The term shūrā, akin to "deliberation," signifies joint discussions to resolve problems, hold meetings, or conduct negotiations. Deliberation cannot be used to justify decisions that oppress others, contradict human values, or diverge from Qur'anic and Hadith concepts. Various studies interpret Surah Ali Imran verse 159 and Ash-Shura verse 38, emphasizing that shura and democracy, based on their respective concepts, aim to find an ideal meeting point. In Indonesia, democracy is the foundation of the state and constitution.
Khaled Abou El Fadl's "negotiating hermeneutics" seeks meaning through the interaction between text, author, and reader, avoiding dominance by any single element. Without negotiation, authoritarian or despotic interpretations of Islamic law arise. This research integrates Abou El Fadl's hermeneutics with the term shura, highlighting its dual social and divine aspects of deliberation and submission.
The Negotiative Hermeneutics method provides authoritative Qur'anic interpretation within Indonesia's democratic system, addressing conflicts and supporting democracy. Prior studies on Abou El Fadl's hermeneutics focused on democracy, national politics, and constitutionalism. This study employs qualitative methods with data collection through library research. The results of this thesis indicate that the actualization of shura and democracy encounters numerous issues in their implementation in Indonesia. Ultimately, after thorough analysis, it is concluded that Pancasila democracy is suitable as a problem-solving approach to address the issue of authoritarianism within the democratic framework of Indonesia.