Nurdin, Ahmad Ali2019-09-252019-09-252016-08-232016http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/156574This paper focuses on debates between Soekarno, Natsir and Nurcholish Madjid to whether Indonesian state should be based on Islam ideologically or not. Soekarno, was in favor of the separation between Islam and state and against the idea of a formal-legal relationship between them. In Soekarno’s belief, by separating religion from the state, it does not mean that Islamic teachings are automatically marginalized. Natsir argued against Soekarno’s idea that Islam should be separated from the state. Natsir believed that Islam is a way of life in which it not only guides Muslim peoples on ritual matter but also on worldly matters including how to manage a state. Madjid seems to propose the middle path between Soekarno and Natsir in his struggle to ‘Islamize’ Indonesia. On the one hand, Madjid opposes the idea of making Indonesia an Islamic state, and on the other hand, Madjid also refuses that Indonesian become totally a secular state. Madjid tried to develop a new format for political Islam in which substance, rather than form, serves as his primary orientations.engWith permission of the license/copyright holderNurcholish MadjidNatsirSoekarnoJakarta CharterIslamic StatePolitical ethicsEthics of political systemsCultural ethicsSecularisation and ethicsReligious ethicsSpirituality and ethicsMethods of ethicsGeneral and historicalJournal volume