Edraak: Perspectives from Muslim Societies, Liberty and Prosperity
Dr. Ali Salman
CEO, Islam and Liberty Network
Over the past few decades, conversations about the Muslim world have often been viewed through a narrow lens. Conflict, security crises, and geopolitical flashpoints dominate headlines, reinforcing a limited and often distorted understanding of societies that are, in reality, deeply diverse in culture, economy, governance, and lived experience. Edraak emerges as a response to this imbalance, offering a renewed framework for understanding Muslim-majority societies through depth, nuance, and sustained inquiry.
The word Edraak itself signifies more than simple awareness. It refers to a deeper form of understanding; one that moves beyond surface-level explanations and seeks to grasp the underlying social, economic, and political realities shaping contemporary Muslim societies. This principle lies at the heart of a broader effort to create enduring platforms for discussion, analysis, and reflection, building on earlier initiatives that brought scholars and thinkers together to engage with pressing issues facing the Muslim world.
Moving Beyond a Conflict-Centered Narrative
Conflict-driven narratives have been dominating the conventional discourse of Muslim-majority countries. International forums, regional leadership bodies, and media coverage often focus almost exclusively on war, security, and crisis management. While such challenges are real and significant, an excessive fixation on them produces two serious consequences.
First, it diverts attention away from the myriad developmental trajectories of more than fifty Muslim-majority countries. These Muslim-majority countries host societies with distinct political systems, economic models, institutional capacities, and social dynamics, which are often overlooked. Second, it reinforces a harmful association between Islam and violence, contributing to misconceptions that link Muslim societies primarily with extremism. The rise of violent groups in different regions has further entrenched these perceptions, even though such movements represent a marginal and destructive distortion rather than the lived reality of most Muslims.
Internal mindsets are also influenced by this persistent mindset, encouraging a sense of perpetual victimhood and obscuring conversations about reform, growth, governance, and human development. A more balanced framework is therefore essential; one that acknowledges suffering and injustice without allowing them to eclipse every other dimension of social life.
A Four-Zone Framework
To address this imbalance, Edraak Weekly introduces a structured way of engaging with the Muslim world through four distinct zones, each reflecting different social and political conditions.
The first zone includes regions experiencing active war, oppression, or large-scale violence. Coverage here focuses on documenting realities on the ground and keeping attention on humanitarian crises that demand global awareness.
The second zone encompasses societies transitioning from conflict toward peace and stability. These contexts are marked by fragile recovery, where the emergence of order follows prolonged turmoil and where institutional rebuilding becomes a central concern.
The third zone consists of countries that are largely stable in terms of governance and public order but face persistent economic difficulties. While these societies may not be engulfed in large-scale violence, they grapple with challenges related to growth, institutional reform, and social policy.
The fourth zone includes developed or emerging economies where peace and stability are largely established, creating space for debates on governance quality, economic diversification, globalization, and long-term development.
By presenting developments across all four zones, Edraak Weekly resists the tendency to collapse the Muslim world into a single narrative of crisis. Instead, it highlights complexity, variation, and the coexistence of multiple realities.
Making Complexity Accessible
A defining feature of Edraak Weekly is its concise and accessible format. Rather than a lengthy analysis, it offers brief, structured snapshots of developments across regions. This approach serves readers who seek clarity without oversimplification, allowing them to grasp key issues without being overwhelmed by technical detail.
In an era shaped by algorithm-driven information, such an approach helps counter selective exposure and confirmation bias. By juxtaposing stories from different zones and contexts, the publication encourages readers to recognize the interconnectedness and diversity of Muslim societies.
The range of issues covered reflects this ambition. Political transitions, regional security developments, debates over religious law and civil rights, legislative reforms, and international cooperation all feature within its scope. Social questions, such as education, legal reform, and governance, are examined alongside regional and global dynamics, offering a holistic view of ongoing change.
From News to Analysis: The Role of Edraak Monthly
While Edraak Weekly focuses on informed brevity, Edraak Monthly is designed to provide depth. Building on issues highlighted in the weekly edition, the monthly publication offers long-form analysis that delves into the structural roots of contemporary challenges.
Each issue centers on selected themes explored through original essays contributed by our ILN fellows, scholars, and researchers. These articles move beyond description to examine economic policy, democratic institutions, religious authority, governance models, and social transformation within specific national or regional contexts.
In addition to analytical essays, Edraak Monthly integrates diverse formats, including research-based articles, reflective pieces, and critical reviews of relevant books. It also serves as a platform to revisit and disseminate research presented at conferences and workshops, ensuring that scholarly insights reach wider audiences beyond academic circles.
Long-Form Thinking in a Fast-Paced World
The choice to invest in long-form writing may seem counterintuitive at a time when attention spans are shrinking. Yet there is growing evidence of renewed demand for rigorous, well-researched analysis. Universities, research centers, and policy communities continue to seek content that offers depth, context, and intellectual seriousness.
Rather than abandoning shorter formats, the Edraak model strategically combines them. Weekly summaries, social media highlights, and key takeaways coexist with in-depth essays, allowing readers to engage at different levels according to their time and interest. This layered approach ensures accessibility without sacrificing substance.
Moreover, slow and reflective reading increasingly functions as a form of resistance to superficial engagement. On complex issues, such as governance, faith, freedom, and social change, careful analysis remains indispensable.
Islam, Liberty, and a Universal Framework
At the heart of Edraak lies a sustained engagement with the relationship between Islam and liberty. This discussion faces persistent challenges, both internally and externally. Within Muslim societies, liberty is sometimes misunderstood as moral relativism or cultural erosion. Externally, it is often framed through selective applications of international norms, undermining confidence in liberal principles.
Edraak approaches liberty primarily as an institutional concept that shapes political systems, economic policy, governance, and international relations. It emphasizes sovereignty, the rule of law, and respect for human dignity as universal values compatible with Islamic ethical traditions.
Recent global events have intensified skepticism toward liberal frameworks, particularly where international law appears inconsistently applied. Yet abandoning these principles risks conceding moral ground altogether. The task, therefore, is not rejection but critical engagement: reaffirming universal norms while addressing their failures in practice.
Knowledge, Community, and Sustainability
Beyond publishing, Edraak is conceived as a community-building project. Readers are not treated as passive consumers but as participants in an evolving conversation. Engagement, feedback, and sustained financial support are viewed as essential to building a durable intellectual platform that transcends borders and cultures.
This community-oriented vision also extends to writers and researchers. While the initiative begins with a core group of contributors, its long-term success depends on attracting new and younger researchers willing to engage seriously with complex issues and contribute original perspectives.
Toward a Deeper Understanding
Ultimately, Edraak represents an effort to reshape how the Muslim world is understood by others and by itself. Through balanced coverage, analytical depth, and intellectual openness, it seeks to move beyond crisis-driven narratives toward a richer appreciation of social reality.
By investing in knowledge, fostering dialogue, and building networks of thinkers and readers, Edraak aims to strengthen the quality of debate and contribute meaningfully to discussions on faith, freedom, governance, and development. In doing so, it affirms that deeper understanding is not a luxury but a necessity.
Adapted from the Edraak Introductory Podcast with Dr. Ali Salman.
Transcribed and Narrated by Hira Zia, Editorial Manager, Islam and Liberty Network.
The Place of Islam in Indonesian Contemporary Democracy
Pradana Boy Zulian
Associate Professor in Islamic Legal Studies
University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Indonesia
SINCE the fall of Suharto in 1998, almost three decades ago, Indonesia has turned into a democratic country. By democratic, it may refer to many dimensions. But in general, democracy in Indonesia might be understood in terms of freedom of speech, the establishment of new political institutions, and open space for expressions from diverse groups within society. In addition, the democratic nature of Indonesia in the post-Suharto era is also evident from the lifting of so many political restrictions, which have enabled suppressed public voices to emerge. Among those voices, expressions of Islam in various orientations and agendas are the most notable. The important point with this phenomenon is that the diversity of Islamic voices in Indonesia stands on different positions regarding many important issues, with democracy being one of its important ingredients. Considering this fact, it is interesting to analyse how diverse Muslim groups in Indonesia play their respective roles in the Indonesian emerging democracy and in which ways Muslim voices matter for the future of democracy in the country.
Before moving further, however, one important point must be underlined. Regarding democracy in Indonesia, there have been some remarkable questions circulated among scholars and the public. Those include: Is Indonesia a real democracy? Has Indonesia substantially adopted democracy as its political system? Or what kind of democracy is actually Indonesia practicing? In this relation, before discussing the place of Islam in Indonesian democracy, this article will initially discuss this question by laying down theoretical fundamentals on democracy. By this, measuring the Indonesian case of democracy from a theoretical point of view is important.
Is Indonesia a Democracy?
Let’s start with the nature of democracy. Fareed Zakaria (2003) argues that “democracy is a political system marked by… by free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property.” Among many other elements, Zakaria lists free and fair elections. Likewise, Samuel P Huntington identifies democracy as a system of government that is characterized by the presence of open elections. In his words, “Election, open, free, and fair, are the essence of democracy.” The primacy of election as a feature of democracy can also be justified from Larry Diamond’s (1990) view. She defines democracy as “a system of government in which the people choose their leaders in regular, free, and fair elections and enjoy basic civil and political liberties.” Election as the basic requirement for a democracy to work is also echoed by Francis Fukuyama (2014). He believes that “Modern democracy is defined by regular, competitive, multiparty elections on the basis of universal adult suffrage, conducted by secret ballot.”
However, others view democracy as not merely about elections. Amartya Sen (2005), for example, maintains that democracy is not merely a system of elections. Further, he stresses the presence of “a way of public reasoning” as a fundamental ingredient of democracy. On par with Sen’s judgement of democracy, Jürgen Habermas (1996) argues that an established democracy must take care of the deliberation of opinion and will. In his own words, democracy “rests on the institutionalization of deliberative processes of opinion- and will-formation.”
Although all those concepts might not be sufficient to measure the theoretical foundation of democracy as a whole, those views of prominent scholars in political studies can be employed to initially evaluate the nature of Indonesian democracy. Taking one or two basic elements of a democracy as analytical units, it would be sufficiently evident that Indonesia is a democracy. The system of election in Indonesia since 1998 has dramatically changed. Led by a body named Komisi Pemilihan Umum (Indonesian Commission for General Elections), Indonesia employs a direct presidential election, open-list proportional representation for legislative elections, and majoritarian regional representation. This system has made the Indonesian election system the most liberal in the world. By this parameter, it is difficult not to qualify Indonesia as a democracy.
Subsequently, the other parameter of democracy is the separation of powers. In this respect, Indonesia is indeed an excellent model for democracy. In fact, long before the fall of Suharto, the Indonesian governmental system had been characterized by the separation of powers, and it had brought the three pillars of trias politica into existence. However, in practice, it was an executive-heavy government, in which the executive dominated the governance, while legislative and judicial bodies mostly played as legitimizers of any decisions that the executive took. The situation changed in the Reform Era, where legislatives hold very strong control overthe government. In the current context, it is not an exaggeration to conclude that the separation of powers has both formally and practically functioned.
As a result, from the theoretical point of view, Indonesia is undoubtedly an emerging democracy in the world.
Indonesian Muslim Voices on Democracy
Now, let’s evaluate how the dynamics of democracy in Indonesia influence and are influenced by Muslim groups in the country. Sociologically speaking, Indonesian Islam is featured by its diverse orientations in many respects, such as in methods of text interpretation, ideological leanings, political orientations, or attitude towards modernity. In my previous study (2007), I developed a category of Indonesian Islam based on their religious orientations. They are moderate, progressive-liberal, and radical-conservative groups. The first group refers to Muslims who embrace middle positions in such elements as: the position towards religious text (the Qur’an and Sunnah), accept Indonesian state ideology, and show a proportional response towards the West and its civilization. The progressive-liberal orientation, on the other hand, apply contextual approach towards religious text, shows a very positive response to the West and its intellectual achievement. Furthermore, this group also sees the adoption of Western values and modernization as the main pathways for Muslims to cure their malaise. In contrast to the second, the radical-conservative group exhibits a textual orientation in understanding and practicing religion. Furthermore, they show disagreement with humanly-created political systems or systems of government and advocate for the adoption of Godly-directed political systems.
Although this dynamic may seem resonate with what has been taking place in many Muslim-majority polities, the Indonesian case of Muslim’s voices diversity on democracy shows its unique case.
Firstly, to build further analysis based on my categories on Indonesian Muslim groups, all three groups show different attitudes towards democracy. The first group, represented bythe two largest moderate Muslim groups of Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama’, show proportional response towards democracy. Professor Haedar Nashir, the general chairman of Muhammadiyah Central Board, advocates that Muslim Indonesia to accept democracy as a tool to develop civility among Indonesians regardless of their identities. In a similar tone, Yahya Cholil Staquf, the general chairman of Nahdlatul Ulama’, shows his support for democracy as the Indonesian system of government. He believes that democracy should be developed continuously by all parts of society. Democracy, Yahya says, cannot be built merely through formal ways, but through popular support of Indonesian society in general.
In terms of acceptance towards democracy, the progressive-liberal group’s positions resemble those of moderate groups. Luthfie Assyaukani (2011), an advocate of liberal Islam, argues that democracy is currently the most proper system of government in the world, and this is also the case with Muslim polities. In other words, Assyaukanie believes that democracy is completely compatible with Islamic values. The other progressive-liberal proponent, the late Azyumardi Azra, also shows his positive attitude towards democracy. Azra argued that Indonesian Islam has a unique historical trajectory. This uniqueness has enabled Indonesian Islam to live hand-in-hand with democratic culture more organically compared to many other Muslim-majority countries in the globe, which witnessed authoritarianism or sectarian conflicts, resulting in the absence of democratic consolidation. Furthermore, Azra’s work relates democracy to two Indonesian indigenous values, namely Islam’s pluralist traditions and historical accommodation. These two elements, along with nationalist movements has laid fertile ground for democratic development in Indonesia.
In opposition to previous groups, the radical-conservative group deserves special attention for its resistance to democracy. They believe that democracy is incompatible with Islamic teachings and values. Ismail Yusanto, the prominent leader of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, views democracy in a very negative tone. In his words, democracy is now seen as merely a procedure for attaining power. However, he critically noted that whether the procedure itself is followed with honesty or not, fair/authentic or not, is something that must be seen with doubt. Furthermore, Yusanto underlines the pragmatic element in democracy as a system of government. The ultimate goal of democracy is power, and only power, he says. Thus, pragmatism is on the rise. Ideology is no longer important. Consider how an Islamic party can ally itself with a secular party, which has long been known to obstruct anything Islamic. At the same time, fraud is becoming increasingly commonplace. The law is being manipulated. The law should control pragmatism. Instead, the law is being used as a tool to legitimize pragmatism.
Secondly, the other uniqueness of Indonesian democracy is that it is criticised but at the same time, the critics of democracy enjoy a democratic milieu. The case of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia is the best example to explain this thesis. It is clear that Hizbut Tahrir strongly rejects democracy for several reasons. However, it is because of democracy that diverse Muslim groups include those Islamist, enjoy existence in Indonesia. As has been indicated earlier, democracy in Indonesia has enabled many orientations of Islam to exist, develop, and live in Indonesia. In other words, without democracy, Islamist groups will never gain the existence in the post-Suharto Indonesia. Here lies the paradox: democracy is criticised, but democracy is also enjoyed.
This paradox is that Australian-based Indonesian scholar Nadirsyah Hosen even further calls Hizbut Tahrir the smuggler of democracy. According to Hosen, Hizbut Tahrir has shown an ambiguous attitude toward democracy. They criticised and rejected democracy. But, when they were dissolved by the Indonesian government due to their advocacy of the caliphate system, which was in opposition to Indonesian state ideology, they exploited the democratic system. They argued that in a democratic system, all orientations should gain their right to live, and therefore, the dissolution of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia violates democratic values.
Thirdly, as democracy in Indonesia is developing and Muslim groups show different attitudes towards democracy, the support of Indonesian Muslim groups is determinant for the future of democracy in the country. As the largest religious group, Muslim support or rejection will be an important consideration for Indonesian political leaders to take or not to take certain decisions. It is true that Indonesian Muslims voices towards democracy are diverse; however, the majority of Muslims in Indonesia are moderate. If by moderate is acceptance towards the Indonesian state ideology of Pancasila, the majority of Indonesian Muslims are moderate. According to Lembaga Survei Indonesia, a political survey think-tank, 86,5 percent of Indonesian Muslims accept the Indonesian state ideology.
Conclusion
In the post-Suharto era, Indonesia has been adopting democracy as its political system or system of government. Although doubt circulated among scholars and the public about whether Indonesia is factually applying democracy, theoretical and practical initial assessments show the compatibility of Indonesian democracy with the nature and basic elements of democracy.
As a newly introduced system of government, democracy has been responded diversly by Indonesian Muslim groups. Using a broad category of moderate, progressive-liberal, and Islamist-conservative groups, it is revealed that two former groups show a positive attitude and support towards democracy, on the basis that democracy is not in opposition with both Indonesian and Islamic values. However, Islamist group as exemplified by Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia rejects democracy and see its incompatibility with Islamic values.
However, there is an important fact. Although Islamist groups reject democracy, basically their existence in Indonesia is a small part of benefit from democracy. In other words, the Islamist groups criticise democracy, but at the same time, they enjoy democracy without their awareness.
Lastly, as the majority religious group in Indonesia, the future of democracy in the country is strongly dependent on Muslims’ attitude towards democracy. Although Muslims groups’ attitude towards democracy is diverse, the majority of Muslims in Indonesia are moderate, which bring assumption that their acceptance of democracy is inevitable.