Islam and Modernity (2)

Sumber Tulisan : Disini

By Azyumardi Azra

Around 15 economy and business professors from Stanford University, USA still questioned the connection between Islam and modernity. Yet, a different perspective was stated by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her visit to Indonesia on February 2009. According to Hillary, if people asked her about this, she suggested them to visit Indonesia to see how “Islam and modernity walk hand in hand”.

Indonesia’s experience related to Islam and modernity clearly very complex. Although Islam in Indonesia since early 20’s century accepted the ideas brought by modernity and modernization thinkers from all parts of the world, such as Egypt, Turkey, and Indian subcontinent, Muslim thinkers in this country, since KH Ahmad dahlan, Haji Abdul Malik Amrullah, Haji Agus Salim, Soekarno, Muhammad Hatta, Mohamad Natsir, et cetera, developed of school Islamic thoughts and praxis and Indonesian style modernity. Therefore, the final product of Islamic modernity in Indonesia produced dynamic thoughts and distinctive Islamic institutions vis a vis to other parts of Muslim World.

One of the distinctions was related to interaction and accommodation between modernity and tradition. Scholarly arguments among Western experts about Islam and modernity, laid an argument which then raised distortion that one of the main obstacles in Islam and Muslim to accept modernity was the sustained tradition within Muslims.

They were perceived as “traditional” people who were chained in theology tradition, stiff fiqh, ascetic tassawuf and tarrekat, and blind taklid to ulama. All of these considered unmatched to modernity structure.

Therefore, both of these main streams, in all of Muslim world, including Indonesia, modernist and traditionalist were placed in dual position – against to each other and involved in intense struggle and contest to win Muslims’ heart. At the same time, commonalities between them were often neglected and what rose in public mostly were differences and conflicts.

In Indonesia, both of these main streams are often perceived and represented by Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama (NU). In their early decades of development, both of Indonesia’s biggest organizations often involved in conflicts, this generally more concerned to furu’iyah problems -branches rather than trunk.Since the beginning of its birth, Muhammadiyah seemed to show Islam that compatible with modernity, but NU slowly but sure also adopted modernity. Because of it, as far as related to modernity, both streams have accepted modernity. Not much or even almost none of the arguments between them about does modernity suitable to Islam or not.

Both Muhammadiyah and NU accepted modernity although their modernity adoption processes have been through different path. Therefore, Muhammadiyah and NU found commonalities in their views and acts on responding the raising and development of Indonesia’s nation-state concept.
Both of these organization leaders at the beginning commonly supported “Jakarta Charter” on 1945 Constitutional Preamble and commonly agreed to accept some revision for the interest of the unity of Indonesia’s plural nation-state. From now on to future, both are holding their commitments to Indonesia nation-state with its four main pillars: 1945 Constitution, Pancasila (Five Basic Principles), Unitary State of Indonesia Republic, and Bhineka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity).

Many socio-religious changes happened due to improvement of education, especially post-independence, coincide to socio-economic development, and generate convergence stream dan religious understanding between both sides. In this convergence, furi’iyah problems have been left behind. If some of differences still occurred, they are no longer become source of conflicts.
With all of these progressions, dual oppositions between “modernist’’ and “traditionalist” are no longer valid. And at the same time, arguments about Islam and modernity are also irrelevant. Vice versa, both sides as well as Indonesia’s Muslims keep involving in actualizing Islamic modernity to bring forward life of Indonesia’s nation-state onto various fields of life.
(Indira Amaranti)

Islam and Modernity (1)

Sumber Tulisan : Disini

By Azyumardi Azra

The beginning relationship between Islam and modernity is a classic discourse. Warm controversy between these two entities reached its peak on 1970’s. Indonesia was one of the implicated countries in the middle of economic, social and culture modernization process. But, when development spin continued rapidly, discussion and debates about them receded and even almost vanished from academic and public sphere.

On that context, I was taken by surprise when around 15 professors majoring economic and business from Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA, in an exclusive discussion on last March in Jakarta, questioned about the relationship between Islam and modernity. Still related to that matter, they also asked a question whether Islam and Indonesian Muslims were adaptive and supportive to economic and business growth in the globalization era.

I don’t know exactly why did questions about Islam, modernity, work ethics and economic and business growth rise back. Because, in my mind, during their trip in Indonesia, they must have seen many actualization of modernity in the largest Muslim country in the world, from democracy, freedom of press, human rights, gender equality, capitalist economic system, sky scrapers, massive malls, et cetera.

Those questions could rise from their lack of knowledge about dogma, history, and sociology of Muslims. But it could also rise from their understanding and perception of many Muslim countries around the world that still live in scarcity, poverty, and unemployment.

Of course, there are some Muslim countries and societies rich in natural resources such as oil and gas, but that wealth still untapped for the improvement of human resources and funding for economic and social benefit of other Muslim societies in other parts of the world.

Furthermore, such perception indicated that the old paradigm about Islam and modernity around western scholars, especially the non-Islamic studies specialists, still proceeding. The old paradigm came from the arguments about doctrinal, politics and socio-cultural barriers within Muslim society which made modernity and modernization inoperative. Furthermore, according to this argument, Muslim societies were lack or even dispossessed socio-cultural factors as the requirements for the growth of modernity and economic growth eventually.

This point of views had a deep root, since the beginning of Islam and Muslim society studies in 18th century, when colonialism force was pushing through Muslim World. Empowered by the interest of political glory, economic prosperity and religious converting mission, Islamic studies then well known as Orientalism, has placed Islam and Muslim societies as theological-doctrinal, historic and socio-cultural static framework and reality.

Inability of Muslim societies on fighting European expansion has made the image and (mis)perception about Islam even stronger. Coming from such Orientalism studies then emerge paradigm about Islam and modernity through theories formulated by social classic historians and theoreticians from Ernest Renan (1862), Max Weber (1922) to the contemporary ones such as Bertrand Badie (1987), Marcel Gauchet (1997), Remi Brague (2002) and Bernard Lewis (2002).

To such Western paradigm, also contained theory about the incapability of Islam and Muslim societies to be modern. Vice versa, this paradigm also assume that modernity only comes from European’s (or Western generally) religious, politics, social and culture experiences. Therefore, if non-West societies – especially Muslim – eager to reach modernity foradvancement, they have to adopt from

European experiences and transform many life aspects simultaneously. There are loads of objection stated by Muslim and Western scholars about the misperception of such paradigm. In fact, since end of 1970’s the accusations to Orientalism fundamental existence which formed diverse bias and misperception about Islam have risen.

Stories of Mehmed and Davood

Sumber Tulisan : Disini

By Azyumardi Azra

During my trips abroad, I often got chances to chat with Muslim immigrants whom I met in the airport, taxi, or as street vendors. They usually were blue collar workers, labourer, driver, or street vendors.
A bit typical, they usually talked more naive, straight forward, and also felt honest. They were different to successful immigrants who were white collar workers, office employee, manager, scientist, professor, and activist who tend to talk more carefully. Acted as an anthropologic or journalist, I talked and asked a lot about blue collar Muslim’s life in diasporas.

During conversations, I got to know not only their tears and laughter in foreign countries, but also their identity and perspective upheaval about their native countries development which could not be forgotten. This was their natural characteristic who lived in diasporas. They were usually experiencing long-term psychological and identity fluctuations.

In one side, they were facing unpleasant daily reality from social discriminations to anti-immigrant attitude of locals. In such hard situations, it was no surprise if homesickness to their home land kept bursting; emotional attachment to their native countries became so strong.
Take a look at Mehmed Sukur, a taxi driver who took me to Arlanda Airport, Stockholm, in the mid of April 2012. From his name I rightly knew he came from Turkey. And immediately I started to open my conversations about his homeland, not only about current development but also since the time of Ottoman Dynasty.

Mehmed, aged of early 30’s, was an educated Turkish as well as very nationalist. He was so proud of Ottoman Dynasty glory that conquered all Middle East, Mediterranean Sea, and Eastern Europe. To Mehmed, Sultan Sulayman al-Qanuni was a very important figure who united those regions under one single authority. He did not hesitate to call him as a super power leader.

Then came his irritation expression that the fall of Ottoman Dynasty was caused by Arab leaders’ conspiracies with Britain and France on 1920’s. With promises to be Islam World “khalifah”, Hijaz ruler, Sharif Hussain, accepted Britain and France’s mandate in Arab Peninsula by sacrificing Turkey Ottoman.

The result, Middle East went through fragmentation – including their manners on facing Israel – with never ending conflicts. Therefore, to Mehmed, the continuous crisis in Arab World now was a result of their betrayal to Istanbul. Meanwhile, Arab World kept flare up. At the same time, Turkey under leadership of PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan was victorious on advancing their economy.

Mehmed was very proud of the rise of Turkey with its come back to be the formidable force in Middle East and even Europe. He agreed when I explained about the observers calling the current Turkey as “Neo Ottoman”.

Different thing happened to Davood Parvaneh who came from Iran. He took me from Sheraton Stockholm to Arlanda Airport. This man in his 40’s had a very critical point of view towards Iranian regime. Admitted living in Stockholm for 13 years and worked as taxi driver, Davood often went back home. But in his homeland, he admitted that he was afraid to talk about politics – especially being critical towards current regime because he could be in trouble.

To Davood, Iranian ruling regime with its nuclear program has controversially become troubles to Iranian immigrants. He felt, Iranian immigrants were monitored and watched over by intelligence officers in overseas countries. They were viewed by the authorities and locals as potential harm to their resident state’s security.

According to Davood, Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s regime actually was not fully capable to build nuclear weapons. Therefore, he was wondering why Iranian government not wanted to open one hundred percent of its uranium enrichment projects to international society. As the consequences, suspicion stays afloat in the middle of Iranian ruling regime resistance against international oppression.

Mehmed and Davood have just reflected two different symptoms on seeing their native countries. But, both showed unbreakable soul attachment to their mother land. In the middle of migration wave increase in the globalization era, migrants’ identity attractions in diasporas keep to continue.

Democracy: The strengthening of optimism

Sumber Tulisan : Disini

REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, By: Azyumardi Azra

Reflecting on the experience of several countries around the world that are pessimistic about future of democracy, what can we do to re-grow Indonesian optimism for democracy? This opportunity now comes when voters vote in legislative election on April 9 legislative and then presidential election on July 9, 2014. Is legislative election able to restore public confidence to all representatives who disappointed Indonesian citizens in the past? Is the general election can produce the President who gives hope for Indonesian future?

Reinforcement of democratic optimism must begin with an attitude of believing to democracy itself. Although it has a limit, democracy remains an option of a more viable political system for Indonesia. It will be more difficult to implement other political system, like theocracy or militarism.

However, it is hard to imagine if Indonesian citizen can receive other political system despite the chaotic implementation of democracy in Indonesia, especially since 2005 election, which often involved money politics, violence and intimidation. It is hard to imagine that people want to receive authoritarianism based on a theological or military power.

The idea of ‘simplification’ of procedural democracy with security andfinancial reason on local election also faces tough challenge. However, Indonesian democracy now becomes the order of the day.

On the other side, this symptom indicates democracy has been deeply embedded in political culture in Indonesia. Unfortunately, the strengthening of democratic process and traditions are not accompanied an increase in civic culture and citizen behavior. Some efforts to strengthen civic culture and civilization can be carried out through civic education or democratic education like what have been conducted in Indonesia in before 1999 election. But after that, in 2004, 2009 and 2014 elections, the civic education lost its momentum and no longer became a priority.

It was clear that civic culture and civilization cannot be considered after it was completed or grew by itself. Therefore, cultural citizenship increasingly degenerates in public domain. No need the academic and scientific research in this case. People can see cultural decline in various aspects in public life.

That is why cultural citizenship and civility must be grown and strengthened continuously. Both of them can function not only in democracy reinforcement but also in everyday life. Public respect for civilization, law and order can be re-enforced.

Culture of citizenship and civility are needed to be strengthened not only by Indonesian citizens but also political elites. Since the reform era, many politicians in legislature disappointed. They were involved in corruption cases and skipped the meeting, so they failed to reach the law targets. No wonder this fact lead to citizens’ frustration and apathy.

The similar condition is also seen in legislative election this year. About 90 percent legislative candidates are incumbent who have good performance, while the rest are new faces who cannot be ascertained to restore the dignity of legislature.

But the pessimism is not going to improve situation. Hence, voters must give their votes to implement reward and punishment principles. In this framework, voters give the reward or punishment to candidate who has good track record and they are not voting for candidate who has bad track record.

Thus, the strengthening of democracy requires hard work in various ways among voters, legislative candidates, politicians and also political parties. If not, democracy procedural through general election is not more than a riot democracy which is unable to repair the political reality and people welfare.

Some efforts to recreate democracy are possible in Indonesia because this country is rich with organizations and civil society groups, which are usually reflected as civil society. These people play important roles to empower democracy just like in the beginning of reform. Now it is time for them to revitalize a better democracy for future.