At the outset of this book, I have shown the historical debate on the famous seven words in the 1945 Constitution, which involved a requirement in 1945 for Muslims to observe shari'a, and which led to the proposal to establish an Islamic state in the 1950s. During the 1999–2002 constitutional reform, the issue was again raised by several Islamic political parties. Unlike in the periods of the Soekarno and Soeharto governments, in the reform era all political parties, members of parliament and the government examined the issue in a constitutional and democratic way, without issuing either presidential decrees to unilaterally stop the discussion or using military force to influence the process.

Another significant feature, and this could be argued as one of the main factors in keeping the military away from using its power, was the shifting of the issue from the idea of Islam becoming the foundation of the state (Dasar Negara) to the implementation of shari'a in Article 29. In other words, while the previous debate examined the preamble to the Constitution, which could change the state ideology of the Indonesian republic, the contemporary debate was more concerned with the special rights of Muslims and the obligation for the government to implement shari'a.

As has been discussed in Chapter 5, none of the Indonesian Islamic political parties wanted to adopt a caliphate system. They acknowledged the nation-state system. They did not even propose to establish an Islamic state based on nation-states like those in Iran, Egypt or Saudi Arabia. However, some of them made it clear that they wanted a constitutional guarantee that their rights to observe shari'a would be fully implemented. In this case, the amendment to Article 29 was perceived as essential. In order to understand this proposal, many issues will be examined in this chapter. Among them are the position of public religion in a plural society, the choice between Islamic law and an Islamic state, and the issues of dar al-Islam, as compared to dar al Harb.

These discussions will be a reflection of the struggle between secularism, which is considered by some as normal, progressive and enlightened, and the religious approach, which is seen as backward and reactionary.