Religion and Colonialism

LEYAKET ALI MOHAMED OMAR
History of Religion Part 2- Prof Bernard Adeney- Risakotta and Prof Margana
Readings are from : Sartona Kartodirdjo- Peasant Revolt of Banten in 1888; David Bourcheir- The 1950s in New order Ideology and Politics; Hamis Alqadri, C Snouck Hurgronje- Politik Belanda terhadap Islam dan Keturunan Arab.

Colonialism normally refers to a period of history from the 15th to the 20th century when people from Europe built colonies on other continents. The reasons for the practice of colonialism at this time include: the profits to be made, to expand the power of the metropole, to escape persecution in the metropole, to convert the indigenous population to the colonists' religion. Some colonists also felt they were helping the indigenous population by bringing them Christianity and civilization. However, the reality was often subjugation, slavery, displacement or death.
Defining Colonialism in a clearer understanding, Wikipedia states; Colonialism is the building and maintaining colonies in one territory by people from territory sovereignty over the colony is claimed by the metropole. Social structure, government and economics within the territory of the colony are changed by the colonists.

Colonial movement are never taken contentedly by any countryman’s mother land that experienced it first hand and similarly in Indonesia anti- colonial movements as I understood through the readings, that most of the struggles are from religious related that was at that time an important key to life hood. During those period and still today religions plays a big role in keeping the unity and tradition move on despite of the changes that was happening then. Religion has shown itself, both throughout history and in recent times, as able to unite people and to divide them, to inspire acts of love and acts of hatred.

Reading through all the articles above the religious revival is all about the famous phrase that goes ‘Islam Is a Way of Life’. Not to underline that Islam teaches its followers to rebel or kill brutally to those who are not willing to accept Islam but rather Islamic teachings and learning’s are made up so structurally patterned that it involves the daily aspect of socio-cosmopolitan of the everyday happenings. In the context of colonialism consideration during that time and having Islam as the key to all solution, religious leaders are held to be responsible to lead. In the midst of all this and the sway of terekats movements and political growth some lost their main source of understanding in Islam hence, swayed the main intention and led their followers into destructions of civilisations. Glancing at Kartodirdjo profound writing that kept me going at one; non-stop reading. He mentioned about Haji Abdul Karim who was also known as Kiyai Agung to whom was the ultimate teacher to most of the so called rebels of July 1888 insurrectionary movements. It was noted that he, Haji Abdul Karim himself did not make any move to rebel in bloodshed but preferred to leave Banten instead. It was the pressure of marginalised and presume ‘Christianization’ movement from the Dutch that prompted the other Kiyais to led the radical attack. Why marginalised? Looking at the article on C. Snouck Hurgronje, Politik Belanda terhadap Islam dan Keturunan Arab by Hamid Algadri, I find that there was too much suppression by the Dutch focusing on the freedom of practicing Islam.

Other areas that I would like to point out is that Kartodirjo and Snouck mentions in various sections on the Mecca-Indonesian relation and the Jawa community in Mecca mentions ‘Mecca trained’, p.153, ‘the head in Mecca’, p.160; in other words it was often mentioned of the certain people in Mecca who was directing but in all the readings it was not mention anywhere of the names of the person, was he in the Jawa community? Was he an Arab who was in Mecca. Who actually was in command?