Reinterpreting the Concept of Caliphate through Gadamerian

Hermeneutics Approach

Aulia Rahman Nugraha

and Naupal

Department of Philosophy, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

Keywords: Caliphate, effective history, fusion of horizon, Gadamer’s hermeneutics

Abstract: The idea of the Caliphate has been an issue in Indonesia in recent years. We can witness that there is a

movement which aims for replacing the concept of Indonesian government with the “Khilafah Islamiyah’.

There have been worries that this concept is narrowly interpreted and that is only for the purpose of

political-power. If so, we fail to understand the meaning of the caliph in a larger landscape. Using

Gadamer's hermeneutical approach, it is hoped that we can understand the meaning of the concept of

caliphate to be more comprehensive. Understanding the text can not be separated from the tradition in which

the interpreter is located. Thus, the interpreter needs to broaden his present horizon to reach the horizon of

the text. The fusion of the horizon is to produce a new understanding. To understand the caliphate more

fully, we must expand our horizon to reach the horizon of the text; the horizon of the Qur'an, the hadith, and

the history of the concept of the caliphate. Technically, this paper uses literature study method. The results

of this paper show that the concept of the caliph is a conceptual substance concerning humans who performs

universal good deed on earth.

1 INTRODUCTION

The idea to the discourse of caliphate has become

the trending issue in Indonesia in the last few years.

At least, it is Islamic radical movement affiliated to

ISIS in Indonesia that voices the idea (Sumandoyo,

2018). There is also HTI which also provokes the

idea of calipahte in each of its campaign. They have

been promoting to replace the ideology of Pancasila

with the idea of caliphate (Hayati, 2017). According

to Deutsche Welle report, there are also a number of

people and high school and university students who

have become the members or sympathizers of the

caliphate movement in Indonesia that vocalizes the

idea of caliphate as a substitute to the Republic of

Indonesia. Their motivation varies. Some want to be

back to the correct track of Islamic teaching. Some

intend to strengthen the bond among Moslem

brothers. Some are not satisfied with the present

political system, etc.

The narrowed meaning or comprehension of only

political power can be seen at the movement of

Hizbut Tahrir in Indonesia. Hizbut Tahrir is an

Islamic political party with its mission of building

Islamic Caliphate (Hayati, 2017). To figure out how

Hizbut Tahrir narrows the interpretation of Caliphate

into only relations to issues of power politics, we

can see the definition provided by Taqiyyudin al-

Nabhani, the founder of Hizbut Tahrir:

“The Khaleefah is the man who represents

the Ummah in the ruling and authority

and in the implementation of the Ahkam

Shari’ah (Divine Laws). Islam has

decreed that the ruling and authority

belong to the Ummah. It is she who

appoints someone who runs that on her

behalf, and Allah has made it obligatory

upon the Ummah to execute all of the

rules of Shar’a.” (al-Nabhani, 1996).

In the view of the writer, the narrowed

interpretation of the meaning of caliphate into only

political issues or political power can create a lot of

problems. Not only this narrowed interpretation can

be used practically to obtain power by certain group

of people, but it can also fundamentally lead us to

failure to interpret the meaning of caliphate in a

larger landscape. In contrast, caliphate brings many

meanings depending on its function and context in

Islamic discourse.

Nugraha, A. and Naupal, .

Reinterpreting the Concept of Caliphate through Gadamerian Hermeneutics Approach.

DOI: 10.5220/0009939320672075

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2018), pages 2067-2075

ISBN: 978-989-758-458-9

2067

In al-Nabhani’s definition above, a caliph is

interpreted as a person representing Islamic people

or Muslims to be the ruler who implements Islamic

laws. Some problems then appear. Does the caliph

only deal with the problems of power politics? Is it

only Muslim who can be caliph or can anybody?

What is a caliph? This writing means to answer

those questions.

Using Hermeneutics Method of Hans-Georg

Gadamer, the author tries to purify the interpretation

of ‘caliph’ from a lot of text manipulation and

distortion of certain ideological and political interest.

To comprehend text using Hermeneutics Method of

Hans-Georg Gadamer is closely related to two basic

concepts; thus history of influence and fusion of

horizons (Hardiman, 2015). In this case, Gadamer

intend to state that text interpretation cannot be

separated from the tradition or culture where the

interpreter lives. Therefore, the interpreter should

broaden his present horizon of thinking into the

horizon of thinking the earliest text was written. The

fusion of horizon of thinking of the interpreter and

the text is to project a historical horizon which

differs from the present horizon of the interpreter

and the horizon of the earlies text, thus producing a

new perspective.

To comprehend the idea of caliphate, we need to

broaden our horizon into the horizon the text was

written which was the way of thinking or horizon of

the noble Quran, Hadith and the history of the

concept of caliphate. This is in line with the basic

principles of Hermeneutics Method of Hans-Georg

Gadamer: The whole text is understood through

parts of it, and new parts can be understood through

the whole (Grondin, 2002). Then, we can fully

understand the meaning of caliphate; it is not only

the replacement of power, but it means conceptual

substance about human who performs universal

good deed on Earth.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The word ‘caliph’ in language means ‘a person who

replaces other and reign the position’ (Ma’luuf,

1908). The word caliphate in Arabic is Khaleefah

and it has three letters “kha”, “la”, and “fa”. And the

base word “khalafa” earlier means ‘at the back’

(Shihab, 2007). According to Quraish Shihab

(2007), from this comprehension the word khaleefah

is often defined as ‘substitute’. However, this base

word actually has several forms and meanings

depending on the context of use which is repeated

127 times in 12 words formation in noble Quran

(Rahim, 2012).

Meanwhile the word “khaeefah” in singular form

is written twice in noble Quran, thus in Al-Baqarah

verse 30 and in Sad verse 26. In its plural form, there

are two words used (Risalati, 2008). The first word

is “khalaif” which is mentioned four times in Al-

Anám verse 165, in Yunus verse 14 and 73 and Fatir

verse 39. The second word, “khulafa”, is mentioned

three times in Al-A’raf verse 69 and 74 and Al-Naml

verse 62. The different form of plural form of

“khalifah” refers to the faith of the person (Rahim,

2012). On one hand, “khalaif” is used to refer

generally to human and specifically to those with

faith. On the other hand, the word “khulafa” is used

in the context of discussing the non-believers.

However, Quraish Shihab explains a quite different

matter. To him, the use of “khulafa” has a meaning

of political power on managing a certain region

while the use of word “khalaif”, for Shihab, is not

included in the meaning of power politics (Shihab,

2005).

3 RESEARCH METHOD

The concept of Gadamer’s Hermeneutics can be

found in his popular masterpiece, Truth and Method.

With this method he wants to state that the duty of

Hermeneutics is philosophical duty that puts forward

the importance of phenomenological description.

This is clearly stated in his introduction: “My real

concern was and is philosophic: not what we do or

what we ought to do, but what happens to us over

and above our wanting and doing.” (Gadamer,

2006).

To comprehend the concept of Gadamer’s

Hermeneutics, we need first to comprehend the main

principle in Gadamer’s Hermeneutics. This principle

questions the idea of comprehension. That is to

comprehend the whole we have to comprehend the

parts, and to comprehend those parts we have to

comprehend wholly. In other words, to comprehend

a text we cannot investigate partly of the whole

meaning of the text as the meaning continues to

change through time. So there is no single, universal

and final interpretation; interpretation can develop.

The relation of the two is mutual: the individual text

elements change their meaning following the whole,

it is the same as the change of the whole with its

parts (Dobrosavljev, 2002). To put it simply, we can

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

2068

see the parts and the whole influence each other like

an unfinished circle.

So, in the circle of Gadamer’s Hermeneutics, we

find that there is effort to search for meaning in the

relation between the parts and the whole to find

coherence in order to comprehend text as a whole.

The duty of readers according to Gadamer is to

comprehend the text, thus what the text is (Grondin,

2002). When a reader reads the text, he does not

only follow the claim of the writer, but more

importantly, he also needs to comprehend the

subject matter of the text.

To come into comprehension of subject matter of

the text, Gadamer does not think that the meaning is

solely defined by the interpreter. There is a role of

prejudice, authority, pre-structure that help the

interpreter into the text. The truth is not relative,

neither it is defined by the interpreter’s arbitrary

because the interpreter himself follows the rules

defined by his tradition (Hardiman, 2015;

Dobrosavljev, 2002). Gadamer talks about the pre-

structure of Hermeneutics which is tradition and

authority of horizon where the subject is. The

awareness of history is also essential in searching

the meaning of the text because history is not only

objective phenomenon isolated from us, but we are

ourselves in the (Gadamer, 2006). Gadamer tries to

dig deeper for the purpose of this comprehension for

Hermeneutics, thus effective history which is a term

related to our involvement in history in which we are

the doers and are not beyond the history.

As for his awareness of effective history

Gadamer points at the concept of

Horizontverschmelzung or the fusion of horizons.

We can say that horizons are actually prejudice that

exist in tradition and the prejudice can be changed

by other prejudice so that the horizon can develop.

In other words, our interpreted horizon is defined by

our own prejudice which develops through tradition

where we live. As said by Hardiman (2015), there

are two main characteristics of horizon pointed by

Gadamer in his masterpiece Truth and Methode.

First, horizon is not enclosed but open. Second,

horizon is not static but dynamic. The past horizon is

not over and we cannot leave it behind and present

horizon is constantly forming enriching itself from

past horizon.

Because the comprehension of horizon is not

closed but dynamic, there is no clean horizon-based

comprehension without effect or influence from

different horizon. Gadamer places the process of

comprehending as something moving in the horizon

(Kushidayati, 2014). It means the interpreter does

not have opinion over history and tradition.

Comprehending then is a process that involves

voltage of different horizons or a fusion of horizons.

The fusion of horizons is not assimilation of

different kinds of horizons, but it is an intersection

of horizons. The duty of interpretation is to project a

historical horizon different from present horizon.

Therefore, interpretation is not to reconstruct or

represent the meaning of the past but fusion of

tradition and present interpreter in such a way that a

new interpretation is created (Regan, 2012). The

focus of Gadamer is not on the writer but on

interpreter and how he can understand the text (Rutt,

2006).

4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

At least there are three meanings of “khalifah”

presented in many verses of noble Quran (Ma’shum,

2013). First, the meaning of “khalifah” refers to

Adam which is a symbol of first human and that is

why it can be said that human functions as God’s

guardian. Second, the meaning of “khalifah” refers

to a substitute or successor. Third, the meaning of

“khalifah” refers to the leader of nation.

4.1 Human as Caliph

In noble Quran, human has special place on this

planet. Human is a caliph as written in Al-Baqarah

verse 30:

“And [mention, O Muhammad], when

your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I

will make upon the earth a successive

authority." They said, "Will You place

upon it one who causes corruption therein

and sheds blood, while we declare Your

praise and sanctify You?" Allah said,

"Indeed, I know that which you do not

know." (Departement of Religion, 1971).

Like the interpretation presented by Quraish Shihab,

this verse describes a dialogue between Allah and

angels about His decision in planning the creation of

human on Earth. The telling to angels about this

decision was important because the angels will be

given a lot of duties related to human. And the

telling about the plan, was likely after the universe

had been created and ready for human (Adam) to

live in comfortably (Shihab, 2007). Hearing the

plan, the angels asked the meaning of human

Reinterpreting the Concept of Caliphate through Gadamerian Hermeneutics Approach

2069

creation. The angels predicted that human would

only destroy and make bloodshed on Earth. Perhaps,

the angel’s prediction was based on their experience

before human was created when a different creature

behaved. Or perhaps their prediction was based on

assumption that God would create human, a non-

angel kind, which means that human would be

different from the angels who always praised the

God. To respond the questions of the angels, the

God only answered simply without justifying or

blaming them because the God knows that there

would be a creature among his creation who would

behave such way as predicted by the angels.

"Indeed, I know that which you do not know."

(Shihab, 2007).

The history of human, according to noble Quran

started with Adam. However, the word “khalifah” in

that verse does not only refer to Adam only, but it

does to the generations after him. This opinion is

presented by great mufassir, Ibnu Jariir Ath-

Thabary, who describes the meaning of khalifah in

this perspective.

“...is a generation which some of them

replace the others. And they are Adam’s

descendants who replace Adam, their

father. Each generation replaces other

generation.” (Ath-Thabary, 1968).

With this perspective of Ibnu Jariir, therefore, all

humans starting with Adam are caliphs.

Furthermore, Ibnu Jariir then used the perspective or

opinions of Ibnu Mas’uud and Ibnu Abbaas in

explaining the duties of caliph on Earth.

“The caliph was Adam and others who

occupy their position in obedience to God

and implement law among God’s

creatures in fairness. Those who destroy

and make bloodshed without rights are

not the God’s caliphs.” (Ath-Thabary,

1968).

The opinion of Ibnu Jariir was then followed by

great mufassirs after him, such as Ibnu Katsiir and

Al-Qurthuby. To the writer, the opinion of Ibnu

Jariir is likely to be correct. This due to the fact that

since the verses related to caliph is associated with

the duties of a caliph. This is particularly described

in Fatir verse 39, Hud verse 61, and Al-Zariyat

verse 56, which explain the position of human and

his relation to God and environment (Rahim, 2012).

On the other hand, human who has no faith to God

and who does not prioritize obedience to God and

who only prioritize his desire is called “khalfun”, not

“khalifah”. This is stated in Maryam verse 59:

“But there came after them successors

who neglected prayer and pursued

desires; so they are going to meet evil -.”

(Departement of Religion, 1971).

With the description above, we can conclude that

a “caliph” is human who takes turns to be God’s

guardian to keep power on Earth to execute God’s

provisions.

4.2 Caliph in the Definition of Political

Power

Caliph, in general, is somewhat different in its

meaning when compared to the meaning of leader of

nation. Ath-Thabary, for instance, defines a caliph of

leader of nation as “the highest leader (sultan/king)

who replaces former leader to manage the

government duties” (Ath-Thabary, 1968).

Meanwhile, a caliph in its general description as

discussed above is a human who in turns becomes

God’s guardian to keep power on Earth to execute

God’s provisions.

A caliph in its definition as the leader of nation

and in its general definition has difference. The

leader of nation is appointed and dismissed by a

legitimate government. He also has rights and

obligation to manage his government of an area and

its people to aim for prosperity. How he achieves his

goals very much depends on his governmental

system. Meanwhile Islam does not give a definitive

description what kind of governmental system

Moslems should use (Rahim, 2012; and Ma’shum,

2013). In addition, a caliph in its definition of leader

of nation is a profession which is considered

completed when the period of its government

finishes. Meanwhile in its general description a

caliph does not take his position through legitimate

or official appointment and he cannot be dismissed

directly by anybody. Nevertheless, generally a

caliph who does not perform his obligations may

lose his caliphate at all and then is called as

“khalfun” as described above.

The difference in obtaining his position, either in

general definition or in definition of leader of nation

can be referred to Al-Baqarah verse 30 and Sad

verse 26. “[We said], "O David, indeed We have

made you a successor upon the earth, so...”

(Departement of Religion, 1971). Quraish Shihab,

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

2070

for instance, sees the use of singular form of caliph

in Al-Baqarah verse 30 on God’s plan to create

Adam is a reasonable decision (Shihab, 1996). This

is because at that time there had not been humans

who socialized, and even the creation of Adam was

just at the level of idea. The redaction used in noble

Quran in Al-Baqarah verse 30 is “Indeed, I will

make upon the earth a successive authority...”. On

the other hand, in David’s case, the redaction used is

plural and in past form, “[We said], "O David,

indeed We have made you a successor upon the

earth, so...”. This redaction signals that there was

another party besides God in David’s appointment as

the leader or caliph. Therefore, it can be concluded

that the appointment of human as caliph took place

before human existed on Earth, thus in the level of

idea. While the definition of a caliph as a leader in

social life, it is expected that we involve others

(Shihab, 1996).

Those verses also show the requirement of

someone to be a caliph (Sudrajat, 2009). First, the

caliph is someone who is given the power and

authority. Second is the area of power and third is

the relation between the caliph and his area of power

and between the caliph and God. The caliphate of

someone can be seen from how he interacts with the

two above, his surrounding and God. As for the

meaning of caliph as the leader of nation is a

complex matter. On one hand, prophet Muhammad

did not say any message about how governmental

system should be or the process of leader

appointment should be (Ma’shum, 2013). On the

other hand, as presented by Abu Daud, he left a

message that Muslims should have a leader.

“From Abi Sa’id al-Khudri, The Prophet

(sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said, “When

three persons set out on a journey, they

should appoint one of them as their

leader.”.” (Sajastani, 1994).

The history of meaning of caliph as leader of

nation started after the death of Prophet Muhammad.

Prophet Muhammad was not just religious leader but

he was also the leader of nation. Madinah, which

was the centre of government, was his territory.

However, before his death, he did not leave any

message about how the government should be or the

appointment of new leader should be. That kind of

leadership is left to the public. The fact that the

Prophet Muhammad did not leave any message on

governing the state created a number of

interpretation. It was stipulated that he did not create

a comprehensive governmental system (Ma’shum,

2013).

Furthermore, before his death, Prophet

Muhammad did not appoint his successor as the

leader of Muslim. All his closest companions got

together at Saqifah bani Sa’idah led by Abu Bakar to

talk about several matters related to Muslims at that

time. During the meeting at Saqifah, these

companions had severe debate but then agreed to

appoint Abu Bakar as the caliph, a successor of

Prophet Muhammad and the leader of Islamic people

(Ma’shum, 2013).

The problems accompanying the history of

Islamic government was the way to appoint

successor to the next government (Sudrajat, 2009).

We have been able to observe the difference in the

history of the government system itself. The

government after the death of Prophet Muhammad.

We can see, for example, the succession led by

Khulafa al-Rasyidin, which was a republican system

and it is popular today. This means that the

succession is not necessarily based on descent or

kinship. Another different governmental system was

seen in the government after Khulafa al-Rasyidin,

when the leader was appointed based on descent and

kinship. This way of appointment can be seen at the

leadership from Umayyah to Abbasiyyah, and to

Turkey at the beginning of early 20

century. The

other example is seen in Indonesia.

If we talk further about politics in Islam, we have

to comprehend two terms that are directly related to

politics in Islam. Although these two terms come

from noble Quran, they are used by the two groups

who in politics are against to one another, Sunni and

Shia. The two terms are “khilafah” and “imamah”.

“The word khilafah/caliphate in Arabic grammar

is a verbal noun that requires active subject or doer

called khalifah/a caliph.” (Sudrajat, 2009). The word

caliphate then refers to the actions carried out by the

caliph. So, there is no caliphate without a caliph.

Meanwhile literary and technically we can define the

word khilafah/caliphate. Sudrajat (2009), following

the opinion of Ganai, says that literary the word

“khilafah/caliphate” means “succussion to the

former government”. Technically the word

“khilafah/caliphate” can mean an Islamic

government based on noble Quran and Hadith

(Sudrajat, 2009).

Khilafah is an important concept in the thinking

circle of Islamic politics and the establishment of

Islamic state. The importance of the concept is

Reinterpreting the Concept of Caliphate through Gadamerian Hermeneutics Approach

2071

showed from the leadership of Prophet Muhammad,

Khulafa al-Rasyidin, Umayyah, Abbasiyyah, to the

last khilafah in Turkey at the 20

century, where

Islam lived harmoniously with other religions. In

Sunni group, it is important that khilafah/caliphate is

consistent with Islamic law, báiat principle, shura

and ahl al-hall wal-aqd. They also claim that the

leader or caliph is the heir of Prophet Muhammad.

On the other hand, Shia promotes ismah, taqiyyah

and walayah principles (Adam, 2001).

Basically, there was no difference between Sunni

and Shia on the requirement to have only one leader

in society. The difference was on who was the right

person to be appointed. For Sunni, a caliph of

Caliphate was temporary leadership and the right

person to caliph should come from Quraysh tribe.

Meanwhile, Shia added more criterion; the caliph

should only be chosen from Ali’s descendants. For

Sunni, innocence or never wrong was one of the

criteria that was only owned by Prophet

Muhammad. Imamiyyah group and other sub-group

in Shia believed in the principle that Imam/leader

should be free from sins; then other characteristic

than that of Prophet Muhammad applied.

Furthermore, Sunni believed that the characteristic

of appointment of a leader was different from that of

prophecy while Imamiyyah of Sunni believed that

the position of their twelve leaders is similar to that

of Prophet Muhammad (Adam, 2001).

The other difference of leadership between Sunni

and Shia can also be seen from the process of

appointment even though both had the same criteria

in selecting the qualifications of a leader (Adam,

2001). Sunni claimed that a caliph should be

appointed through direct appointment or by the

society. For them, the second was very important

because then the authority of a caliph is legitimated

through the process. Shia, on the hand, Shia

accepted the first option in which Imam was

appointed through direct appointment, but rejected

the secon option. This was due to, for them, the fact

that Imam was not chosen by people as he was a

holy person (Ma’shum, 2013). What’s more, the two

sects had selected the qualities needed for someone

to be Imam/leader so that he can be elected.

However, both agreed on similar qualifications for

someone to be a caliph. The qualifications included

free from physical handicap, knowledgeable in

theology or state administration, courageous and

dedicated to serve people based on noble Quran and

Hadith.

To conclude the discussion above, at least we

can define the word khalifah or caliph in two

interpretations. In a broader meaning, caliph refers

to people in general. In a narrower meaning, it can

mean a leader of nation or a leader of a society even

though Islam does not specify a definitive Islamic

political system. Even Prophet Muhammad did not

leave any message about the procedure of selecting a

leader and its method. A caliph as a leader of a

nation can be traced back to the historical moments

after the death of Prophet Muhammad in which we

can see the plurality in the system and method of

selecting a nation leader in leadership problems.

4.3 Caliph in Sufi Definition

As discussed before, searching for meaning of a

caliph is closely related to the understanding of

presence of human and his relation with God and the

surroundings. In other words, we all are actually

searching the meaning of our existence, human, on

Earth; looking for the meaning of human. The search

for the meaning of human continues to be done by

human in many different ways. Science, for

example, searches for the meaning of human

through its focus of attention. Here we can say that

science looks for the meaning partially. A

sociologist only discusses the meaning of human in

social dimension while biologist focuses on his

anatomy.

The discourse of meaning of human is not solely

discussed in science. On one hand, the religious

explanation is also needed comprehend the meaning

of human existence. Each religion has its own

paradigm in seeing the meaning of human. So is

Islam. Islam is for human and its teachings are

discussing human.

Nevertheless, there are some people or group in

Islam who are not satisfied in search of the meaning

of human existence using Islamic law alone. The

group here is Sufi. For them, the search of the

meaning of human should be directed to the mystical

experience of each individual (Mahmud, 2014). This

mystical experience cannot be communicated. This

is due to the fact that the mystical experience

overlaps the ability of rational thinking to describe.

That is why, someone who sticks to Islamic law

cannot comprehend the mystical experience of a Sufi

because they both have different parameters.

Tasawwuf or sufism, just like other mysticism

outside Islam, intends to have direct contact with

God under consciousness.

The meaning of human as a caliph on Earth

poses a higher position in Sufism. Ibnu Arabi, a

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

2072

great Sufi, presents his opinion about the meaning of

human as Insan Kamil, a ‘perfect person’. What it

means by Insan Kamil here is that each human has

the light of Muhammad in himself. The light of

Muhammad was the first creature of God and was

the cause of universe formation or creation. This

light moves from one generation to the next

generation in different forms (Zwanzig, 2008;

Yunus, 1995; Mahmud, 2013).

For Ibnu Arabi, human is the picture of God’s

description (Mahmud, 2014). Human is the place of

tajalli, thus sighting or manifestation of a perfect

God. For him, human is micro cosmos representing

microcosms as described in God’s characteristics

(Zwanzig, 2008). For that reason, for him, human

was descended as a caliph. However, the

understanding of Insan Kamil is not obtained in an

easy way. Sufi, for instance, has to go through a long

spiritual process to obtain this absolute

understanding. After gone through this spiritual

process, Sufi can come into mortal and eternal

condition. Here, the understanding of phenomenon

is gone (mortal), and the Sufi realizes an intrinsic

and eternal absolute form. (Asmaran, 1994).

To realize the Absolute Form is explored as

condition in cosmological order. Insan Kamil can be

an analogy God’s representation where he keeps

tight the principle of ontology and Metaphasis

Barrier, which is partition of two matters that share

different qualities; between God and universe.

Through definition of human as Insan Kamil by Ibnu

Arabi, the creation of human is seen as the way of

God to ‘find’ Himself. Human, especially Insan

Kamil, is the agent who is aware and active

exploring and analysing the world, finding that God

is attached to everything (Zwanzig, 2008).

“The Perfect Man—who denotes his Lord

by his very essence in an a priori manner

(min awwal al-badiha)—and only the

Perfect Man, is the Crown of the King...

He gathers together nature (al-tab) and

intellect (al-'aql), so within him are the

grossest (akthaj) and subtlest (altaj) of

compositions in respect of his nature, and

within him is disengagement (al-tajarrud)

from substrata (al-mawadd) and the

faculties (al-quwa) that govern bodies....

Through the Perfect Man the Divine

Judgment (al-hukm al-ilahi) concerning

reward and punishment in the world

becomes manifest. Through him the order

(al-nizam [i.e., of the universe]) is

established and overthrown; in him God

decrees, determines, and judges.” (Ibn

Arabi, 2002).

In the position between God and the world, Insan

Kamil can find quality to connect the two. He can

use his imagination to be in paradox of Barrier in

consciousness. He understands that the world and its

contents identical to, as well as different from, God.

Through this comprehension it is possible for him to

find a higher comprehension. This higher

comprehension is due to individual position in the

universe; perfectness comes from ontological and

metaphysic position of the individual. (Zwanzig,

2008).

4.4 Reinterpreting the Concept of

Caliph

The idea to the discourse of caliphate has become

the trending issue in Indonesia in the last few years.

We can witness that there is a movement which aims

for replacing the concept of the ideology of

Pancasila of Republic Indonesia with Islamic

caliphate. The term of caliphate is questionable since

the spreading discourse does not only post potential

danger to be used for practical politics, and more

importantly it can lead us to a failure to comprehend

the concept of caliphate as a whole.

There has been urgency to reinterpret the

meaning of the concept of caliphate. In this writing,

the effort to interpret the meaning of caliphate

derives from the observation of horizons or mindsets

than form the concept of caliphate. These horizons

are comprehension of verses of noble Quran, Hadith,

the history of caliphate as well as the tradition in

Islamic school of thoughts in Sunni, Shia and Sufi.

These efforts aim for catching meanings of

caliphates wholly and coherently where the

meanings of parts are found in the whole and other

way round.

As we have witnessed, the word caliph has

several meanings. In noble Quran, the term

khalifah/caliph has some forms and meanings

depending on what context it is in. As we have

discussed above, khalifah/caliph, generally can mean

human that becomes God’s guardian one after the

other to hold power in the world to implement God’s

rules. On the other hand, we also understand the use

of the word khalifah in a specific way which means

a leader of nation or a leader of a society.

However, the criteria of the two meanings of

caliph differs. In the general descriptions, human can

Reinterpreting the Concept of Caliphate through Gadamerian Hermeneutics Approach

2073

be called as a caliph/khalifah if he carrries out the

duties in relation to God and his environment. In this

interpretation, there is nothing that can take his

position as a caliph unless he does not perform or

fail to carry out the duties. Then he is called

“khalfun”. On the other hand, the definition of

khalifah as the leader of nation brings a lot of

problems. This is understood because Islamic

teaching does not have definite political system.

Prophet Muhammad neither left any messages in

regard to state administration. But Prophet

Muhammad suggests that there should be a leader of

the group even if we go out in a small group there

should be a leader.

A khalifah/caliph as a leader of nation can be

dismissed from his position. In contrast, this is still

debatable in Islam. The reason for this is, as we

witness, the difference in Sunni and Shia political

perspectives. This leadership problem has become

classical challenge in Islamic politics since the death

of Prophet Muhammad. We can always find

political system which is different in each tradition

and period. For this reason, the writer questions the

efforts done by the supporters of Islamic caliphate

because they think as if there is a definitive caliphate

system in Islamic teaching or former Islamic society.

In fact it is in contrast; Islamic caliphate has

different kinds of pluralism and forms and efforts to

reduce the pluralism of caliphate forms are efforts to

forget and deny the existence of tradition and

Islamic history.

Furthermore, through Sufism we can understand

the deeper meaning of human as a caliph. Human is

media where God interacts with universe; thus, in

human himself there are characteristics of God. The

writer has never had any mystical experience as Sufi

claims that he becomes part of God. However, the

writer feels that the explanation of human in Sufism

definition has a very deep meaning where God trusts

the human existence as media of God to interact in

the world.

To conclude, we have to put efforts to reinterpret

the concept of caliphate that has been downgraded

by people who think that this term only has political

meaning of power ideology. We must realize that

plural meanings of khalifah differs in each horizon

of Islamic tradition. Khalifah indeed, in specific

interpretation, can mean leader of nation or leader of

a society. Caliphate as an expression of action of the

caliph is then determined how the caliph acts.

However, what needs to be realized is that the

importance of leadership is to carry out the duties in

relation to God and environment where the caliph is.

It is more than just power politics. Caliphate

basically refers to conceptual substance of how

human carries out good deed on Earth.

Through this new meaning, a person who is

called a caliph is not just a state leader or a leader of

a society. More than in the meaning of leadership, a

caliph can be perceived as a ordinary human who

performs universal good deed, thus becoming the

blessings of the universe. A person who is called a

caliph, as we have understood is a person who

performs his duties in regards of God and his

environment. In this case, the duty of a caliph is

carrying out the universal good deed as specified in

noble Quran: justice (as mentioned in Al-Maidah

verse 8), tolerance (in Al-Kafirun verse 6), etc. So,

the meaning of a caliph must not be downgraded as

a leader of people, but university students, traders,

cleaners or housewives can be categorized as caliph

as long as they perform as a caliph, thus performing

universal good deed as mentioned in noble Quran in

relation to God and his environment.

5 CONCLUSION

In this writing, I elaborate Hermeneutics Method of

Gadamer to reinterpret the concept of caliphate.

Hermeneutics Method of Gadamer is ontology

theory that assumes that the ability to comprehend is

universal for human. The explanation of this method

in phenomenologically descriptive explains that

understanding text requires understanding of the

parts and the whole of the text in order to reach the

comprehension wholly. Furthermore, the interpreter

does not try to reconstruct in such a way that he can

reach the meaning presented by the writer but the

comprehension itself is a creative action that

involves the horizons of the reader and the writer.

This means hermeneutics is a mediator that the

comprehension appears after the reader is on the

same boat as the text in his hermeneutics dialogue

experience.

Through this platform of thinking, I intend to

interpret the concept of caliphate that is defined

narrowly and downgraded in only the problem of

political ideology. A caliph or caliphate has its plural

meanings in each horizon of Islamic tradition.

Through even a broader comprehension, it is

expected that the concept of caliph/caliphate can be

comprehended as conceptual substance about human

who performs the universal good deed in the world

and is not comprehended as matter related to

political power or certain political ideology.

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

2074

REFERENCES

Adam, Fadzli Bin, 2001. The Concept of Khilafah

According to Selected Sunni and Shi'i Qur'anic

Commentaries, The University of Leeds. Leeds.

Al-Nabhani, Taqiyyudin, 1996. The Ruling System in

Islam: Hizb ut-Tahrir, Khilafah Publication. London,

Fifth Edition.

Asmaran As., 1994. Pengantar Studi Tasawwuf, P.T. Raja

Grafindo Persada. Jakarta.

Ath-Thabary, Muhammad Ibnu Jariir, 1968. Jami’ul

Bayan An Ta’wiili Aayil Qur’an, Musthafaa Al-Baaby

Al-Halaby. Mesir.

Departemen Agama, 1971. Al-Qur’an dan Terjemahnya,

Departemen Agama RI. Jakarta.

Dobrosavljev, 2002. Gadamer's Hermeneutics as Practical

Philosophy. In Facta Universitatis Series: Philosophy,

Sociology, and Psychology Vol. 2, No. 9, pp. 605-618.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg, 2006. Truth and Method,

Continuum Publishing. New York.

Grondin, Jean, 2002. Gadamer’s Basic Understanding of

Understanding. In Dostal, Robert (ed.), 2002. The

Cambridge Companion to Gadamer, Cambridge

University Press. Cambridge.

Hardiman, Fransisco Budi, 2015. Seni Memahami:

Hermeneutik dari Schleiermacher sampai Derrida,

Kanisius. Yogyakarta.

Hayati, Nilda, 2017. Konsep Khilafah Islamiyyah Hizbut

Tahrir Indonesia. In Epistemé, Vol. 12, No. 1.

Ibn al-Arabi, 2002. The Meccan Revelations: Volume I,

trans, and ed. Michel Chodkiewicz, William C.

Chittick, and James W. Morris, PIR Press. New York.

Kushidayati, Lina, 2014. Hermeneutika Gadamer dalam

Kajian Hukum. In YUDISIA, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 64-82.

Mahmud, Akilah, 2014. Insan Kamil Perspektif Ibnu

Arabi. In Sulesana Vol. 9 No. 2.

Ma’luuf, Al-Yasuu’iy Al-Abu Luwis, 1908. Al-Munjid,

Al-Maktabah. Beirut.

Ma'shum, 2013. Islam dan Pencarian Identitas Politik:

Ambiguitas Sistem Khilafah dalam Institusi Politik

Islam. In Asy-Syir’ah Jurnal Ilmu Syari’ah dan

Hukum Vol. 47, No. 2.

Rahim, Abd., 2012. Khalifah dan Khilafah menurut al-

Qur’an. In Hunafa: Jurnal Studi Islamika, Vol. 9, No.

Regan, Paul, 2012. Hans-Georg Gadamer’s Philosophical

Hermeneutics: Concepts of Reading, Understanding

and Interpretation. In Meta: Research in

Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical

Philosophy Vol. IV, No. 2, pp. 286-303.

Risalati, Anik, 2008. Makna Khalifah dalam al-Qur’an:

Relevansinya dengan Tujuan Pendidikan Islam, IAIN

Walisongo. Semarang.

Rutt, Jessica, 2006. On Hermeneutics. In E-logos, pp.1-6.

Sajastani, al-Hafiz Abu Dawud Sulaiman, al-., 1994.

Sunan Abi Daud Juz I, Dar al-Fikr. Beirut: Dar.

Shihab, M. Quraish, 2007. Membumikan al-Qur’an:

Fungsi dan Peran Wahyu dalam Kehidupan

Masyarakat, Mizan. Bandung.

Shihab, M. Quraish, 2005. Tafsir al-Mishbah; Pesan,

Kesan dan Keserasian Al- Qur’an Vol. 11, Lentera

Hati. Jakarta.

Shihab, M. Quraish, 1996. Wawasan Al-Quran, Mizan.

Bandung.

Sudrajat, Ajat, 2009. Khilafah Islamiyah dalam Lintasan

Sejarah. In INFORMASI, No. 2, XXXV Th. 2009.

Sumandoyo, Arbi, 2018. Dari Menteng Hingga ke Suriah:

Petualangan Pendukung ISIS. In https://tirto.id/dari-

menteng-hingga-ke-suriah-petualangan-pendukung-

isis-cLn1.

Yunus, A. Rahim, 1995. Posisi Tasawuf dalam Sistem

Kekuasaan di Kesultanan Buton pada Abad 19, INIS.

Jakarta.

Zwanzig, Rebekah, 2008. An Analysis of Ibn al-'Arabi's

al-Insan al-Kamil, the Perfect Individual, with a Brief

Comparison to the Thought of Sir Muhammad Iqbal,

Brock University. Ontario.

Reinterpreting the Concept of Caliphate through Gadamerian Hermeneutics Approach

2075