view of Gus Dur, was not as
dar al-islam but dar al- shulh or dar al-‘ahd. To support this view, Gus Dur referred to decitions of 1953 NU
Congress 1953 in Banjarmasin. One of the issues raised in the congress is whether or not Muslims should
defend the Dutch East Indies when it was attacked by Japanese force. The answer is that Muslims were obliged
to defend the Dutch East Indies government, because it guaranted freedom for Muslims to perform their
religious lives. For this reason, NU received the Republic of Indonesia which is not based on Islam, but on
Pancasila.
Furthermore, Pancasila, in view of Gus Dur, provides a great chance for every citizen to express his
opinion, assembly and association, as stated in 1945 Constitution. In other words, Pancasila and the constitution
have guaranteed the democracy for the citizens of the state indeed. Therefore, when he founded the Forum of
Democracy with his friends and was charged as one who violates Pancasila by the government, he challenged
the government to show the article of constitution or the principles of Pancasila, which justitied such a charge.
Moreover, he asserted,
Pancasila is not per se warranting democracy, he also stipulate a tolerant society, where a democratic
society can be realized. Moreover, the trunk of the UUD 1945 is a document allowing the voting to be done and
enabling the freedom of speech and human rights.
In other words, Pancasila, for Gus Dur, is a vehicle to fight for the establishment of democracy. His firm
belief in Pancasila as a starting point of the overall democratization leads Ramage and Abdillah concludes that
his democratic thought is secular, because it is based on Pancasila and not on religion. However, as outlined
earlier, Pancasila, Gus Dur‟s view, is an ideology inspired by, and as a manifestation, universal values of
religion. This is evident from the first principle of Pancasila, “Belief in God Almighty,” and basically Pancasila
supports all religions. Therefore, such a conclusion fails to see the relationship between the universal values of
Islam and Pancasila.
b.
The Principle of Equality:
One serious issue in Islam is the status of Muslim and non-Muslim, male and female. The concept zhimmi
and musta’min in Islam, for example, often means that the equality between Muslims and non-Muslims does not
exist, because the latter is placed as second-class citizens. Therefore, second-class citizens have never had the
possibility to become head of state. One of the reasons most often cited by Muslims why non-Muslims are not
allowed to occupy the position of head of state is the verse of the Quran, “Let not the believers take those who
deny the truth for their allies in preference to the believers”.
Wahid rejects such an interpretation arguing that Islam basically does not differentiate between Muslims
and non-Muslims, since they have the same rights, including the right to be the head of state. However, in
practical context, it is natural that the Muslims chose a Muslim candidate as the head of state in preference to
non-Muslims [2]. In the context of Indonesia, Gus Dur did not agree with the opinion that non-Muslims cannot
become president of the country simply because Muslims are predominant. He insisted, constitutionally, a nonMuslim can be president, and this must be the principle, despite the fact that such a possibility is very difficult to
be realized [26]. The same case applies to America where Protestants serve as majority. It is difficult for a
Muslim, for instance, to be a president although constitutionally he is allowed.
Furthermore, Gus Dur insists that the democracy can only be in line with justice. Since Islam is a religion of
democracy, it should support justice, whether in the form of the legal, political, cultural, economic and social
justice. Legal maxim of Islam states that “the policy the leader takes should lead to the interest of his peoples”
(tasharruf al-imam ala al-ra‘iyyah manut bi al- mashlahah). This indicates serves “evidence” whether or not the
life of society is democratic.
Based on the principle of justice, Gus Dur rejects the idea of representation in both legislative and executive
boards in the country. He asserts, “There have been complaints in the past, [why] Christians are represented too
much in government. Take for examples Radius Prawiro, J.B. Sumarlin, L.B. Moerdani and others. It is true that
they are Christians, but they are lay Christians. On the other hands, there are a lot of Muslims such as Soeharto,
Try Sutrisno, and others, but they are not considered as the representatives of Muslims?” In other words, justice
based on representation, for Gus Dur, should be grounded on clear provisions, including who represents whom,
not just based on mere claims.
As mentioned earlier, Gus Dur regards Islam as a religion of democracy because it is based on law. It
means that law applies to everyone regardless of class; the highest officials and common people are subject to
the same law. Since the law applied in this country is not religious law, national law should be the rule of the
game.
86
Widyawati, 2014
Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 8(2) February 2014, Pages: 82-89
c.
The Principle of Freedom:
According to Gus Dur, from the theological perspective, Islam acknowledges a great freedom for humans.
In Sunni doctrine, for example, people were given a high position in life order in the universe. He is allowed to
will anything, although the will itself must be subject to the reality of God‟s power. The independence, to Gus
Dur, requires people to uphold the meaning and the value of life ends.
Human freedom is not limited to the free will and effort, but more important is the freedom of speech.
According to Gus Dur, many verses of the Qur‟an use the term Afalā ta’qilūn, Afalā tatafakkarūn and so on.
This indicates that each man must think. The necessity of thinking also means the recognition of freedom of
thought, because the results of the individual thoughts are not the same. In other words, the command to think
also comes with the consequences, i.e. the difference of opinion, even controversy, and that‟s the “essence of
democracy”.
According to Gus Dur, the difference of opinion in this religion must be the principle of every Muslim to
keep respects the opion of others. Whatever the form of opinion one has, as such, it does not diminish the
greatness of Islam. Freedom of speech is emphasized by Gus which can be seen, among other things, from his
attitude in defending Salman Rushdie, the author of The Satanic Verses.
His great attention for the freedom of speech is also based on his interest in liberalism. According to him,
liberalism is a philosophy of life that emphasizes the fundamental rights of humankind. It believes in and
necessitates its rule of law, equal treatment before the law for all citizens, regardless of ethnic origin, culture and
religion. In fact, for Gus Dur, liberalism protects those who dissent from the opinion of the majority of the
nation. In other words, liberalism has values that support high civilization. Therefore, Gus Dur found liberalism
is the only ideology that can lead to a more democratic direction [15]. As stated earlier, Islam recognizes
humanitarian values in high manner, and the core values of Islam, according to Gus Dur, are the values of
„liberalism‟. He himself has no objection if one calls him a „liberalist‟ since liberalism itself is in line with
Islamic values. In Gus Dur point of view, freedom of speech was also absolutely guaranteed by the laws and
Constitution of 1945. Since controversy is one of the essences of democracy, said Gus Dur, “If you ban
controversy, you can be considered dictator, anti-Pancasila” [26].
d.
The Principle of Pluralism:
What is meant by pluralism here is a society where the population is not homogeneous, but is divided by
tribal, ethnic, racial and religious aspects, in which sometimes some of these factors converge and lead to
conflict. According Abdillah, most Indonesian Muslim scholars emphasize pluralism in terms of religious aspect
[2].
According to Gus Dur, the religious diversity was actually a difference in perceiving concepts and the
attributes of their own divinity. This difference in turn causes the different procedures and rituals, but they
basically lead to the same God. Gus Dur said, “We serve [the] substance of the same God. God is essentially the
same. What differ are the divine attributes, the concept of divinity. In essence, God is the same”.
By the essece of God is the same Gus Dur does not mean eliminating the theological differences that exist
within each religion, because each religion is unique. In line with this understanding, Gus Dur interprets QS
(2:120), “O Muhammad, verily the Jews and Christians will not be willing to you until you follow,” not as
commonly understood by many people, in the sense that they will be always hostile to Muslims. According to
him, it is “not willing” in the above verse is “unable to accept the basic concepts”. For Gus Dur, those Jews and
Christians absolutely cannot accept the basic concepts of Islam, otherwise they are no longer Jews and
Christians.
From the above description, it shows that the tolerance among co-religionists become an inevitable in
building Indonesia. However, according to Gus Dur, the tolerance does not merely mean “peaceful coexistence”
as it is echoed by many people. The most important of the tolerance, said Gus Dur, was a sense of togetherness
and understanding.
Gus Dur believes that the greatness and the strength of a nation because it has the spirit of pluralism. To
realize this pluralistic spirit, Gus Dur requires the democratic treatment from all parties, including the
government. Gus Dur argued that pluralism would not be maintained in the absence of democracy. This means,
the government should not be favored one religion over other religions in the management of the state. For this
reason, among others, Gus Dur assessed the presence of all-Muslim Intellectual Association that can lead to
sectarianism.
Conclusion:
From the above discussion, it is clear that Wahid is promoter and defender of democratic values, such as
principle of equality, freedom, tolerance. He argued that such values are congruent with Islamic values, so that
Muslims should uphold these values. Moreover, these values are also fundamental as can be seen Indonesian
constitution and ideology.
87
Widyawati, 2014
Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 8(2) February 2014, Pages: 82-89
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Abdalla, Ulil Abshar, 1995. “Umat Islam dan Politik Representasi,” Jurnal UlumulQur'an, No. 2, Th. VI.
Abdillah, Masykuri, 1999. Demokrasi di Persimpangan Makna: Respons Intelektual Muslim Indonesia
terhadap Konsep Demokrasi (1996-1993) (Yogyakarta: Tiara Wacana).
-----------, 1997. “Indonesian Moslem Intellectuals and Democracy”, Studia Islamika, 3:1.
Affandi, Arief (ed.), 1997. Islam Demokrasi Atas Bawah: Polemik Strategi Perjuangan Umat Model Gus
Dur dan Amien Rais (Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar).
Aly, Fachry dan Bachtiar Effendi, 1992. Merambah Jalan Baru Islam: Rekonstruksi Pemikiran Islam
Indonesia Masa Orde Baru (Bandung: Mizan).
Arndt, H.W., 1983. Pembangunan dan Pemerataan (Jakarta: LP3ES).
Barton, Greg, 1997. “Liberalisme: Dasar-dasar Progresifitas Pemikiran Abdurrahman Wahid,” dalam Greg
Fealy dan Greg Barton, Tradisionalisme Radikal: Persinggungan Nahdlatul Ulama-Negara, terj. Ahmad
Suaedy, et al. (Yogyakarta: LKiS).
--------------, 1997. “Indonesia‟s Nurcholish Madjid and Abdurrahman Wahid as Intellectuals,” Studia
Islamika, 4:1.
--------------, 1999. Gagasan Islam Liberal di Indonesia: Pemikiran Neo-Modemisme Nurcholish Madjid,
Djohan Effendi, Ahmad Wahid dan Abdurrahman Wahid, terj. Nanang Tahqiq (Jakarta: Paramadina).
--------------, 1994. “The Impact of Neo-Modernism on Indonesian Islamic Thought,” dalam David
Bourchier and John Legge (eds.), Democracy in Indonesia, 1950s and 1990s (Clayton, Monash University).
Berg, Bruce L., 1995. Qualitative Research Methods for Social Sciences, 2nd edition (London-Boston: Allyn
and Bacon).
Bisri, Cik Hasan, 1999. “Pemetaan Unsur Penelitian: Upaya Pengembangan Ilmu Agama Islam,” Mimbar
Studi: Jumal Ilmu Agama Islam, Nomor 2, Tahun XXII.
---------------, 1999. Masalah, Tujuan Penelitian dan Kerangka Berpikir, Bahan Ceramah dalam
pembekalan tahap kedua Pelatihan Penelitain Tingkat Dasar bagi Tenaga Edukatif, IAIN Sunan Gunung
Diati Bandung.
---------------, 1999. Penuntun Penyusunan Rencana Penelitian dan Penulisan Skripsi, cetakan kedua
(Jakarta: Logos).
al-Brebesy, Ma‟mun Murod, 1999. Menyingkap Pemikiran Politik Gus Dur dan Amien Rais Untang Negara
(Jakarta: Rajawali Pers).
Budiardjo, Miriam, 1992. Dasar-dasarllmu Politik (Jakarta: Gramedia).
Budiman, Arief, 1993. “Agama, Demokrasi dan Keadilan,” dalam M. Imam Azid dkk. (eds.), Agama,
Demokrasi dan Keadilan (Jakarta: Gramedia).
Dahl, Robert A., 1992. Demokrasi dan Para Pengkritiknya (Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia), Jilid 2.
-----------------, 1985. Dilema Demokrasi Pluralis: Antara Otonomi dan Kontrol (Jakarta: Rajawali Pers).
Esposito, John L. dan James Piscatori, 1991. “Democratization and Islam,” Middle East Journal, 45(3).
Hamzah, Imron dan Choirul Anam (eds.), 1989. Gus Dur Diadili Kiai-kiai (Surabaya: Jawa Pos).
Hikam, Muhammad A.S., 1986. “Gus Dur dan Perbedaan Politik Umat,” dalam Arief Afandi (ed.), Islam
Demokrasi Atas-Bawah: Polemik Strategi Perjuangan Umat Model Gus Dur dan Amien Rais (Yogyakarta:
Pustaka Pelajar).
, 1995. Demokrasi dan Civil Society (Jakarta: LP3ES).
Hook, Sidney, 1984. “Democracy,” Encyclopaedia Americana (Danbury and Connecticut: Grolier
Incorporated), 18.
Ida, Laode dan Thontowi Jauhari, Gus Dur di antara Keberhasilan dan Kenestapaan (Jakarta: Rajawali
Pers).
Isre, M. Saleh (ed.), 1998. Tabayun Gus Dur: Pribumisasi Islam, Hak Minoritas, Reformasi Kultural
(Yogyakarta: LKiS).
Karim, A. Gaffar, 1995. Metamorforsis NU dan Politisasi Islam Indonesia (Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar).
Kompas, 30 Mei 1987.
Kuntowijoyo, 1997. “Menjadikan Dua strategi saling Komplementer,” dalam Arief Affandi (ed.), Islam
Demokrasi Atas Bawah (Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar).
Kusumaatmadja, 1988. Sarwono, Sketsa Politik Orde Baru (Bandung: Alumni).
Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Egon G. Guba, 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry (London: Sage Publication.
Liddle, R. William, 1995. “Islam and Politics in Late New Order,” makalah disampaikan pada seminar
tentang “Religion and Society in Southeast Asia,” 29-30 Mei (tidak diterbitkan).
Madjid, Nurcholish, 1999. Cita-Cita Politik Islam Era Reformasi (Jakarta: Paramadina Mulya).
Malik, Dedi Djamaluddin dan Idi Subandy Ibrahim, 1998. Zaman Baru Islam Indonesia: Pemikiran dan
Aksi Politik Abdurrahman Wahid, M. Amien Rais, Nurcholish Madjid' Jalaluddin Rakhmat (Bandung:
Zaman Wacana Mulya).
88
Widyawati, 2014
Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 8(2) February 2014, Pages: 82-89
34. Mas‟oed, Mochtar, 1989. Struktur Ekonomi Politik Orde Baru 1966-1971 (Jakarta: LP3ES).
35. Muhammad, Afif, 1999. “Pembagain Ilmu Kalam dari Klasik ke Modern: Telaah Sosio-Historis atas
Doktrin dan Metode”, MimbarStudi: Jurnal Ilmu Agama Islam, Nomor 2, Tahun XXII.
36. Mujiburrahman, 1999. “Islam and Politics in Indonesia: The Political Thought of Abdurrahman Wahid,”
Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 10(3).
37. Nadjib, Emha Ainun, 1991. Slilit Sang Kiai (Jakarta: Grafiti Press).
38. Nadrah, Siti, 1999. Wacana Keagamaan dan Politik Nurcholis Madjid (Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada).
39. Al-Qur‟an.
40. Rahman, Fazlur, 1989. “Konsep Negara Islam,” dalam John J. Donohue dan John L. Esposito, Islam dan
Pembaharuan: Ensiklopedi Masalah- masalah, terj. Machnun Husein (Jakarta: Rajawali Pers).
41. -------------------, 1979. “Islam: Challenges and Opportunities,” dalam Alford T.Welch and Pierre Cachia
(eds.), Islam: Past Influence and Present Challenge (Albany, NY.: State University of New York).
42. Ramage, Douglas E., 1997. Politics in Indonesia: Democracy Islam and the Ideology of Tolerance
(London: Roudedge).
43. ------------------------, “Demokratisasi, Toleransi Agama dan Pancasila: Pemikiran
44. Politik Abdurrahman Wahid, 1997. ” dalam Greg Fealy dan Greg Barton (eds.), Tradisionalisme Radikal:
Persinggungan Nahdlatul Ulama-Negara, terj. Ahmad Suaedy dkk., (Yogyakarta: LKiS).
45. ------------------------, 1997. “Pemahaman Abdurrahman Wahid tentang Pancasila dan Penerapannya,” dalam
Elyasa K.H. Dharwis (ed.), Gus Dur; NU dan Masyarakat Sipil (Yogyakarta: LKiS).
46. Schacht, Joseph, 1982. An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
47. Siradj, Said Agiel, 1997. Ahlussunnah wal Jama’ah dalam Lintasan Sejarah (Yogyakarta: LKPSM).
48. Sjadzali, Munawir, 1993. Islam dan Tata Negara (Jakarta: UI Press).
49. Surbakti, Ramlan, 1992. Memahami Ilmu Politik (Jakarta: Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia).
50. Tempo, “Demokrasi yang Seolah-olah,” 18 Mei 1991.
51. Tempo, “Demokrasi versi Mufakat Cibereum,” 13 April 1991.
52. The United Nations Organization, 1993. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Journal of Religious
Pluralism, 3.
53. Tim Incres, Beyond the Symbols: Jejak Antropologis Pemikiran dan Gerakan Gus Dur (Bandung: Rosda
Karya, 2000).
54. Wahid, Abdurrahman, 1994. “Agama dan Demokrasi,” Spiritualitas Baru: Agama dan Aspirasi Rakyat
(Yogyakarta: Institut Dian/Interfidei).
55. -----------------, 1995. “Konsep-konsep Keadilan,” dalam Budhy Munawar Rachman (ed.), Kontekstualisasi
Doktrin Islam dalam Sejarah (Jakarta: Paramadina).
56. ------------------, 1999. Islam, Negara dan Demokrasi, peny. Imam Anshari Saleh (Jakarta: Penerbit
Erlangga).
57. ------------------, 1999. Prisma Pemikiran Gus Dur (Yogyakarta: LKiS).
58. ------------------, 1981. Islam di Tengah Pergumulan (Jakarta: Leppenas).
59. ------------------, 1980. “Menetapkan Pangkalan-pangkalan Pendaratan menuju Indonesia Yang Kita Citacitakan,” dalam Imam Waluyo dan Kons Kleden (eds.), Dialog. Indonesia Kini dan Esok (Jakarta:
Leppenas).
60. ------------------, 1997. “Islam, Pluralisme dan Demokratisasi,” dalam Arief Afandi (ed.), Islam Demokrasi
Atas Bawah: Polemik Strategi Peijuangan Umat Model Gus Dur dan Amien Rais (Yogyakarta: Pustaka
Pelajar).
61. ------------------, 1999. Mengurai Hubungan Agama dan Negara, diedit oleh Kacung Marijan dan Ma‟mun
Murod al-Brebesy (Jakarta: Grasindo).
62. -----------------, 2000. Kiai Nyentrik Membela Pemerintah (Yogyakarta: LKiS).
63. -----------------, 1995. “Universalisme dan Kosmopolitanisme Peradaban Islam,” dalam Budhi MunawarRahman (ed.), Kontekstualisasi Doktrin Islam dalam Sejarah (Jakarta: Paramadina).
64. ----------------, 1989. “Pribumisasi Islam,” dalam Muntaha Azhari dan Abdul Mun‟im Saleh (eds.), Islam
Indonesia Menatap Masa Depan (Jakarta: P3M).
65. -----------------, 1989. “Sosialisasi Nilai-nilai Demokrasi,” dalam M. Masyhur Amin (ed.), Agama,
Demokrasi dan Transformasi Sosial (Yogyakarta: LKPSM-NU).
66. -----------------, 1999. Membangun Demokrasi, peny. Zaini Shofari Al-Raef dkk. (Bandung: Remaja Rosda
Karya).
67. ----------------, 1991. “Kasus Penafsiran Ulang yang Tuntas,” pengantar dalam Masdar F. Mas‟udi, Agama
Keadilan: Risalah Zakat (Pajak) dalam Islam (Jakarta: Pustaka Firdaus).
68. Woodward, Mark. R., 1996. “Conversation with Abdurrahman Wahid,” dalam Mark R. Woodward (ed.),
Toward a New Paradigm: Recent Developments in Indonesian Islamic Thought (Arizona: Arizona State
University).
89
Widyawati, 2014
Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 8(2) February 2014, Pages: 82-89
69. Al-Zastrouw, 1999. Gus Dur Siapa sih Sampeyan: Tafsir Teoritik atas Tindakan dan Pemyataan Gus Dur
(Jakarta: Erlangga).