Sahiron Syamsuddin
Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University (UIN) Yogyakarta

Published : 12 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 12 Documents
Search

Indonesian Interpretation of the Qur’an on Khilāfah: The Case of Quraish Shihab and Yudian Wahyudi on Qur'an, 2: 30-38 M Djidin; Sahiron Syamsuddin
Al-Jami'ah: Journal of Islamic Studies Vol. 57 No. 1 (2019)
Publisher : Al-Jami'ah Research Centre

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14421/ajis.2019.571.143-166

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.] 
Differing Responses to Western Hermeneutics: A Comparative Critical Study of M. Quraish Shihab’s and Muḥammad ‘Imāra’s Thoughts Sahiron Syamsuddin
Al-Jami'ah: Journal of Islamic Studies Vol. 59 No. 2 (2021)
Publisher : Al-Jami'ah Research Centre

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14421/ajis.2021.592.479-512

Abstract

This article deals with Muslim scholars’ responses to Western hermeneutics and its application to the Qur’an. It focuses on the thoughts of two thinkers, i.e. M. Quraish Shihab from Indonesia and Muḥammad ‘Imāra from Egypt, and discusses them in a comparative critical way. On the basis of the available data, its author comes to the following conclusions. First, the two scholars have different receptions of the Western hermeneutics. While ‘Imāra rejects it totally only because it is rooted in the Western tradition that is different from the Islamic tradition, Shihab accepts it with some considerations on the basis that it can widen horizons of Qur’an interpreters, so that they might understand the Qur’an in a more careful way. Second, ‘Imāra’s arguments for his rejection of it are not strong enough, and even constitute misunderstandings of hermeneutical theories, whereas Shihab’s arguments can be considered more plausible, even though in some cases he does not give enough elaborations. Third, these responses have a certain impact on the dynamics of hermeneutical approaches in Indonesia. [Artikel ini membahas respon ilmuwan muslim mengenai ilmu hermeneutik barat dan penerapannya pada Qur’an. Tulisan ini fokus pada dua pemikir muslim yaitu M. Quraish Shihab dari Indonesia dan Muḥammad ‘Imāra asal Mesir serta mendiskusikannya dalam kerangka perbandingan kritis. Berdasarkan data yang diperoleh menunjukkan bahwa pertama, dua ilmuwan tersebut berbeda dalam penerimaan hermeneutik barat. ‘Imāra menolak sepenuhnya karena berakar pada tradisi barat, sedangkan Shihab menerimanya dengan beberapa pertimbangan selama dapat memperluas cakrawala penafsiran Qur’an dan dapat memahaminya dengan berhati-hati. Kedua, argumen penolakan yang diajukan ‘Imāra tidak cukup kuat dan kadang terdapat kesalahpahaman teoritikal, sedangkan argumen Shihab lebih masuk akal, walaupun dalam beberapa bagian ia tidak memberikan penjelasan lebih lanjut. Ketiga, kedua respon ilmuwan tersebut mempunyai dampak signifikan pada dinamika pendekatan hermeneutik di Indonesia.]