www.usip.org

1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

SPECIAL REPORT 150 SEPTEMBER 2005

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE

SPECIAL REPORT

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

CONTENTS 

Introduction 2

Shari’ah, Justice, and Ijtihad in Nigeria 2

Reflections on Islam and Democracy in Iran 5

Peace Education in Aceh, Indonesia 8

Conclusion 9

ABOUT THE REPORT

 A priority of the Religion and Peacemaking Initiative 

of the United States Institute of Peace has been 

to support Muslim efforts to reinterpret Islamic 

principles for the twenty-first century. The Initiative 

has organized workshops on Islamic perspectives on 

peace and violence, on Islam and democracy, and, 

most recently, on ijtihad (scriptural interpretation). This 

report describes Initiative-supported conferences in 

Nigeria and Iran to enable Muslim scholars to grapple 

with how faithful Muslims can respond to a range of 

contemporary issues. In Indonesia, a project yielded a 

peace-focused teaching tool based on 

Islamic principles.

This report summarizes the three projects and offers 

salient points raised by some of the conference 

participants. It was prepared by David Smock, director 

of the Religion and Peacemaking Initiative, based on 

papers by Radwan Masmudi, Asna Husin, and 

Abdulaziz Sachedina.

David Smock

Applying Islamic 

Principles in the 

Twenty-first Century

Nigeria, Iran, and Indonesia 

Summary

• Modern Muslim societies face the challenge of reapplying shari’ah (Islamic jurisprudence) and other traditional concepts in contexts that have changed markedly from 

those that existed during its original implementation.

• The relationship between shari’ah, justice, and sustainable plural democracy must be 

examined objectively. 

• Instead of voicing alarmist condemnations of shari’ah, Westerners should pay 

close attention to the lively debate taking place within Muslim societies on law 

and morality.

• In northern Nigeria, shari’ah needs to be both modernized and made compatible with 

universal human rights, pluralism, and democracy while remaining genuinely Islamic. 

• In Iran, a conference on Islam and democracy revealed agreement that unchecked 

state-controlled religiosity could lead to a dangerous and tyrannical system of governance. Participants took the compatibility of religion and democracy as a given, 

along with the recognition that religion in a Muslim country such as Iran cannot be 

eliminated from the public square.

• In Aceh, Indonesia, which has been plagued by prolonged violence and abuse of 

human rights, ulama (Islamic scholars) feel an urgent need to respond to the challenges of the global information age while also upholding the Prophet Mohammed’s 

legacy. They have embraced a new peace education program for religious schools 

because they view peace as central to Islam. 
2

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan federal institution created 

by Congress to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international 

conflicts. Established in 1984, the Institute meets 

its congressional mandate through an array of 

programs, including research grants, fellowships, 

professional training, education programs from 

high school through graduate school, conferences 

and workshops, library services, and publications. 

The Institute’s Board of Directors is appointed by 

the President of the United States and confirmed 

by the Senate.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, 

Washington, D.C. • María Otero (Vice Chair), President, 

ACCION International, Boston, Mass. • Betty F. Bumpers, 

Founder and former President, Peace Links, Washington, 

D.C. • Holly J. Burkhalter, Advocacy Director, Physicians 

for Human Rights, Washington, D.C. • Chester A. 

Crocker, James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic 

Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University 

• Laurie S. Fulton, Partner, Williams and Connolly, 

Washington, D.C. • Charles Horner, Senior Fellow, Hudson 

Institute, Washington, D.C. • Seymour Martin Lipset, 

Hazel Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University 

• Mora L. McLean, President, Africa-America Institute, 

New York, N.Y. • Barbara W. Snelling, former State 

Senator and former Lieutenant Governor, Shelburne, Vt.

MEMBERS EX OFFICIO

Michael M. Dunn, Lieutenant General, U.S. 

Air Force; President, National Defense University 

• Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, U.S. Department 

of State • Peter W. Rodman, Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for International Security Affairs 

• Richard H. Solomon, President, United States 

Institute of Peace (nonvoting)

Introduction

This report describes three projects that illustrate how Muslim scholars in three countries 

are addressing critical contemporary issues from an Islamic perspective.

In Nigeria, more than 300 Muslim scholars and clerics engaged in a critical examination of shari’ah as it is being adopted and modified in Nigeria’s northern states. In Iran, 

Iranian scholars, clerics, and others convened to address the relationship between Islam 

and democracy in that country. In Indonesia, a team of scholars has written a manual 

based on Islamic sources for religious schools on the topics of peace/violence, democracy, 

rule of law, conflict resolution, human rights, and pluralism.

The debates among scholars and clerics in these three countries, as in other Muslim 

countries, on issues such as shari’ah and ijtihad (scriptural interpretation) are spirited. 

Resistance to reform and liberalism is particularly strong in Iran, but also in Nigeria. Those 

adhering to literal interpretations of the texts challenge those adopting a more rational/

interpretive approach. “Text proof” versus “rational proof” approaches divide the ulama 

in Iran and Nigeria into traditionalist and rationalist camps, with the majority leaning 

toward the former. 

The projects in Nigeria and in Iran were cosponsored by the Center for the Study of 

Islam and Democracy (CSID), based in Washington, D.C. CSID arranged for scholars of 

Islam from the United States and elsewhere to make presentations at the two conferences. 

The Indonesian project was cosponsored by Nonviolence International. 

This publication follows earlier Special Reports on related topics, including Islamic Perspectives on Peace and Violence, Islam and Democracy, and Ijtihad: Reinterpreting Islamic 

Principles for the Twenty-first Century. 

Shari’ah, Justice, and Ijtihad in Nigeria

CSID, in collaboration with the Centre for Islamic Legal Studies in Zaria, Nigeria, and the 

London-based International Forum for Islamic Dialogue (IFID), organized a three-day conference in July 2004 titled “Implementation of the Shari’ah in a Democracy: The Nigerian 

Experience.” The conference was funded by the United States Institute of Peace and the 

U.S. State Department. Three hundred Muslim scholars and leaders from inside and outside 

of Nigeria discussed how shari’ah can be interpreted through ijithad to meet changing 

needs and provide justice in Nigeria. 

Radwan Masmoudi, president of CSID, explained that, like the Hebrew Bible, the Holy 

Qur’an contains commandments that Muslims must follow and apply in their daily lives. 

These commandments address not only purely religious issues such as praying and fasting, but also political, economic, and social matters such as inheritance, interest, and 

economic justice, as well as punishments for crimes such as theft, adultery, and drinking alcohol. These Qur’anic teachings are supplemented by the tradition of the Prophet 

Mohammed (sunnah) and by the long history of scholars’ interpretations. Throughout 

history, Muslim jurists and scholars have had divergent opinions about many issues, and 

the process of ijtihad has been essential to adapting Islamic jurisprudence (shari’ah) to 

changing needs and realities. 

The Tension between Fundamental and Liberal Interpretations of Shari’ah

Traditionalists believe legal punishments (hudud) prescribed in the Qur’an—such as for 

stealing and adultery—must be applied literally (e.g., cutting off the hand of the thief) 

in order to obey God’s commandments, said Masmoudi. Modernists believe that this interpretation does not represent the spirit of the Qur’anic teaching and, more important, that 

shari’ah has always been subject to multiple interpretations in light of the ever-changing 

needs of society. To address the changing needs of their societies, Muslim jurists and 
3

scholars have relied on a well-established process of innovation (ijtihad), which is based 

not only on the Qur’an and sunnah, but also on reason, deduction, and prioritization. 

Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali, a renowned 12th-century scholar and theologian in Sunni 

Islam, presented this guidance about the overarching purpose of Shari’ah: “The purpose 

of the law (shari’ah) for human beings is fivefold: the preservation for them of their 

religion, soul, intellect, offspring, and property.”

Shari’ah has become a very divisive issue in Nigeria. Simmering discontent among 

the various segments of Nigerian society has resulted in violent outbursts—sometimes 

appearing as religious fervor and other times dressed in ethnic prejudice—but all underscoring the country’s imperfect federal structure. Twelve northern states, under pressure 

from their populations, recently adopted or reintroduced the criminal component of 

shari’ah. While this step has enjoyed broad public support from the Muslim populations in these states, Christians living there and in other parts of the country have felt 

threatened.

Masmoudi concludes that objective examination of the relationship between shari’ah, 

justice, and sustainable plural democracy is essential. The need to bring together scholars 

and experts on Islam, politics, governance, and democracy to assess how to accommodate and harmonize the assertion of Islamic law within a plural democratic setting led 

him to convene the conference.

The conference had the following objectives: 

• Promote an interpretation of shari’ah that is modern and compatible with universal 

human rights, pluralism, and democracy, while remaining genuinely Islamic

• Discuss shari’ah’s true meaning, its various forms, and its Islamic roots

• Encourage efforts at Islamic reformation (ijtihad) to solve the political, economic, 

and social problems of the Muslim world. 

In addition, the conference discussed the broader subject of democracy and political 

pluralism, covering such topics as independence of the judiciary, women’s participation, 

responsibility and freedom of the press, rights of minorities, good governance, freedom 

of worship, and social justice.

The Case of Amina Lawal

In Nigeria, the debate about shari’ah implementation reached a peak in 2002, when a 

shari’ah court sentenced a young woman, Amina Lawal, to death after she was convicted 

of adultery. The case generated great interest, and the court’s decision met with international protest and condemnation. 

Many Westerners saw death as an excessive punishment for an act that falls within the 

realm of private choice in most countries. Many Muslims also opposed the shari’ah court’s 

ruling, and reputable Muslim scholars and jurists found many flaws in its judgment. The 

court did not, for instance, give sufficient attention to ensuring due process: among other 

issues, it accepted a forced confession the police took from the accused and it released 

the man, who denied having sexual relations with the woman, without any punishment. 

Although the decision was ultimately overturned by the court of appeals, the case generated fierce debate about the suitability of Islamic law in modern societies. 

As Masmoudi points out, the challenge facing modern Muslim societies is how to reapply the principles of shari’ah in social, economic, and political contexts that are markedly 

different from those that existed during its original development. The question is debated 

in academic and intellectual circles in Muslim societies. But in the absence of an open 

political debate, little has been done to educate the public on these issues, or to determine the relevance of shari’ah to contemporary cultural and legal practices. In addition, 

there is a significant debate in academic and religious quarters about the historicity, and 

even the authenticity, of certain historical pronouncements of shari’ah laws. For example,

some scholars contend that stoning and punishments for apostasy have no basis in the 

Qur’an, while other Muslim jurists claim that these interpretations of shari’ah were meant 

only for a particular time and place in Islamic history.

“Text proof” versus “rational 

proof” approaches divide the 

ulama in Iran and Nigeria into 

traditionalist and rationalist 

camps, with the majority leaning 

toward the former.

Throughout history, Muslim 

jurists and scholars have had 

divergent opinions about many 

issues, and the process of 

ijtihad has been essential to 

adapting Islamic jurisprudence 

(shari’ah) to changing needs 

and realities. 

 Shari’ah has always been subject to multiple interpretations 

in light of the ever-changing 

needs of society.

The challenge facing modern 

Muslim societies is how to reapply 

the principles of shari’ah in social, 

economic, and political contexts 

that are markedly different from 

those that existed during its 

original development.
4

Morality vs. Legality

Many Muslims scholars and jurists are profoundly concerned about the literal and uncritical application of ancient shari’ah rules, as well as the lack of clear delineation between 

the moral and the legal in Islamic law. Which parts of shari’ah are moral—and hence fall 

within the realm of education and voluntary compliance—and which parts are legal and 

therefore must be enforced by society? Also, there are intense debates on the issue of 

state intrusion into individual privacy and on the extent to which the state should be 

allowed to police individual morality. Questions also arise about due process and rules of 

evidence in shari’ah courts. To what extent can courts rely on circumstantial evidence to 

convict a person of a crime?

At the conference’s opening session, chaired by Nigerian Chief Justice Muhammad 

Lawal Uwais, the governors of the northern states of Kano, Bauchi, and Zamfara delivered 

keynote addresses. Other attendees included several prominent judges from Islamic courts, 

academicians, and government officials.

In his address, the governor of Bauchi State posed several challenging questions:

• In the light of globalization, how do we determine the limits within which we will 

implement shari’ah so that non-Muslims are also accommodated? 

• How do we evaluate the changes in shari’ah without losing our distinct identity as 

Muslims? 

• Shari’ah does not only apply to the weak and the poor, while we turn a blind eye to 

the rich and powerful. How can we create a spiritual policeman or a spiritual judge?

Conference Presentations

Dr. Najah Kadhim of IFID observed that of the Qur’an’s thousands of verses, only a handful deal with shari’ah, so there is considerable room for flexibility and interpretation. 

Professor Abdelaziz Sachedina of the University of Virginia reminded the audience that 

shari’ah was formulated in a transnational world and by a transnational people. Muslims 

have inherited a diverse tradition, which must be rethought if it is to work for the modern 

nation-state. “You and I have a responsibility as Muslims,” he said, “to clarify what we 

mean by shari’ah.”

Saudatu Mahdi presented a paper titled “Shari’ah and Women in Nigeria: The Expectations.” Mahdi asserted that Nigerian women expect the Nigerian implementation process 

to draw from the broadest and most tolerant understanding of the Shari’ah’s tenets. 

Moreover, she said, the entire Muslim world, as well as the world at large, is watching how 

Nigeria handles the implementation of shari’ah. Her presentation included both detailed 

recommendations, including the repeal or modification of specific laws, and a general 

discussion of women’s rights in an Islamic state. 

Does shari’ah as implemented meet the people’s socioeconomic needs? This was the 

foremost question raised in Baffa Aliyu Umar’s paper: chiefly, how shari’ah provides a basis 

for the social, political, and economic life of both Muslims and non-Muslims. Umar asserted 

that even the smallest of social programs, appropriately aimed at people’s most pressing 

needs, improves the shari’ah system as a whole. 

As the debate at the conference reveals, the scope of the contending perspectives is 

wide, particularly concerning how Islamic norms and heritage relate to modern society. 

Masmoudi asserts that the debate must continue, as openness and dialogue are the best 

guarantors that radical notions will not go unchallenged and that claims to exclusive 

authenticity by extreme voices will be addressed. Open debate and the freedom to put 

popular choices to the test of time (as long as they do not infringe on human rights and 

human dignity) have been crucial for the maturation of Western democracy. The maturation of Islamic democracy and law requires similar time and space, he said.

Many Muslims scholars and 

jurists are profoundly concerned 

about the literal and uncritical 

application of ancient shari’ah 

rules, as well as the lack of clear 

delineation between the moral 

and the legal in Islamic law.

Of the Qur’an’s thousands of 

verses, only a handful deal with 

shari’ah, so there is considerable 

room for flexibility and 

interpretation. 
5

Recommendations

Many questions remained unanswered, underscoring the importance of organizing more 

international discussions of the variety of interpretations and the complexity of applying 

shari’ah in modern Muslim societies. The exchange between local and international Muslims scholars was particularly stimulating and should continue in follow-up meetings.

Western societies and policymakers, Masmoudi pointed out, should appreciate that 

Muslim societies and lawmakers have every right to reconcile their legal system with their 

moral values. Instead of voicing alarmist condemnations of shari’ah, Westerners should 

pay closer attention to the lively debate on law and morality within Muslim societies. 

While all human beings, regardless of nationality and religion, have the right to be critical 

of practices they deem immoral, inhumane, and degrading to human dignity, no culture 

or religion has the right to dismiss the capacity of another to develop its own moral and 

legal systems through an open process and dialogue.

Reflections on Islam and Democracy in Iran

In recent years, attempts to engage Iran in a productive dialogue regarding developing 

a constitutional democracy have been thwarted by internal Iranian politics and external 

negativism, particularly from the United States. For almost a decade, a number of American foundations have led delegations to meet with Iranian religious leaders and other 

political activists to discuss political reform. Such meetings became possible after the 

election of reformist president Muhammad Khatami. However, none of these foundations 

was seen as empathetic to the Iranian political intricacies by the Iranians themselves. 

Most were regarded as American agents intrinsically opposed to Islam and anything 

Islamic. 

The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, with its mission to search for the 

compatibility between religion and democratic politics, took a special interest in the 

Iranian experiment. Then-chair of the CSID board Abdulaziz Sachedina was in Iran in the 

summer of 2002 when Radwan Masmoudi suggested that he submit a proposal to hold a 

conference at his alma mater, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM). The story of how 

this conference was planned and executed helps elucidate the complexities that surround 

debate about religious and political change in Iran. 

The subject of democracy and religion has been controversial in the Islamic Republic 

of Iran since its establishment under the late Ayatollah Khomeini. The government has 

been divided on the exact nature of the Islamic state from its inception, dating to the 

1978–79 constitutional debates. With the rise of anti-Americanism as a vehicle to keep 

the religious establishment in power, the Iranian academic establishment has become 

extremely sensitive about being seen as encouraging American interference in Iran’s 

internal politics.

Confronting the Obstacles

FUM welcomed the opportunity to collaborate with CSID and took precautions to avoid 

potential problems. FUM applied for official permission to hold the conference in Mashhad; the request was approved at the highest level in Tehran.

CSID was committed to including both proponents and opponents of constitutional 

democracy in Iran. It was relatively easy to enlist the participation of secularist-modernist academicians such as Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush and his group of Iranian thinkers. The 

critical task for CSID/FUM was to get the traditionalist ulama, who oppose democracy as 

a Western imperialist ploy, to participate. For that purpose, Dr. Hassan Jamshidi, who has 

excellent connections to the traditionalists, was appointed as a “shuttle diplomat” to get 

Muslim societies and lawmakers 

have every right to reconcile their 

legal system with their moral 

values.

The story of how this conference 

was planned and executed helps 

elucidate the complexities that 

surround debate about religious 

and political change in Iran.
6

as many members of the conservative ulama on board as possible. Thanks to his efforts, 

the conference was able to enlist well-known figures whose views were important to the 

debate about the role of clergy and Islam in a modern nation-state. 

There was constant risk that the conference would be derailed at the last minute, 

mainly because it was to be the first of its kind in the country. Twice, parliamentary 

elections—resulting in hardliners’ forming the majority—postponed the conference. They 

also served as a warning to CSID that antidemocratic forces connected with the religious 

establishment might pressure the university to cancel the event. 

The final date of December 1–2, 2004, was mutually approved by CSID and FUM. During the last week of November, Dr. Ali Yousefi, the FUM-appointed conference director, 

informed Sachedina that Ansar-i Hizb Allah, an extremist group supporting clerical rule in 

Iran, had threatened to disrupt the proceedings. The university, in consultation with the 

government officials in Tehran, nevertheless decided to proceed with the conference. 

As soon as the CSID delegation, made up of Masmoudi, Sachedina, and Antony Sullivan, arrived in Mashhad the morning of November 30, they learned that Ansar-i Hizb 

Allah had demanded that five prominent scholars, who formed the liberal group in support of democratic governance in Iran, be barred from participating. The group had also 

threatened the lives of these five scholars, including Soroush and Dr. Mohsin Kadivar, a 

liberal cleric.

The First Day of the Conference

CSID and FUM moved quickly to arrange for alternative programs in Mashhad and Tehran, 

where a number of key participants had been asked to stay until further instructions from 

the conference organizers. On December 1, the CSID delegation met with several faculty 

members in the Theology School and Faculty of Arts and Humanities. In the evening, 

some scholars who were already in Mashhad met for about three hours at FUM to present their views and discuss issues connected with democratization. The atmosphere was 

tense, but the discussions were open and critical of the role religion was playing in Iranian politics. The participants were unanimous in feeling that unchecked state religiosity 

could lead to a dangerous and tyrannical system of governance, as the events of the past 

few years had indicated. 

In addition to Masmoudi and Sachedina, the Iranian group was led in discussion by 

Professor Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, a member of the clerical establishment; Professor Gholam Abbas Tavassoli, and Drs. Mohammad Reza Beheshti and Arjomand. They 

spoke about secularism and the problems posed by the fact that in modern democratic 

society, religion is privatized and its scope limited to spiritual and moral well-being. There 

were also interesting exchanges about critical conceptual clarity concerning the meaning 

and nature of democracy and its cultural relativity.

Dr. Beheshti’s presentation raised important issues in the emerging intercultural dialogue among world religions. Peaceful coexistence among peoples of different religions 

depends on changing faith communities’ attitude that they have exclusive control of the 

truth. 

The unique aspect of this frank exchange among Iranian thinkers was the total 

absence of anti-American rhetoric. The entire discussion demonstrated sophisticated 

understanding of the issues related to developing democratic freedoms within the framework of a secular state that respects the wisdom of religion in both its internal and 

external policies.

The Second Day of the Conference

On December 2, the scholars who had been prevented from traveling to Mashhad met with 

twenty-five other participants at the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research 

in Tehran to present their papers and discuss the compatibility of Islam and democracy in 

Iran. The Tehran meeting compensated for all that was lacking in the Mashhad meeting. 

The participants were unanimous 

in feeling that unchecked state 

religiosity could lead to a dangerous and tyrannical system of governance, as the events of the past 

few years had indicated.

The unique aspect of this frank 

exchange among Iranian 

thinkers was the total absence 

of anti-American rhetoric.
7

The atmosphere was relaxed and the participants contributed extremely well in terms of 

quality and transparency. The issue that dominated the afternoon was not whether religion and democracy are compatible. That was taken as a given, as was recognition that 

religion in a country like Iran cannot be eliminated from the public square. 

Soroush argued that Muslim sensibilities are offended when liberal democracy tolerates or encourages immoral social behavior. Iranians must search for political democracy; 

they need an accountable government that creates laws for individual Iranians as citizens, not as believers. 

Dr. Reza Eslami contended that no true reform could ignore the critical need to make 

the official religion more inclusive in order to guarantee the human rights of all citizens, 

regardless of their faith. 

Dr. Forough Jahanbakhsh, the only woman participant in the session, underscored 

the paradigm shift in the Muslim modernist discourse on religion and democracy and the 

obstacles confronting the reformers advocating democratic governance for Iran. 

Dr. Mohsen Kadivar spoke about various twentieth-century readings of the Islamic 

tradition. In some important ways, Kadivar took Mohammad Mojtahed Shabistari’s relativism in the religious readings a step further by providing an alternative paradigm for 

democratic governance to become deeply ingrained in the Iranian political processes. 

Dr. Ali Paya’s model of democracy argued for an efficient political system responsive 

to the needs of modern citizens searching to implement the best in society. Islamic 

democracy can compare favorably with the best Western democracies if it represents the 

social, religious, political, economic, legal, educational, and human aspirations of Islamic 

societies. Yet Islamic democracy has to be based on a minimalist-rationalist reading of 

Islam.

Two of the papers submitted in writing that could not be presented in person—both 

by traditionalist scholars—deserve special mention. Ayatollah Mohamed Jannati questioned whether freedom and equality—the two pillars of human rights—are compatible 

with human nature and with “divine religions” in which human rights are based on 

natural law. He believes freedom is the sum of rights recognized for human beings, who 

are free to accept them. However, human freedom, having private and public dimensions, 

should not be exercised in a way that causes harm to others or threatens other people’s 

moral values. In Islam, freedom is not absolute; it is delimited by the law that regulates 

mutual rights and duties to others. 

Ayatollah Amid Zanjani’s paper critically assessed the crisis over democracy in the 

Muslim world, which either totally rejects or conditionally accepts democratic governance. His prescription for democratic politics is to adopt a middle path: no people, 

including Iranians, should adopt alien systems of governance without ensuring their 

cultural and religious legitimacy. 

In part because of the paucity of Iranian literature on religion and democracy, CSID is 

preparing these papers for publication in Iran. CSID is also planning a follow-up meeting 

in Iran in 2006. 

Peace Education in Aceh, Indonesia

The Gate of Mecca

Aceh, on the northern tip of the island of Sumatra, was once known as the Gate of Mecca 

for its contribution to the development of Islamic spiritual scholarship and IndonesianMalay civilization. Today, Aceh is still among Indonesia’s most religiously conservative 

and observant provinces.

The ulama have been the principal initiators of religious, academic, and cultural 

life, giving them a special place within Acehnese society. While they continue to play a 

dominant role as the guardians of faith and values, the contemporary ulama are facing 

Muslim sensibilities are offended 

when liberal democracy tolerates 

or encourages immoral social 

behavior.

Dr. Reza Eslami contended that 

no true reform could ignore the 

critical need to make the official 

religion more inclusive in order to 

guarantee the human rights of all 

citizens, regardless of their faith. 

Islamic democracy can compare 

favorably with the best Western 

democracies if it represents the 

social, religious, political, economic, 

legal, educational, and human 

aspirations of Islamic societies.

In Islam, freedom is not absolute; 

it is delimited by the law that 

regulates mutual rights and 

duties to others.
8

a serious challenge. They must respond to the fast-changing global information age on 

the one hand and uphold the Prophet’s legacy on the other hand. The tension between 

these two expectations puts tremendous pressure on the ulama and on the headmasters 

of the madrassas (Islamic schools) or, as they are known in Indonesia, pesantrens (private 

Islamic boarding schools).

The Peace Education Program

To address this challenge, a team of Acehnese scholars, ulama, and educators, led by Asna 

Husin, organized the Peace Education Program, supervised by the leaders of the Consultative Council of Ulama of Aceh. The international partners for this program are Nonviolence 

International, the United States Institute of Peace, and the Canadian International Development Agency. 

As one ulama put it, “Peace education is empowering our leadership.” The ulama 

embrace this program because they view peace as inherent to Islam. Peace and security 

from that which negates human dignity are essential components of Islam, as the very 

name “Islam” (submission to the will of God) connotes. Promoting Islam and peace as 

well as maintaining security are central duties of every believer, and especially of the 

ulama. The ulama can claim to be “heirs of the prophets” only if they are equipped with 

knowledge and use it to benefit their communities. The ulama of Aceh seek to reinforce 

Islamic peace and promote communal good and justice.

A Province in Conflict

As Husin explains, Aceh’s prolonged conflicts, rooted in communal violence and severe 

human rights abuses, compel the ulama to seek methods of resolving violence and conflict. They recognize that most Acehnese look to them for moral and practical guidance in 

the context of communal bloodshed and the growing political and social isolation of the 

Acehnese within Indonesian society. This is not an easy task, since the ulama are caught 

between the struggle of Free Aceh Movement (GAM) to achieve independence for 

Aceh, lawless gangs, and various police and military forces, in addition to suffering the 

demoralizing effects of corrupt political leadership.

Finally, the tsunami of December 26, 2004, destroyed two-thirds of the provincial capital of Banda Aceh, sweeping away the coastal cities of Meulaboh and Calang and killing 

more than 245,000 inhabitants. The tragedy greatly intensified the challenges the ulama 

face and increased their awareness of their responsibilities.

The New Curriculum

The Peace Education Project, initiated in early 2003, is helping Aceh’s ulama to address 

contemporary challenges and apply Islamic principles to contemporary realities. The 

project has had two phases: the creation of a peace education manual and its pilot 

implementation in selected pesantrens. By early 2005 the project had finished developing 

the peace manual, Kurikulum Pendidikan Damai: Perspektif Ulama Aceh (Peace Education Curriculum: Perspective of the Ulama of Aceh). This 385-page training book, which 

presents peace education from an Islamic and Acehnese perspective, is being used both 

to train ulama and as a resource for teaching in Aceh’s pesantrens. It promotes a positive, 

comprehensive peace, encompassing peaceful relations with God the Creator, with oneself, 

with one’s fellow humans, and with the environment. The curriculum teaches communal 

peace in accordance with a positive Islamic approach, namely the absence of war and 

discrimination, as well as the necessity for justice. It emphasizes that peace is neither 

subjugation to inequitable situations nor a passive acceptance of injustice, discrimination 

and war. 

This curriculum, according to Husin, takes advantage of the power of play in education 

and actively engages learners with a “playing for learning” methodology. It incorporates 

various game strategies, humorous teaching stories, and classical wisdom, along with 

Peace and security from that 

which negates human dignity 

are essential components of 

Islam, as the very name “Islam” 

(submission to the will of God) 

connotes. 

The curriculum teaches communal 

peace in accordance with a 

positive Islamic approach, namely 

the absence of war and discrimination, as well as the necessity 

for justice. It emphasizes that 

peace is neither subjugation to 

inequitable situations nor a 

passive acceptance of injustice, 

discrimination and war. 
9

drawings and illustrations. The “thinking for reviving” methodology is a cornerstone 

technique. This teaching/learning method is critical to ulama empowerment, because it 

permits the primordial values of Islam to be revitalized in a way that meets the challenges 

of contemporary global realities. 

The manual is a product of serious research into the Islamic intellectual wellsprings, 

including the Qur’an, prophetic tradition, the history of Islam, and the work of the classical ulama and contemporary scholars—with the focus on peace, conflict, and violence. 

The study of non-Muslim sources is integral to the manual. It also incorporates Acehnese 

moral values and traditional wisdom, along with indigenous mechanisms for conflict 

management. In adopting such peace education principles as rights and responsibilities, 

this peace initiative is consistent with Islamic principles.

The manual covers a wide range of critical topics, including democracy, pluralism, 

human rights, conflict and neutralization of violence, emotion management, leadership, 

natural resources, and conflict resolution. That the project team has been able to address 

such important and potentially sensitive topics in a way that satisfies the ulama and also 

stretches their thinking is a credit to Husin and her team. 

Husin indicates that it is still too early to assess the impact of the project. Nevertheless, the manual has generated awareness among the ulama of the need for new approaches to contemporary realities while still maintaining their religious pride and scholarship. 

Many educational leaders from the pesantrens/dayahs have expressed their willingness to 

implement the curriculum in their institutions, once their teachers are properly trained. 

The ulama have demonstrated a strong sense of ownership of this manual, both 

because a number of them were members of the curriculum team that helped review the 

draft and because its content fully accords with Islamic values and principles. This does 

not imply that no controversial issues are raised, but such topics as gender are dealt with 

from a solid religious foundation. More important, this curriculum helps the ulama take 

responsibility and leadership at a time when Aceh stands in great need of such guidance. 

They thereby become worthy heirs of the prophets.

This manual has generated considerable interest both in other parts of Indonesia and 

in other Muslim countries. It is being translated into English and Arabic and will be disseminated for use in places that face similar challenges of interpreting Islamic principles 

to address rapidly changing global realities.

Conclusion

Northern Nigeria, Iran, and Aceh are typically characterized as places gripped by rigid 

religious ideologies and practices. Northern Nigerian states have adopted very conservative versions of shari’ah. Iran is governed by conservative clerics. Some movements in 

Aceh agitate for more thoroughgoing Islamic forms of government. But the three projects 

described in this publication add another dimension to the picture:

• Nigerian jurists, scholars, and clerics are engaged in an ongoing dialogue among 

themselves, with the international Muslim community, and with Nigerian Christians 

about the appropriate scope of—and limitations on—shari’ah in northern Nigeria.

• Iranian clerics and scholars are grappling with the proper balance between Islam and 

democracy, as heard in the presentations at the CSID workshop and in other forums. 

Iran is still evolving, and liberal scholars and clerics, while sometimes silenced, speak 

out. 

• The ulama in Aceh have enthusiastically supported a project to introduce peace studies in Achenese religious schools, emphasizing peace, democracy, and pluralism. The 

ulama have been supportive because the teaching materials are all based on Islamic 

texts. 

The manual has generated 

awareness among the ulama of 

the need for new approaches 

to contemporary realities while 

still maintaining their religious 

pride and scholarship.
In these projects in Nigeria, Iran, and Indonesia—as well as in Muslim communities 

worldwide—Islam and the application of Islamic principles to modern realities are under 

active review and subject to intense debate. This dialogue is also carried on internationally, as indicated by the involvement of Muslim scholars from the United States and other 

countries in the discussion of shari’ah in Nigeria and of Islam and democracy in Iran. The 

Institute has been pleased to be able to play a supportive role in these projects, as well 

as with comparable projects in other countries. 

Islam and the application of 

Islamic principles to modern 

realities are under active review 

and subject to intense debate.

10

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

www.usip.org

The Religion and Peacemaking Initiative of the United States Institute of Peace has 

published a number of recent books and reports to help promote the exchange of 

information and lessons learned among faith communities.

Recent Institute reports include:

• Teaching about the Religious Other, by David Smock (Special Report 143, July 

2005)

• Ijtihad: Reinterpreting Islamic Principles for the Twenty-first Century (Special 

Report 125, August 2004)

• What Works? Evaluating Interfaith Dialogue Programs, by Renee Garfinkel 

(Special Report 123, July 2004)

• Healing the Holy Land: Interreligious Peacebuilding in Israel/Palestine, by 

Yehezkel Landau (Peaceworks 51, August 2003)

• Islamist Politics in Iraq after Saddam Hussein, by Graham E. Fuller (Special Report 

108, August 2003)

• Can Faith-Based NGOs Advance Interfaith Reconciliation? The Case of Bosnia and 

Herzegovina (Special Report 103, March 2003)

• Building Interreligious Trust in a Climate of Fear: An Abrahamic Trialogue 

(Special Report 99, February 2003)

To obtain an Institute report (available free of charge), write United States Institute 

of Peace, 1200 17th Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036-3011; call (202) 

429-3832; fax (202) 429-6063; or e-mail: usip_requests@usip.org.

Recent books from USIP Press include:

• Religious Perspectives on War: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Attitudes toward 

Force, by David R. Smock (revised edition, 2002)

• Interfaith Dialogue and Peacebuilding, edited by David R. Smock (2002)

• Perspective on Pacifism: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Views, by David R. Smock 

(1995)

For book sales and order information, call 800-868-8064 (U.S. toll-free only) or 703-

661-1590, or fax 703-661-1501

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found at our website 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject