Religious Conflict: Political & Intellectual

LEYAKET ALI MOHAMED OMAR

History of Religion Part 2- Prof Bernard Adeney- Risakotta and Prof Margana
Readings are from : Howard M. Federspiel- Muslim Intellectuals and Indonesia's National Development and Kenneth M. George- Designs on Indonesia's Muslim Communities

Reading through Federspeil work on Muslim intellectual in Indonesia that he defines as individuals that are rooted in the Indonesian community who had backgrounds of Western education but they speak and write using Islamic terminology, standards, and values. In case he does not notice, I assumed that is what the Western studies define as identities. In line with this I view the intellectuals that he mentions identify themselves with priorities to their community expectations. In his writings he exposed the ‘gound avtivities’ of the public views on certain issues to link up his idea on the possibilities of the public re-actions to the votings of Muslims parties, however he mentions (p244) quoting from Taufik Abdullah, "Islam Hanya Soal Nilai" (Islam is only a matter of standards), Panjimas 537 (April 21, 1987), pp. 26-31.:
In large part, the intellectuals hold that Muslims have a religious duty to make sure that Islamic principles are translated into political reality. However, they note that this does not mean that Muslims are obliged to vote for parties with the banner of Islam. Muslim intellectuals contend that in large part this attitude and behavior on the part of many Muslims are recognition of the poor state of Islamic political organizations, which make them a bad electoral choice. The position is as much recognition that, for many valid reasons, individual Muslims may want or feel compelled to vote for the government party. The government party is not opposed to Islam, after all, but merely places Islam in a less prominent place than occurs in Muslim political associations. As several intellectuals noted, one can work in the government party for Islamic ideals.

I think it is inappropriate in his writing to emphasise over the issue on voting for Muslims parties, as he mentions above as being the most group that contribute to the assumption that Islamic political organizations are recognised as a poor state. I think this is a vague argument to state a reason for most of the Muslims who have that mind set, that brings me an obvious questions of, what about those that view Islam as a religion that has no place in political arena? And on the extreme side of it, we can have an example of Hizbutahrir who are recognised for their intellectual leaders? He also did not verify his resources when he mention such a statistic.
Kenneth M. George mentions “modernist intellectuals like Nurcholish Madjid and Abdurrahman Wahid argued that an Islamic society did not necessitate an Islamic political party or an Islamic state, a view quite welcome in government circles.” In light of this Nurcholish’s criticisms of the idea of an “Islamic State” shifted the mainstream Islamic paradigm, and also gave a sense of theological security to Muslims, in that they could remain good Muslims without having to establish an Islamic State or become a member of an Islamic Party. A point of view, in which we can’t deny a win-win situation; for both the government and the public opinion. Indonesia is home to roughly 165 million Muslims; in such numbers they not only predominate in that country's civic life-they constitute 88 percent of the public-but also make up the largest ummat within existing national borders anywhere in the world (Taher 1995). To make a concept like what was being said was something neutral and safe.