WAS WAHID HASYIM REALLY JUST A TRADITIONALIST..?*

KH. A Wahid Hasyim
sumber.www.nu.or.id

At a meeting of the Indonesian academic society, i proosed that Dr. Martin van Bruinessen write an instruction to this book since he pays a great deal of attention to the “traditional” Islam of Indonesia. Unfortunately, the meeting found it difficult to accept my opinion. Sahiron Syamsuddin, Inna Muthmainnah and Siti Handaroh considered it as an excellent idea to have Dr. Bruinessen write the introduction to the book, but they felt it would be an unreasonable imposition upon him since the Indonesian academic society intends to lunch the book at McGill University by November 10 th, 1998 to celebrate the Indonesian day of the Hero. When the author Achmad Zaini personally urged me to substitute for Bruinessen, i had to think twice not only because the replecment meant a qualitative degradation, a lowering from Bruinessen to Wahyudi, but also because i have a number of some other important jobs to do.

I am preparing both my comprehensive exams, the most difficult step in my Ph.D program, and my dissertation proposal. That is not all, however. Revising my article entitled “the epistemology of almunqidh min al dalal” also demands a lot of time and concentration. However, i kept silent when al Makin and Andi Nurbaethy reminded me of my major in modern developments in twentieth century Indonesia. I could not avoid writing the introduction when zaini an syamsuddin threw their  Wahid Hasyim (the figure discussed in this book) grew up.” My wife Siti Handaroh supported their “insider” argument, stressing the Muhammadiyahness of Banu Fakhruddin, to which she belongs.

I will take the author’s most important finding as my starting point. The author insists upon the ncassity of questening “the western scholarship”. He criticizes them for giving the impression that the traditional “ulama” were orthodox, conservative figure resistant to accepting anything new. Furthermore, they undermined the role of the Nadlatul Ulama, the biggest organization of traditional ulama, by eliminating its contribution of Indonesian nationalist movement. In their alnaysis of Indonesians islam, western scholars have heavily depended on the one side information provided by the “modernists”. “the traditionalist” unlike the “modernists” lacked writing sekills, especially in English, the language they deemed that of kuffar (unbelievers) the imbalance of information led the western scholars largely to be spokesmen for the modernists, even if they themselves had no  determined conclusions in mind.

Their one domentional approach is to blame also. Although the one dimentional approach is, or course, very important in discussing a subject, to some extent in results in a “white and black” or “either or” value. Their fact finding approach revealed that in light of the sociology of knowledge, lreligion, in the sense of Islamic interpretation by a group of Indonesian Mulims, devides Indonesian Muslims at least into two opposing groups, that is to say, “the traditionalists” and “modernists”. This interpretation results in a “white an black” or “either o” value, judging that one group i wrong and hence should be re Islamized, while the other is right and, hence, should re Islamize the former.

Each group indetifies itself by two opposing slogans, namely, minna (among us) to indicate their groups while munhum (among them) to exclude the other group. The ideologization of the slogan closes their own epistemological criticism. Worst still, this ideologization creates idols. The traditionalist have their own idols and so do the modernist religio political conflict in the twentieth century Indonesia are living witnesses of this struggle between at least two idols. The two groups sometimes forget that theor actions fall into the same category, indicating that both modernists and traditionalist share the same behaviour while distinguishing their groups one from another. A good example of this inconsistency deals with a conflict of authority. The traditionalist consider that the title of kyai (syaikh, alim, ustadh) does not come from a human being, thus rejecting the authority of both the Dutch and the modernists but from God (Allah), however, the modernists accuse the title of being bid’ah (innovation) and originating in Hindu Myscticism.

Both groups strive to defend their respective viewpoint. Some young kyais who are also graduates of universities in the 1970 s, tend to give up their formal academic title like  Drs, (Dotorandus MA) to insist their kyai ness. The modernists. However, inconsistent too. At the lower level, the title kyai  was left aside, while some of chairman of the Muhammadiyah, for example, use the title. Ahmad Azhar Basyir  was given the title  of kyai upon his election as chairman of the Muhammadiyah although it is difficult to know when this happened for the first time. It is clear that at the higest level, a figure may need to identify himself with mystical power, syimbolized by the title of kyai as a traditional weapon of Javanese kingdoms, to command a strong charisma.

The conflict of authority in fact stems, among other factors  from the attitudes of the traditionalists and modernists towards the Dutch. The tradionalists totally rejected Dutch authorit by strengthening the pesantren (Islamic Boarding School), it seems that the traditionalis realized that to accept the education the Dutch offered in early twentieth century meant to recognize their authority over kyais. This attitude was not only ulama submission to the kuffar (unbelievers) who colonized them, but also a suicide. The kyais saw this suicide thus if pesantren graduate had received  certificates from the Dutch governments and hence, had been eligible to be the Dutch officials, the Dutch would have used the graduates against Islam. The suicide would have become ore dangerous if the graduates had held  military positions.

The modernists, however considered the traditionlists policy to some extent to be suicide if Indonesian muslims to cooperated with the Dutch., the former would had lost any chance of developing the human resources of Indoneosian Muslims on the other hand, and the Indonesia non Muslims would had become stronger and stronger, on the other. The modernists risk the charge of being innovators (mubtadiun) in fact, both groups operated at the same level of maqashid usy syariah (the purpose of Islamic law), ie. That of ad-daruriyat (necesseries). While they were trying to defend addin (religion) a-nafs( soul) al aql (intellect), al mal (property) an an-nasl (progency) from demage, the differed in interpreting the Dutch position.

Both the modernist and traditionalist were not foundationalist in their judgmeent of the function of the Dutch in terms of achieving the maqashid usy-syariah. Both groups realized that the Dutch brought with them maslahat (interest) and mafasid (evils) as everything else in the wold. The traditionalis considered the Dutch more as hampering the attainment of their objectives, stressing the principle of shadd udhd dariah ( blocking the means that led to the demage of the maqashid usy syariah) in this regard, they preferred the principle of dar ul mafasid ( avoiding dangers), namely that erasing the evils of the Dutch looking after ones interest) i.e. the facilies and benefits that the Dutch would give ti the Indonesian Muslims.

The modernists however saw the problem in a different way. For them application of the principle of ma la  yudroku kulluh (something that cannot be achieved completely namely the liberation of the Indonesian Muslims from the Dutch is la yutraku kulluh ( cannot be abondanned totally)  that is the acceptance of Dutch help was more appropriate step in this difficult station. The modernists needed the dDutch an tus put them at the haji level of mawashid usy syariah to achive their objective. Thus both groups came to the principle of that pluarality of cause and the raltivity of effect. Apart from that response to dhte Dutch both groups cam, in factm us both titles for their puposes of strengthening Muslim Societies.

The conflict of authority also creates an epistemological latency among Indonesian Mulims themselves. The rejection of the witness of the expert is clear from the following example being consistent with theri policy the traditionalis tended to strengthen the educational system of pesantren. While almost totally leaving aside the possibility of establishing modern schools subject led the tradionnalist to be leading figures in religious matters. Thus it is not suprrining that graduates of pesantren could read Arabic text better than graduates of non pesantren schools, including those of the Islamic  university. However, this overspecialization resulted in over production. The graduates of tradisonlits schools wre mostly religious experts in a narrow sense. In other words, the civilization of the traditionalist is religious in nature.

The lack of  non religious experts in the traditionalist circle resulted in the collapse of the Nahdlatul Ulama’s Universities in the 1970s. On  other hand, the modernists criticized pesantren per  se an not its weaknesses, while strengthening the establishment of modern schools led the modernists to lead in the development of secular civilization, while lacking in religios experts. The rejection of the witness of the expert by both groups hampered the acceleration of experience. Having lst more than a half century tradionlists strive to puruse the sthreng of the modernists by establishing modern schools and universities.  The  modernist become the traditionalists while the latter want to be the former.

The multi demintional approach the author proposes is in line wtih the fact that a human being is a multi oriented creature, resisting any strict  division into a single category or label like tradistionalist or modernist or fundamentalist fo example. Any clear cut label by which one characterizes the action of a man, will disappear when the man one caracterises turns auto be somebody else a moment later. In light of the Islamic philosophy of history. A man can be an angel, or a devil or a man (insan) expanding not on thus attachment to a certain label but on this actions, Ali sari’ati right says/ his flexibility in reponse to he challenges he faces at a certain moment i call the theory of wulak waliking ati ( membolak balikan hati/taqallub ul qalbi).

Thus wahid hasyim was either a traditionalist nor a modernist nor a fundamentalist for instance, but he was a traditionalist in many respects, a modernist in his efforts to modernize pesantren and even to establish Islamic higher educational institutions, and a constitutionalist in hes efforts to make Islamic law the major characteristic of the Indonesian Constitution. He was even a fundamentalist in his struggle against the Dutch, making him an Indonesian hero. Although as a fundamentalist he was free from moral defeatism, the label Sayyid Qutbh charged to the modernist, Wahid Hasyim was a modernist in his collaboration with the Japanese imperialist and institutions that faced Indonesian Muslims in the early twentieth century.

Indonesia, as a part of the Muslim world, was not immune from the wave of the literal movement as characterized as “back to qur’an and the sunnah.” In the 19th  century, the movement was manisfested not only in the purification of Islamic civilization, but also in the liberation movement of Indonesia Muslims against the colonialist, as in the cases of the Padri wars against the Dutch in West Sumatra in 1821-1837 and the Java wars of 1825-1830. The liberation spirit of the movement of “back to Qur’an and Sunnah” attracted largely young. Rigorous Muslims, such as “young” Azad in India and “Young” Sukarno in Indonesia, who later on changed their orientation.

The Indonesian traditionalist ulama, however clearly detected in this a wahhabization of Islam. For them, the movement  not only impoverished Islamic discourse, althougt it emphasized jitihad (personal interpretation) and condemned taqlid (imitation), but also forced its literalist and intolerant interpretation. The movement tended to be absolutist and exclusivist, by considering everything that is not in line with its interpretation to be bid’ah. To the term bidah, the movement added the terms takhayyul which is t.b.c implying that the traditionalist underwent a serious case of tubercaulosists, as mentioned earlier. Engaging a defense mechanism, the traditionalist ulama established the nahdatul ulama in 1926 the founder of which was wahid hasyim’s father, thus wahid hasyim ihered a conflict of interpretation  of Islam, within which his Islam became the target of criticism.

The change of thought became more complicated with the emergence of nationalism. In its way to becoming a key factor in the Indonesian struggle against imperialism, nationalism conflicted with Islam because it challenged the most essential objective of the movement “back to the Qur’an and Sunnah” the Nationalist agree with the establishment of an Islamic state. Religion, they declared, had no room in the national state for wich they were struggling. Many Muslim even turned  to the national side, weakning the position of Islam. Clifford Gertz, the author of the religion of Java, underlinded the vulnerablitiy namely, priyayi (javanase oriented muslims), abangan (verbal Muslims), and santri ( devout Muslims), with the traditionalists  and moderenists belonged to the last.

The classification implied that the traditionalist were small in number and, hence, not important in the struggle for Indonesian independence. The picture of thisimagined community was strengthened by the Dutch whit almost never gave the traditionalist  an important role in their administration. The intense dialogue between a divided Islamand a divided nationalism, however, made their Islam not nationalism the single mayor factor, paving the way for the emergence of Muslim. Nationalist vis a vis secler nationalists.. it was into the letter that many tended to calssify the priayayi and abangan in their analysis of Indonesian Islam.

A number of institutional changes took place the most significant which  was a change of government. The replacement of the Dutch by the Japanese in 1942 brought about some fundamental and radical changes. The victory of Japanese military government over the Dutch presented the former with the problems of legitimacy and minority of Indonesia, namely the Muslims, recognizing them as their younger brothers and the Japanese granted many facilities  to the traditionalist since without the charisma of their kyais they would not be able to mobilize them with the aim of victory over the allies. The Japanese gave them military trainings on the other hand, and established Shumubu (later to become the Ministry of religious affairs) on the other.

Considering these facilities as an improvement for the menas of achieving the maqashid usy syariah, the traditionalist under the leadership of Wahid Hasyim collaborated with the Japanese like the modernists on their response to the Dutch educational policy that the tradionalist had rejected, wahid hasyim came to the realization tha he had to choose the best among the bad possibilities (akhaff ud dararayn or the lesser of two evils) namely to be colonized by the Japanese or by the Dutch. In this regard, he seemed to apply the principle of something that cannot be achieved completely- namely, the liberation of Indonesian Muslims from the Japanese. Cannot be abandoned totally that is, the help of the Japanese. Thus he was parallel to achievement of maqashid usy syariah. He and the modernists needed the imperialists to materialize  the neccasery interest (al maqashid usy syariah) of Indonesian Muslims. One of the remarkable results of this religio political strategy as-syiasyah asy syar’iyyah was the estalisment of the ministry of religious affairs.

The proclamation of Indonesian independence on August 17th, 1945 changed Indonesian political authority and, hence opened the chance of Indonesian Muslims to achieve their masalih (public interest) and to avoid their mafasidi (evils), constitutionally, Indonesian Muslims proposed the idea of an Islamic state for the newly established Indonesia as a means of achieving the maqashid usy syariah in the widest sense of the term. The nationalist, on the other hand, proposed the idea of establishing a national state. Wahid Hasyim, who  had contributed to the formation of the Congress  of the Indonesian People in  1941, was elected to be one of nine members of the Prepatory Committee for Indonesian Independence. The committee produced in 1945 a unifying agreement called the Jakarta Charter in the constitutional debates, he proposed such “fundamentalist” article as “Indonesia should be an Islamic state” and “the president of Indonesia should be a Muslim.” In the ed, he areed with the nationalists that Indonesia should be a national state. For which he was regcognized as an Indonesian hero parallel to those among the secular nationalists. He was thus a nationalist and a constructionalis in the context of independent Indonesia.

Given the aforementioned facts, i would insupport of the authors plea for questening the Western an and modernists conclusions concerning the Indonesian traditionalists Muslim, ask “was wahid hasyim really just a traditionalist?” last but least, i would like to underline Wahid Hasyims philosophy of history: “to be a historian is important, but to be maker of history is more important.” In this regard, the author Zaini comes to the essence of historicity Wahid Hasim insitsted upon. Zaini not only writes a history of Wahid Hasyim through this book. But he also makes history for himself  taking part in the foundation of Indonesian Academic Society!

*Yudian Wahyudi

Montreal, October 5th, 1998

Sumber: Buku Hukum Islam, Antara Filsafat dan Politik