Virtues of Differences: Religion, State and Politics

Week #10: Religious Conflict: From Political to Intellectual Dispute,

Roma Ulinnuha-ICRS 2009

Soebardi, Serat Cebolek : Kuasa Agama dan Pembebasan (Bandung: Nuansa, 2004); Howard M. Federspiel, Muslim Intellectuals and Indonesia's National Development, Asian Survey, Vol. 31, No. 3. (Mar., 1991), pp. 232-246.

Religion has been mingled within it the complexity of discourse. The social, economic, cultural and political aspect quite often related to religious representation—of figures, the teaching and groups. The quarrel between Islam Syariat (Javanese mysticism) and the legalistic Islam (orthodoxy) has been observed in Serat Cebolek written by R.Ng. Yasadipura, a productive man of letters of Surakarta Court in the eighteenth century. Soebardi (2004) argues that there was a growing tension between the two lines of Islam which would lead to syncretism religious world view. Yasadipura, according to Soebardi, compromised his position between legalistic Islam in the Court and Islam Syariat. He encourages Javanese Muslim to seek pathways of eternality as depicted in Dewaruci story. (p.72). The fragment, I think, is the instance of the past religious conflict between the two aspects of Islam, however the legacy of the conflict is present on determining the religion has mingled with culture and mysticism or not in the current era.
The conflict among religious entities can be influenced by political and intellectual disputes. For instance, in contemporary Indonesian History, we read the difference stance of Muslims whether to oppose or to propose the Islamic state. In the New Order era, when every religious issue should concord the state, there also emerged the conflict between Muslims Intellectuals who support government role and those who tried to keep the distance to the ruling government. What is left by the Muslims disputes was who support what, and it has been a good learning for Indonesians, but the most crucial thing is the intellectual legacies of the aspects. I am of the opinion that in political discourse, it is almost common thing that there is no eternal intention but vested-interest. Furthermore it is also open for individuals to express the political stance in terms of the state patronage, because it depends on what ways suit the best in particular time and space. The positive tributes, I think, from the intellectuals dispute is how individuals gave the opinion freely without having any negative intentions and how the issue is communicated in a relatively accepted manner in proper time and place.
Furthermore, it is interesting to view the Muslims Indonesian intellectuals. Muslims intellectuals in Indonesia, according to Federspiel, have multi dimension in interests. In New Order era, Mukti Ali and Nurcholis Madjid are among two representations of the Muslim intellectuals expressing the political stance. In general, most of these intellectuals are activists, deeply involved in Muslim community activities, and their writings stress the importance of commitment and active involvement in the work of building and maintaining an Islamic community (Federspiel, 1991, p. 236).
Both intellectuals have positioned in building the strategic stance of religion and politics. In conjunction to the state politics, while Madjid has declared the ‘Islam Yes, Islamic Party No’ slogan, Mukti Ali seems to construct the religion contribution to Indonesian development program. I think, in the era of strict control of the state, the two intellectuals, have successfully relate one of the Muslims voices to the state. It is significant to note that the two are academician, pesantren-based education, and graduates of Western universities. Based on their backgrounds, they responded the challenge of Islam and the key notion in development –modernity. Madjid has addressed the values of Islam when it met the discourse coming of the West—and how the position of Muslims toward the Western concepts. Likewise, Ali urges to develop the science in conjunction to the transcendental view—in a form of ‘pembangunan manusia Indonesia seutuhnya’-both spiritually and materially.
The conflict between Islam in the one side and the West development in the other can be responded by the two Muslims intellectuals, Madjid and Ali, in a moderate ways. They were in a dialectic stance for they also criticized Muslims—because of forgetting the intellectual tradition and at the same time encouraged Muslims to open the study of religion, culture and the society of the West. This stance, I think, can also be seen as a communication to the public although they bore some criticism because of their stance to the state. Notwithstanding its limitations, the two intellectuals were aware of the dispute between religion and the ‘modern’ consequences—political party, development issue, and science.
To sum up, it has been occurred in every time and space, of Yasadipura and New Order—the quarrel between religion and politics. The values, we can achieve, I think, is the contribution of moderation, openness to diversity, and balance stance to build a peaceful and dynamics society. The difference of opinion and interests are welcome, but the more crucial thing is how to redirect the opinion and interests of promoting the virtues of humanity—not chaos and troublesome.