Metaphysics as the Ontological Foundation of the State: The Convergence of al-Farabi’s Political Thought and Pancasila in Indonesia

1. INTRODUCTION

Al-Fārābī (870–950 CE), was a renowned philosopher of the Islamic Golden Age who lived during the Abbasid Caliphate, under the rule of Caliph al-Muqtadir (908–932 CE), and idealizes an aristocratic system of leadership.¹ This philosopher has carried out several political researches entitled Kitab Ara’ Ahl al-Madinah al-Fadilah (The Opinions of the Inhabitants of the Virtuous City), al-Siyasah al-Madaniyyah (The Political Regime), and Kitab Tahsil al-Sa‘adah (The Attainment of Happiness). The researches were conducted to naturalize Greek thought into the Islamic intellectual world. The phenomenon was realized by reinterpreting the entire structure of Islam, including political organization.² Additionally, the main sources of al-Fārābī’s thought were Greek philosophers, specifically Plato (427–347 BCE) and Aristotle (384–322 BCE). These were supplemented by Neoplatonic metaphysics and Shiite Islamic thought.³

The framework above completely contrasts Pancasila, which was initially introduced by Sukarno during a speech regarding the Investigating Committee for Preparatory Work for Indonesian Independence (BPUPKI) on June 1^st, 1945. However, Pancasila was formally adopted on August 18^th, 1945 as the philosophical foundation of the Republic of Indonesia.⁴ This philosophical foundation consists of five distinct principles and idealizes a democratic political system. The founders designed it to serve as foundation ideology for an independent Indonesian state. The principal sources focus on the indigenous intellectual and cultural heritage of the people.⁵

In this context, the two frameworks appeared fundamentally different and irreconcilable. In addition, scholarly attempts to compare or identify points of convergence between the frameworks were rare. Existing research related al-Fārābī’s political philosophy to the broader political dynamics in Indonesia rather than directly to Pancasila.

Following the description above, the research conducted by Eduarny Tarmidji, titled Konsep Al-Farabi tentang Negara Utama (Al-Farabi’s Concept of the Virtuous State),⁶ focused on al-Farabi’s views on the need for a state, the origins of political society, an ideal ruler’s qualities, and telos. The research found that al-Fārābī successfully synthesized Western philosophical heritage (specifically that of Plato and Aristotle) with Islamic teachings, with references to Indonesian politics observed marginally throughout the discussion.

Similar research was conducted by Moh. Yasin titled Konsep Negara Utama Al-Farabi (The Concept of the Virtuous State in Al-Farabi),⁷ which concentrated on the connection between al-Fārābī’s political philosophy and the condition in Indonesia. Chapter four of the research further reviewed al-Fārābī’s political philosophy, particularly the use of metaphysics as a foundation for related thought. The final subsection discussed the relevance of the virtuous state concept proposed by al-Fārābī. The discussion was highly descriptive and normative, resulting in issues, such as leadership crises and the paradoxes of democracy in the country. It was perceived as a supplementary reflection, lacking empirical data and occupying not more than five pages. Therefore, the correlation between al-Fārābī’s thought and the Indonesian political context was not considered as the main focus.

The doctoral dissertation by Moh. Asy’ari Muthhar, entitled Masyarakat dan Negara Menurut al-Farabi: Relevansi dengan Pemikiran Politik Modern (Society and the State According to Al-Farabi: Relevance to Modern Political Thought),⁸ centered on the relevance of al-Fārābī’s political philosophy to modern theory. One of the subsections connected al-Fārābī’s thought to political dynamics in Indonesia, particularly the relationship between society and the state. However, al-Fārābī’s philosophy was presented as an introductory framework. In line with previous research, this analysis did not explore the correlation between al-Fārābī’s thought and political realities as the main subject of inquiry.

The three aforementioned researches positioned the significance of al-Fārābī’s thought within the context of Indonesian politics. It failed to identify a point of convergence or similarity between al-Fārābī’s philosophy and Pancasila. Based on the author’s view, a meaningful point of convergence or shared conceptual ground existed between the two researches that required scholarly exploration, despite the significant differences initially outlined.

The convergence was showed using political treatise Kitab Ara’ Ahl al-Madinah al-Fadilah (The Opinions of the Inhabitants of the Virtuous City), where al-Fārābī discussed metaphysical matters prior to engaging with political questions. The focus on metaphysical issues was profoundly dedicated to relatively two-thirds of the book, that the topic of the state itself was not addressed. Moreover, the Kitāb Arā’ Ahl al-Madīnah al-Fādilah comprised thirty-seven chapters. The first twenty-five chapters focused on metaphysical issues, while the remaining twelve addressed political matters.⁹ Metaphysics was analyzed in respect to three domains firstly, the theological aspect, associated with God and His attributes. Secondly, the cosmological aspect, which explored the principles of the cosmos. Thirdly, the psychological aspect, which evaluated the nature of the human soul.¹⁰

Building upon the description above, Pancasila—as foundation philosophy of the Indonesian nation— starts with a theological proposition, namely the principle of Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa (Belief in the One and Only God). This showed the prioritization of metaphysical concerns followed by addressing political or social principles. Furthermore, metaphysical articulation of Pancasila was not philosophically elaborated as found in Kitab Ara’ Ahl al-Madinah al-Fadilah, encapsulated in a succinct phrase.

Al-Farabi reported that the ideal state (al-madinah al-fadilah) must be founded in metaphysics. This implied all citizens—particularly the ruler—must possess knowledge of metaphysical truths, which ¹¹ enabled guidance towards the attainment of happiness.¹² In respect to the first principle, Belief in the One and Only God was followed by the second Kemanusiaan yang Adil dan Beradab (Just and Civilized Humanity). The sequential order implied that a just and civilized Indonesian society was only developed by individuals who believed in internalizing the theological principle.¹³

The convergence between Kitab Ara’ Ahl al-Madinah al-Fadilah and Pancasila was identified in this context. The phenomenon was observed from two perspectives firstly, in view of the foundation level, the convergence between both concentrated on theological or metaphysical concerns, which served as the basis to develop the ideal state. Secondly, from the consequential level where moral consciousness of the citizens was due to the awareness of theological or metaphysical truths.

The current research elaborated on the two dimensions of convergence. However, the methodological questions formulated in respect to reconciling al-Fārābī’s political philosophy with Pancasila were discussed. These two constructs were separated by broad historical distances as well as influenced by fundamentally different political systems.

2. Methodology

The current research aimed to thoroughly identify and explain the convergence points or similarities between al-Fārābī’s political thought and Pancasila by adopting a comparative methodology. Distinguishing between the convergence points and comparative method is crucial. The convergence points comprised two or more entities with substantial differences and some shared elements. Meanwhile, the comparative method focused on two or more entities with a balanced degree of similarity and difference.¹⁴

The initial challenge encountered in identifying points of convergence between al-Fārābī’s political thought and Pancasila focused on reconciling al-Fārābī’s idea of aristocratic governance (rule by the best) with Pancasila’s commitment to democratic governance (rule by the people). This challenge was addressed by determining the core substance of al-Fārābī’s political philosophy, which was further analyzed in respect to Pancasila.

The identification process was performed by adopting a Gadamerian hermeneutical method, which focused on productive interpretation (i.e., generating new meaning) rather than reproductive (i.e., reiterating established meanings).¹⁵ The analysis enabled the identification of the principal themes explored by al-Farabi in Kitab Ara’ Ahl al-Madinah al-Fadilah, including why these were central to his political philosophy.

This research determined that the basis of al-Fārābī’s political thought focused on metaphysical foundation of the ideal state, rather than the aristocratic form of government.¹⁶ Therefore, the current research concentrated on the substantive philosophical foundation of each system, than respective political forms. The reason was that the shared ideas between al-Fārābī’s thought and Pancasila were found at the level of philosophical substance.

Furthermore, another methodological problem was the reconciliation of al-Fārābī’s political thought, which was expressed in several comprehensive philosophical treatises. The problem was in line with Pancasila, formally reviewed in only five concise principles. This issue was addressed based on the debate that Pancasila could only be fully understood when interpreted in conjunction with the intellectual context of the formulation and the interpretative literature elaborating the meaning. As a result, the analysis of Pancasila extended beyond the five principles, including the underlying philosophical and historical ideas. The analysis also allowed for a more comprehensive framework within which the convergence between Pancasila and al-Fārābī’s political thought was conceivable, as both were explored as complete and coherent thought systems.

The primary data on al-Fārābī’s political thought was obtained from the research titled, Kitab Ara’ Ahl al-Madinah al-Fadilah,¹⁷ considered the most important treatise. This research represented a final synthesis of the philosophical thought, covering a wide range of disciplines including metaphysics, physics, psychology, sociology, politics, and ethics.¹⁸ Secondary data comprised other relevant researches conducted by al-Fārābī, such as al-Siyasah al-Madaniyyah (The Political Regime)¹⁹ and Kitab Tahsīl al-Sa‘adah (The Attainment of Happiness),²⁰ which led to the further development of personal political ideas.

The analysis of Pancasila relied on primary sources including writings by Sukarno (1901–1970), Mohammad Hatta (1902–1980), Indonesia’s first president, and Vice President, respectively that discussed the individual principles. These comprised Sukarno’s Pancasila sebagai Dasar Negara (Pancasila as the Foundation of the State),²¹ as well as Hatta’s Demokrasi Kita (Our Democracy)²² and Bung Hatta Berpidato, Bung Hatta Menulis (Bung Hatta Speaks, Bung Hatta Writes).²³ Secondary data consisted of scholarly works on Pancasila, particularly Yudi Latif’s Negara Paripurna: Historisitas, Rasionalitas, dan Aktualitas Pancasila (The Perfect Nation: The Historicity, Rationality, and Actuality of Pancasila).²⁴

In view of the perspective above, the current research adopted a comparative analysis methodology. This is because Pancasila and al-Fārābī’s political thought met the stipulated criteria, namely (1) both were representative of distinct intellectual traditions, (2) the two systems addressed common thematic problems, and (3) the problems occupied a central position within both systems.²⁵ Regarding this situation, the analysis was restricted to explaining respective similarities than exploring the differences.

3. Results and Discussion

Kitāb Ārā’ Ahl al-Madīnah al-Fāḍilah was considered as a unique political treatise due to the devoted attention to metaphysical inquiry as compared to political discourse. This was because the first two-thirds of the text comprised metaphysical questions, showing that al-Fārābī perceived political life as inextricably connected to metaphysical knowledge. Moreover, the research reported that true happiness in this world and the hereafter could only be attained by grounding oneself in metaphysical knowledge and practicing the associated virtues.

Al-Fārābī classified metaphysics into two main categories firstly, immaterial existents, such as God and the human soul—also referred to as special metaphysics. Secondly, immaterial concepts, namely substance, accident, cause, and quality—referred to as general metaphysics. Based on this perspective, special metaphysics consisted of three major domains. Firstly, metaphysical theology addressed God and His attributes. Secondly, metaphysical cosmology and psychology discussed the principles of the universe and human soul, respectively. In general metaphysics, the most universal concept focused on being (wujūd) and its correlates.²⁶

In Kitāb Ārā’ Ahl al-Madīnah al-Fāḍilah, al-Fārābī extensively concentrated on special metaphysics including theological, cosmological, and psychological themes. The main topics in metaphysical theology were the proof of God’s existence and how human beings became aware of His attributes. Central discussions associated with metaphysical cosmology concentrated on the relationship between God and the world, as well as eternity of matter and the cosmos. In metaphysical psychology, major themes consisted of the distinction between soul and body, spiritual nature of the human soul, and its immortality.²⁷

The initial metaphysical issue addressed in the treatise was the question on the First Being, none other than the One God. Al-Fārābī elaborated on the attributes in the first six chapters of the book.²⁸ It was also referred to as the First Cause of all other beings. The subsequent chapters described the oneness, majesty, and greatness of the Being. Furthermore, al-Fārābī concentrated on other existents, which were divided into two categories namely spiritual (rūḥiyyah) and material beings (māddiyyah).²⁹

Al-Fārābī stated that metaphysics or philosophy was inherently intertwined with political concerns. However, politics must be grounded in philosophy/metaphysics as well as politically oriented. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Marḥabah reported that al-Fārābī's political thought was philosophical in nature (siyāsah falsafiyyah). In this context, the philosophical thought was political in orientation (falsafah siyāsiyyah).³⁰

The following three examples typically showed how al-Fārābī’s political theory was unable to be understood apart from the philosophy—and vice versa. Firstly, the ideal political leader in al-Fārābī’s view should be capable of connecting with the Active Intellect (al-‘aql al-faʿʿāl). This leader is responsible for the happiness of all citizens. Therefore, if the Active Intellect concept is misunderstood, the al-Fārābī’s theory of ideal leadership becomes difficult to comprehend. In respect to al-Fārābī’s political theory, the discussion of the Active Intellect was closely tied to leadership. It was maintained that an individual who connected with the Active Intellect through the imaginative faculty (al-quwwah al-mutakhayyilah) becomes a prophet. The individual who connects through the acquired intellect (al-‘aql al-mustafād) becomes a philosopher. According to al-Fārābī, these two types of individuals were qualified to lead the state.³¹

Secondly, the happiness of the citizens was closely connected to the philosophy of the soul. One of the soul’s faculties is the rational faculty (al-quwwah al-nāṭiqah), through which human beings apprehend primary intelligible objects (al-maʿqūlāt al-ūlā). Meanwhile, the primary intelligible principles were divided into three types, namely (1) geometrical and scientific principles, (2) moral principles concerning good and evil human actions, including (3) metaphysical principles used to understand beings not related to human actions, such as the heavens, the First Cause, other principles, and its proceeds.³²

The evolution of the primary intelligible from the soul results in reflection, contemplation, and a desire for deduction (istinbāṭ). According to al-Fārābī, the materialization of these intelligible objects marked the soul’s initial perfection, which served as a means to its perfection. The final perfection—termed happiness—referred to the state in which the soul reached completion and no longer relied on matter for its subsistence. This state becomes detached from corporeality and the essence is separated from material substance.³³

Thirdly, the happiness of the citizens is intricately connected to the science of logic (ʿilm al-manṭiq). Al-Fārābī distinguished between the two types of pleasures, namely bodily-sensory and intellectual. In accordance with this viewpoint, bodily-sensory pleasures were animalistic and fleeting, while the intellectual were superior and more enduring. Individuals were advised to avoid the bodily-sensory and pursue the intellectual pleasure.³⁴

The discipline that aided in distinguishing between these two types of pleasures was logic. Additionally, this science enabled citizens to discern between true and false essences as well as avoiding conflating the two. Logic was also used to distinguish between what was mistakenly perceived as true and false. Al-Fārābī described logic by referring it to as manṭiq, as the gateway to happiness considering its perfection of human speech, bringing the rational faculty to the fullest realization.³⁵

The illustration above proved that metaphysics was the foundation for an ideal state, based on the perspective of al-Fārābī political thought. The following section reviewed metaphysics as the foundation of an ideal state from the perspective of Pancasila. In this context, the current research referred to the writings of Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta on Pancasila, particularly the first principle, Belief in the One and Only God. Meanwhile, the discussion of metaphysics in Pancasila is neither as extensive nor as philosophical as the treatment in Kitab Ara’ Ahl al-Madinah al-Fadilah. Metaphysical discussion in Pancasila was also limited to the divinity.

Divinity was openly discussed by referencing Sukarno’s explanation of the first principle of Pancasila. This ex-president played a crucial role in the birth of Pancasila³⁶. Resultantly, reading the interpretations of each principle enabled the understanding of the actual meanings. During the explanation of the divinity principle before the BPUPKI session on June 1^st, 1945, Sukarno stated that,

The Indonesian nation believes in God, with the individuals practicing respective belief. For example, Christians worshipped God according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, Muslims based on the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), and Buddhists performed religious practices in line with respective scriptures. In totality, all individuals believed in God. The Indonesian state should be a place in which every person can worship God freely. All citizens believe in God in a culturally refined manner, without religious egotism. In addition, the Indonesian state must be a state that believes in God.³⁷

Sukarno’s explanation of the divinity principle was not as profound as al-Fārābī’s account in Kitab Ara’ Ahl al-Madinah al-Fadilah. This was understandable, as Sukarno delivered a brief speech in a formal session, rather than articulating a philosophical treatise in a scholarly work. During the explanation, Sukarno outlined that the Indonesian people were religious, believing in God according to respective faiths—a theistic, not an atheist nation.

Sukarno revisited the principle of divinity during a course on Pancasila held at the Merdeka Palace on June 5^th, 1958, thirteen years after the BPUPKI speech.³⁸ According to Sukarno, belief in God is an essential element embedded within the people. Regardless of how God is defined, it is clear that Indonesians are a God-believing people. The formulation of Belief in the One and Only God was accepted by all religious groups in the country. In respect to that course, Sukarno stated that, “When observed in broad strokes, both historically and from the perspective of religious development, it is clear that the Indonesian people believe in God—even in the actual sense of every religion. Additionally, the formulation Belief in the One and Only God was acceptable to all religious groups in the country.”³⁹

Sukarno believed that the acknowledgment of divinity signified this foundation principle as a moral compass for the Indonesian nation in the pursuit of virtue and goodness.⁴⁰ Similarly, the divine foundation should be moral cornerstone that guides the nation’s journey towards a virtuous and just society.

In line with Sukarno’s view, Mohammad Hatta further outlined the divine principle as a moral foundation for national life. According to Hatta, the acknowledgment of the One and Only God was not taken lightly by the people. It was also sinful and disgraceful for the nation to verbally acknowledge such a lofty and sacred principle while denying and contradicting the practice.⁴¹

Mohammad Hatta stated that the placement of the divine principle as the first in Pancasila holds a specific meaning. It served as a guiding foundation for governance—directed towards truth, justice, goodness, honesty, and fraternity. The divine foundation also outlined that the state’s governance must not deviate from the path of righteousness, which would only bring suffering to the people. According to Hatta,

As a consequence of placing the principle of Belief in the One and Only God at the top—though Pancasila itself remained unchanged—enabled politics of the state to gain a strong moral foundation. Moreover, the Belief in the One and Only God was no longer merely mutual respect for each other’s religions, rather foundation that led to the path of truth, justice, goodness, honesty, and fraternity. With this foundation as the guiding principle within the unity of Pancasila, the state government must not, in essence, stray from the right path in the efforts to achieve the well-being of the people, safety of society, eternal world peace, and brotherhood of nations.⁴²

Based on the above explanation, Hatta, like Sukarno, failed to offer a philosophical account of divinity as al-Fārābī did in Kitab Ara’ Ahl al-Madinah al-Fadilah. Hatta merely focused on the significance of the divine foundation as a moral basis for national and civic life. Meanwhile, Hatta stated that the acknowledgment of the divine principle must be truly embodied in daily behavior and national conduct that is virtuous and commendable.⁴³

This implied the convergence point between al-Fārābī’s political thought and Pancasila concerning metaphysics which was perceived as the basis for the formation of the ideal state. The convergence was summarized in a way that both placed the issue of metaphysics—specifically, divinity—as moral foundation for citizens in pursuit of the ideal state (al-madinah al-fadilah). However, the next section elaborated on the second area of convergence between the two, namely moral character of citizens born from metaphysical knowledge.

In the intellectual tradition of Muslim philosophers, the research on ethics is inseparable from metaphysics. Ethical inquiry cannot be properly understood without first comprehending metaphysics. Based on the perspective, metaphysics precedes ethics, which is regarded as the fruit. This relationship was analyzed by al-Kindi (c. 801–873 CE) in the interpretation of Aristotle’s ethical works. Although these works were mainly concerned with the soul, the full meaning and perfection became clear once Aristotle’s metaphysical doctrines were understood. Ethical writings were perceived as the outcome of metaphysical teachings.⁴⁴

Regarding political science, Muslim philosophers viewed the central focus as the dignity of human beings—motivating individuals to transcend limitations and elevate to the angelic level. According to the philosophers, the aim of humanity centered on both intellectual and moral perfection, attained through continuous learning and self-discipline. This enabled the purification of the rational soul and achievement of eternal life in contemplation of truth. In essence, human life centers on the moral implication of metaphysics.⁴⁵

Based on this reason, works on politics often start with discussions of metaphysics. For instance, in Kitab Ara’ Ahl al-Madinah al-Fadilah (The Virtuous City), Rosenthal (1914–2003) and Patricia Crone (1945–2015) stated that twenty-five out of the thirty-four chapters addressed themes, such as God, cosmology, the soul, the intellect, virtue, and happiness. However, only the final nine chapters focused on social life as a means of attaining virtue. A similar pattern was found in al-Fārābī’s other work, Siyasah Madaniyyah (Civil Politics), where political matters were discussed only after an extensive metaphysical prologue.⁴⁶ Ibn Sina (980–1037 CE) adopted the same method, closing the discussion of metaphysics with a chapter on social organization and governance.⁴⁷

Political life (al-siyasah) is inseparable from moral concerns (al-akhlaq), since morality evolves from metaphysical knowledge. For al-Fārābī, political issues are intrinsically moral problems because morality can only be realized within the framework of a related community. Resultantly, al-Fārābī’s political and philosophical thoughts were simultaneous. The philosophical works were also inherently political in nature—such as Kitab Ara’ Ahl al-Madinah al-Fadilah, al-Siyasah al-Madaniyyah, and Tahsil al-Sa‘adah. This research further examined how morality evolved from metaphysical knowledge in al-Fārābī’s theory of happiness.⁴⁸

Al-Fārābī stated that a society or citizenry could attain both worldly and otherworldly happiness if it possessed four kinds of virtues, namely theoretical (al-fada’il al-nazariyah), intellectual (al-fada’il al-fikriyah), ethical (al-fada’il al-khuluqiyah), and practical arts (al-sina‘at al-‘amaliyah).⁴⁹

Theoretical virtues (al-fada’il al-nazariyah) are referred to as sciences with the main aim to understand existence. These included innate knowledge possessed from birth, regarded as primary knowledge (al-‘ulum al-awwal), or knowledge of the existence principles. The virtues also consisted of optics, celestial mechanics, astronomy, music, weight, mechanics, physics, alongside the intermediate science between physics and metaphysics—namely, the analysis of the soul, intellect, and intelligible objects. In respect to this perspective, the final theoretical science is politics. However, intellectual virtues (al-fada’il al-fikriyah) were described as the ability to deduce the most beneficial objective in pursuit of the highest goals for citizens or households, and to formulate the relevant rules. This virtue also resembles legislative ability.⁵⁰

Ethical virtues (al-fada’il al-khuluqiyah) are referred to as the inclination to perform good deeds, which are impossible without the other virtues. In addition, moral virtue must be preceded by intellectual virtue. The more perfect the intellectual virtue, the more profound moral virtue and the greater its influence. Finally, practical arts (al-sina‘at al-‘amaliyah) centered on the realization of ethical virtues through tangible actions and habituation. This was achieved in two ways, namely (1) through persuasive speech that motivates voluntary good action, and (2) compulsion, used only for rebellious citizens who are not naturally inclined towards the truth.⁵¹

The research by al-Fārābī reported that these four virtues were interconnected. Intellectual virtue evolved from theoretical, moral, and practical arts. Without this order, the four virtues cannot form a unified system of excellence. Furthermore, the virtues can be cultivated among citizens through two methods. Firstly, through instruction (bi al-ta‘lim), which nurtures theoretical virtues in society. Secondly, through education (bi al-ta’dib), responsible for nurturing ethical virtues and practical arts. Instruction was conveyed through speech, while education was realized through both speech and action.⁵²

Al-Fārābī’s theory of happiness showed moral virtue—along with its practical application in daily life—evolved from and driven by theoretical virtue, within which metaphysics was embedded. Therefore, the theory of happiness starts with the acquisition of theoretical virtue and culminates in the actualization of moral virtue. Al-Fārābī stated that true happiness is attained through the possession of these four virtues.

This inferred the exposition of how morality evolved from metaphysical knowledge in al-Fārābī’s political philosophy. The subsequent section explored morality as it materialized from metaphysical understanding in the context of Pancasila, with a particular reference to Mohammad Hatta’s interpretation of the second principle—A Just and Civilized Humanity—as a direct consequence of the first principle Belief in the One and Only God.

Hatta reported that the first and second principles of Pancasila were inseparable. The first principle served as the basis for the second, which is its reflection. For Hatta, the acknowledgment of the first principle—belief in the One and Only God—must be truly embodied in daily activities and conduct of the nation. This acknowledgment would be meaningless if the citizens were unwilling to act in accordance with the divine attributes ascribed to God, such as compassion and justice.⁵³

In terms of morality arising from metaphysical/theological foundation, Hatta proceeded to discuss the kinds of behavior expected from a nation that claims to uphold theism as its moral cornerstone. This also included the behaviors that must be opposed. Hatta stated that,

The acknowledgment compelled individuals to defend the truth, and consequently oppose all forms of falsehood. It also led to the upholding of justice, thereby resisting and preventing tyranny. The acknowledgment compelled individuals to act virtuously, as well as correct wrongdoings, initiating the practice of mutual assistance in social interactions. This freed individuals within the Indonesian society from life’s miseries. It caused the citizens to be honest, including being sincere both in speech and deed. Moreover, the acknowledgment obligated the people to appreciate beauty in nature and society, eliminating all that is vile in order to perfect the earth—God’s creation—as a temporary dwelling place for humanity on the journey toward the hereafter.”⁵⁴

Hatta further stated that a profound internalization of the divinity principle produced individuals with integrity, honesty, and a strong sense of responsibility. Additionally, the second principle—just and civilized humanity—is a natural extension of the first. After elaborating on the meaning of the divinity principle in Pancasila, Hatta immediately associated the explanation to the principle of humanity as:

All of these traits, which must be practiced as a consequence of acknowledging and adhering to the divine foundation— guided by the Most Perfect Being—led to the formation of a strong character, producing individuals with integrity, who are honest and possess a sense of responsibility. The principle of humanity is naturally realized, when the traits are instilled through education and guidance. During human interactions—whether in society, governance, or business—there is always a sense of fraternity, mutual respect, and cooperation. Although positions and responsibilities within social cooperation varies—some individuals are born to lead while others follow. There are also employers, managers, and laborers— with an atmosphere of humanity, compassion, and mutual care existing among fellow individuals within this hierarchical machinery of cooperation.⁵⁵

Hatta addressed the concept of humanity deeply infused with moral and national values through the explanation above. These moral values evolved from a deep acknowledgment of the divine foundation as outlined in the first principle of Pancasila. However, Mohammad Hatta and al-Fārābī fundamentally agreed on the principle of humanity, responsible for elevating moral values. This principle was an essential basis for the actualization of the ideal or virtuous state. This led to the formulation of a central question What was the benchmark for such a virtuous state?

In the final section, the benchmark of the virtuous state was elaborated based on al-Fārābī’s political thought. The benchmark was intended to assess whether Indonesia could be considered a virtuous state, based on its founding on the Pancasila. Following the description, the term virtuous state (al-madīnah al-fāḍilah) was a distinctive concept in al-Fārābī’s political philosophy. It was derived from the title of al-Fārābī’s treatise Kitāb Ārāʾ Ahl al-Madīnah al-Fāḍilah, which discussed the criteria of a virtuous state ruler including the characteristics of the citizens and purpose of statehood.

Beyond the particularity of al-Fārābī’s terminology, the notion of a virtuous state corresponds to the idea of the ideal state—that is envisioned or aspired. In a general sense, there existed diverse conceptions of the ideal state, theorized by the following political philosophers Plato (427–347 BCE),⁵⁶ Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527 CE),⁵⁷ Karl Marx (1818–1883 CE),⁵⁸ and al-Fārābī (870–950 CE), whose conceptions were the main focus of this discussion.

Among the many versions of the ideal state mentioned above, the current research concentrated on al-Fārābī’s conception. Therefore, it aimed to explain the benchmarks of the virtuous state as explored by al-Fārābī. Prior to the explanation, the rationale behind selecting al-Fārābī’s vision rather than others was initially presented.

Previous research stated that al-Fārābī’s concept of the virtuous state held significant relevance to address political challenges currently facing the Indonesian nation. The main current issue confronted by Indonesia was the collapse of moral integrity, prominently manifested in the widespread practice of corruption.

Al-Fārābī outlined the importance of metaphysical knowledge for citizens, as it cultivates reflective awareness leading towards virtuous conduct. This relied both on the relevance and significance of al-Fārābī’s political philosophy in the Indonesian context. However, Pancasila, —Indonesia’s foundation national philosophy—also focused on metaphysical knowledge, specifically through the theological grounding of the first principle. This led to the formulation of the question: does Indonesia qualify as a virtuous state in al-Fārābī’s terms?

The answer is not yet clear, because for al-Fārābī, a virtuous state is not defined merely by the citizens possessing metaphysical knowledge. There are two essential criteria for a virtuous state according to al-Fārābī. Firstly, the citizens must possess a certain degree of metaphysical knowledge. Secondly, these individuals must act and behave in accordance with moral teachings derived from the knowledge. The two criteria are inseparable, because if one is lacking, the citizen fails to be qualified as virtuous.

Al-Fārābī, for instance, does not categorize an individual as virtuous simply due to the possession of metaphysical knowledge while exhibiting contrary behavior. These individuals were rather categorized as fāsiq citizens— who share the worldview of the virtuous citizens (i.e., understanding the meaning of true happiness, recognizing God, the active intellect, and so forth), yet act immorally.⁵⁹

Considering that the fāsiq citizens comprehended the theoretical knowledge of a virtuous state, the actions exhibited resembled those of ignorant individuals (ahl al-madīnah al-jāhilah), who merely pursued physical pleasures and followed respective base desires. Al-Fārābī used the term fāsiq to describe an individual who intentionally commits evil acts while fully having awareness that it is wrong, simultaneously acknowledging the good acts that should be performed instead.⁶⁰

Al-Fārābī stated that within the virtuous state, there were general principles commonly practiced by all citizens, as well as specific knowledge and actions designated for each societal class. Although, only through both—the general (shared by all) and particular (possessed by specific classes)—can citizens achieve true happiness. The engagement in these actions contribute to the formation of an excellent and noble soul. The more consistently the actions were performed, the stronger and more noble the soul becomes.⁶¹

The keywords used in al-Fārābī’s conception of a virtuous state were knowledge and action, both of which must be commonly and specifically known and practiced.

A virtuous citizen must possesse both general knowledge and actions practiced collectively. This also included specific knowledge and actions practiced only by members of particular societal classes. True happiness could be attained only through the general and specific elements shared by all citizens and societal classes, respectively.⁶²

Al-Fārābī’s explanation of this dimension, which led to genuine happiness, outlined the importance of action as a principal condition of the virtuous state. This was showed by the following statement: “Deliberate actions directed towards happiness strengthen the soul. These were naturally predisposed to the actualization of happiness through action and perfection. The soul reaches a stage in which it no longer depends on materiality and is liberated through perfected strength, thereby not perishing with the destruction of the body. When the soul no longer needs material for its potential and actual existence, true happiness is experienced”.⁶³

In Indonesia, despite the possession of Pancasila, corruption remained rampant. Based on al-Fārābī’s criteria, Indonesia is not yet categorized as a virtuous state (ahl al-madīnah al-fāḍilah) because it fulfilled only one of the two criteria. Indonesia fulfilled the first criterion—having Pancasila, which led to the establishment of a theistic foundation for national morality. However, it failed to meet the second criterion and national behavior fell short of reflecting commitment to theistic foundation, resulting in deteriorating moral condition.

The alternative to become a virtuous nation was by revitalizing and deepening the philosophical understanding and conviction of the divine foundation. This metaphysical awareness must yield a reflective consciousness that inspires righteous actions, keeping the nation away from corruption. However, knowledge centered on guiding action, belief and conscious regulation of certain conduct, and behavior was needed to ensure Indonesia does not remain a fāsiq nation indefinitely.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, the intersection of al-Fārābī’s political thought with Pancasila focused on two main points. Firstly, both evolved from the issue of divinity/metaphysics, making this issue the basis for the establishment of the ideal state. Secondly, both outlined that moral consciousness of citizens arose from an awareness of divinity/metaphysical matters.

The implication of the results is that the ideal citizen does not simply comply with state laws or government regulations and refrains from criminal behavior. The individual possesses a certain level of philosophical-metaphysical knowledge and high moral standards. Additionally, moral issues are matters of the state, and not individual concerns. The state must consider moral fate of its citizens alongside economic welfare. Lastly, political orientation of leaders should be based on happiness and not power politics. This was because power politics only led to corruption, while happiness politics fostered high moral standards.

Author Contribution

Ahmad Khoirul Fata: conceptualization, writing – original draft, methodology, supervision, project administration. Izzuddin Washil: investigation, data curation, writing – review & editing, validation. Pepen Irpan Fauzan: formal analysis, resources, software, writing – review & editing.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no financial or non-financial conflict of interest regarding the subject matter or material discussed in this manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

The corresponding author will provide the data associated with this study upon request.

Funding Details

This research did not receive funding from any source.

Generative AI Disclosure Statement

The authors did not used any type of generative AI software for this research.