Modernists versus Traditionalists
Among Indonesian Muslims there are as in most (religious) communities traditionalists and modernists with many shades and colours in between; a considerable problem which troubles many attempts at analysis of a wide range of Islamic movements and activities in the archipelago is that of defining particular expressions of Indonesian Islam other than by using popular labels such as orthodox, neo-orthodox, scripturalist, revivalist, traditional, fundamentalist, reformist, modern and progressive.
The indiscriminate use of these labels is rather misleading and helps to distort the complex image of the faith of many Indonesians, as these terms are used in a variety of non-theological contexts. In the Indonesian case, for example, are not the so-called fundamentalists modem in their desire to purge the faith from things un-Islamic and, are not the so-called modernists fundamentalist in their insistence on the original word? Be that as it may, Indonesian Muslims like other religious groups disagree on a number of theological issues, and these differing theological views have found an echo in the formation of a range of competing social and political organisations. These organisations within Islam are habitually divided and have hardly ever been able to form a united front against the secular nationalists. Only under the strong Communist pressure before 1966, when many Islamic organisations were banned by the government, could a larger unity among Muslims be observed. In less troubled times, ‘modernists’ will accuse ‘traditionalists’ of rigid dogmatism, blind obedience to established teachers, the kiai and the ulema, of insufficient intellectual inspiration and of escapist unrealism in the face of worldly (and Western) challenges. To the ‘traditionalists’ on the other hand the ‘neo-orthodoxy’ of the reformers is anathema. Traditionalists do not understand why modernists are not content to go to Mecca to further their education there and why they feel it important to adopt organisational and educational principles coming from the West and to absorb Western learning in their studies as is obvious from the foundation of the originally urban madrasah, i.e. religious schools set up by the religious reform organisation Muhammadiyah, which besides the traditional Islamic subjects of learning also include secular subjects in their curricula. The modernists’ aim of taking Islam out of the mosque and the pesantren and carrying it to the people is to them a highly suspicious ambition, although the traditionalists, too, have embraced the concept of dawa, which has come to stand for Islamic ‘propaganda’ and missionary efforts in general. Ultimately traditionalists can not understand why modernists mean to discard scholastic knowledge and why they favour individual reasoning (ijtihad) over the unquestioning acceptance of established fatwa and the accumulated wisdom of past centuries of learning. The distinction drawn between religious musts, where no reinterpretation is possible, and worldly matters which have to be solved in an Islamic spirit but in step with the times is alien to them. The traditionalists would never agree to the suggestion by some modernists of abandoning the syafii school of law which is generally adhered to and developing a separate Indonesian school of law more in accordance with local conditions.Yet, despite these many controversies which have plagued Indonesian Islam in the last two centuries, no clear-cut distinction is possible between traditionalists and reformists as there are many points of overlap between the two. Both want a ‘better’ Islam. Both want to rid Islam of non-Islamic embellishments and both want Islam given its proper place in society. But when it comes to the question of how to achieve this aim, it has so far been impossible for the two to achieve a lasting consensus. Suspicion, distrust and outspoken hostility have quite frequently marred their relationship, thus weakening both sides and depriving them of the opportunity to achieve their common goal together.
The discussion of the divisive issues is far from over, yet it is quite obvious that during the process both sides, gradually and perhaps even quite unconsciously, have absorbed many of each other’s thoughts.
This has happened in the case of the adat, for example, which, very much alive and continuously evolving, has in many instances adopted elements of Islamic law, so that these are no longer recognised as belonging to fiqh but are now considered an integral part of the traditional law. The slow process of osmosis between traditional and modern thought can also be clearly observed in the attitudes of the two sides towards contemporary non-theological literature.A new, original, creative and individual form of belles-lettres in Malay and Indonesian began to develop from the turn of this century onwards. Basically secular in orientation it has since attracted writers who use the stylistic conventions of contemporary fiction to express their religious feelings, emotions and convictions. Yet, those Muslims who consciously wanted to express their own, inner feelings were faced with the dilemma that belles-lettres used to be held in low esteem by traditional Muslims. A criticism made by the modernists against the traditionalists was that because of the latter’s preoccupation with the hereafter they were totally ignorant of, let alone part of, cultural and literary developments in the Islamic world at large. When in the 1930s young modernist Muslims began to publish their own, modern Islamic and Indonesian literature in response to the developments in secular fiction, their activities were soon declared haram by traditionalists who based their opposition on Sura 26, Al-Suara The Poets, in verses 221-6, which read in Arberry’s translation:
Shall I tell you on whom the Satans come down?
They come down on every guilty impostor. They give ear, but most of them are liars. And the poets—the perverse follow them; hast thou not seen how they wander in every valley and how they say that which they do not?
To which the modernists replied by quoting verse 227:
Save those that believe, and do righteous deeds,
and remember God oft,
and help themselves after being wronged;
and those who do wrong shall surely know by what overturning they will be overturned.
Since the 1930s the traditionalists especially have shifted their position, it has to be admitted, and from a position of total rejection they have moved slowly to one of reluctant tolerance. However, the discussion still continues as to how the Islamic nature of literature ought to manifest itself. Should literature serve solely as a medium oidawa and should this function have priority over artistic criteria as the traditionalists demand, or should literature be given the freedom to express its Islamic character in whichever way the artists individually think best? In other words, should the message of Islam be explicit or implicit in a work of art?