*POSITION STATEMENT BY MUI AND INDRAMAYU ISLAMIC ORGANIZATIONS: A POLITICAL RESOLUTION FOR THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY*
By: Adlan Daie
Political Analyst, General Secretary of MUI Indramayu Regency
Indramayu, August 19, 2026
No institution—especially not the local government or the Regional House of Representatives (DPRD)—should dismiss or underestimate the eight-point position statement issued by the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and Islamic mass organizations in Indramayu. This statement was delivered during the commemoration of MUI’s 51st anniversary at PPTQ Darul Falah Kepolo, Indramayu (Tuesday, August 18, 2026).
The statement was presented on an open stage in the presence of the Head of the West Java Regional Office of the Ministry of Religious Affairs, the Head of the Indramayu Regency Ministry of Religious Affairs, and the Indramayu Police Chief—a setting of significant political weight.
This constitutes a “resolution,” a powerful political statement representing the Muslim community. It asserts that democracy, as a political system, must not be reduced merely to a five-year “ballot box” event—after which the ruling regime suddenly acts with arrogance and hubris.
Democracy, to quote Francis Fukuyama, is a system that demands citizens be actively involved—questioning, exercising oversight, upholding the ethical principles of power, and refusing to be deceived.
For MUI and Islamic mass organizations, democracy is the means by which the community rejects being cheated by “political collusion”—situations where political elites strike deals while offering only lip service to the community’s actual needs.
Imam Ali bin Abi Talib, in the book *Nahj al-Balagha*, emphasized the principle: *”Wa la takunanna inni muammarotun fa utha’a”* (Do not let the fact that you were chosen by the people lead you to act entirely at your own whim, without restraint or public scrutiny).
The existence of Islamic mass organizations in Indonesia—including those in Indramayu—is not that of practical political parties, nor do they act as a political “opposition” to the democratic institutions of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI). However, Islamic mass organizations possess a “social function” as representatives of *kuntum khaira ummatin*—the “best community”—tasked with *ta’muruna bil-ma’ruf wa tanhawna ‘anil-munkar* (enjoining good and forbidding evil); this entails affirming the public good and acting as a preventive check against potential political malfeasance.
Regrettably, in Indramayu—a region that champions a “religious” vision—the oversight capacity of local Islamic organizations regarding the democratic process is “low-battery” (weak). It is as if these organizations are concerned solely with the “Hereafter” while democracy is relegated to “worldly” affairs—a secularist perspective that runs counter to the principles of Pancasila.
At most, Islamic organizations in Indramayu act like “firefighters”; they are called upon only to quell escalating social unrest—such as the “Desi Kroya” incident some time ago—bearing the burden of managing consequences “downstream” while being excluded from collaboration “upstream.”
The identity and “DNA” of these Islamic organizations, as documented in the doctoral dissertation of Dr. … As discussed in Aqib Suminto’s (1982) work, *Politik Islam Hindia Belanda* (Islamic Politics in the Dutch East Indies), the role of Islamic mass organizations extends beyond merely protecting and guaranteeing that Muslims can “fulfill their religious obligations under Sharia.”
Even during the Dutch colonial era, these Islamic organizations actively and critically challenged Dutch policies; their concerns went beyond matters of “worship” to include opposition against the Dutch granting large corporations access to traditional markets—a move that effectively “killed off” small-scale traders.
In other words, the identity and “DNA” of Islamic mass organizations are not those of “ad-hoc forums” serving as mere accessories or “flower pots” for political interests. Rather, their great mission is a struggle for justice—liberating the public sphere from the tyranny and unfair treatment imposed by any political regime.
This highlights the importance of strengthening the oversight capacity of Islamic mass organizations within the democratic process. Such oversight ensures that democracy is not defined solely by formal procedures or the official relationship between executive and legislative bodies.
Decisions, policies, and political actions are often deemed valid and democratic based only on formal democratic mechanisms—ignoring the ethical boundaries of power and the substantive pursuit of justice in the public sphere.
Democratic practice devoid of oversight is known in modern political discourse as “legalistic kleptocracy”—a form of “dishonest” power legalized through democratic processes and regulations. It gains legal validity and the appearance of democratic legitimacy while remaining morally corrupt in the eyes of the public.
This context explains why the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and Islamic mass organizations in Indramayu have reached a consensus. They aim not only to issue a joint stance rejecting LGBT activities, narcotics, and alcohol, and calling for the regulation of venues associated with “immorality” and practices that violate Sharia, but also to demand that the local government and the Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) engage in a genuine, substantive partnership with MUI and these Islamic organizations, rather than merely calling upon them to lead ceremonial prayers.
The goal here is not simply to demand that the local government and DPRD acknowledge the existence of MUI and these Islamic organizations. This is because the MUI and Islamic mass organizations are legally recognized institutions that represent the Muslim community and are historically integral to the nation.
The statement of position above concerns a political “resolution” regarding the Muslim community—a moral and religious responsibility to remind everyone that, without synergy with Islamic mass organizations, social life always carries the potential for political upheaval.
It is precisely this latter point that must be safeguarded and cared for collectively; any potential risks must be prevented.**
Regards.
——–
