Living Together, Embracing Indonesia

In a recent serious discussion I had with Greg Fealy -- the noted expert on Indonesian and Islam politics, who focuses particularly on issues of political anthropology and religion --, I saw a deep concern he had on the future of democracy in Indonesia.

He saw the growing wave of populism and conservatism. Such conditions are, indeed, not uniquely Indonesian. It is taking place all over the world. Nevertheless, what is interesting to discuss is Fealy’s optimistic view that the future of Indonesia, especially with regards to the sustainability of nation-state consensus, lies on the shoulder of the pesantren (Islamic school) community.

Such a statement, for me, was truly shocking. Not because of the actual statement, but more because it was said by someone with an imaginative concept and a population demographic so very different from that of Indonesia. The opinion becomes highly interesting to dissect as it is given by an outsider who observes Indonesia from afar. It would be different if the opinion was made by an observer or research who, either culturally or socially, comes from Indonesia.

“Santri” and “pesantren”

Long before Fealy made his statement, noted Islamic scholar Nurcholish Madjid has said that the future of Indonesia is in the hands of santri (Islamic school students). In order to prevent us from bickering unnecessarily, I want to make clear my my definition of santri is different from that of Geertz (1988), who promoted the idea of a trichotomy between santri, priyayi (noblemen) and abangan (Javanese traditionalists). Neither do I wish to use the loose conception of KH Ahmad Mustofa Bisri (2016) that santri is whoever learns about Islam and has good virtues. This is a concept that deliberately loosens the definition of santri. In this piece, I wish to define santri as those who live or have lived in a pesantren community. In this context, I am referring to the conception of KH Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid (2001) in the article “Pesantren as a Subculture” (see also Abdurrahman’s article in this daily: “Pesantren, Profile of A Subculture”, in Kompas, March 11, 1972).

Why should I borrow Gus Dur’s concept of santri? Because, the santri that I imagine can respond to the challenges of rising conservatism is surely those who have lived in a pesantren community. The pesantren atmosphere is highly important within the context of exposing an individual into the nationalistic worldview of a santri. “With its unique living community, pesantren has survived for centuries by exclusively depending on its own life values. The

refore, in the long run, a pesantren will be on a relatively stronger cultural position than the surrounding local communities. Such a position can be seen in the pesantren’s ability to totally transform the behavior of people in its surrounding community, without it having to sacrifice its own identity,” Gus Dur once said.

There is inarguable historical evidence of santri’s role in the struggle for independence. Santri has a huge role in enflaming the spirit of freedom. Historical records show that small acts of resistance, pejoratively called by the colonial forces as rebellion, were driven by followers of the tarekat movement that is known for their close affiliation to the pesantren tradition.

The roots of santri’s struggle are not limited to the struggle for independence. Long before then, the roots of santri’s struggle can be found during Islam’s spread in the archipelago. When Islam first came to the archipelago, other religions had thrived in the islands for centuries. Majestic places of worship of other religions were abound. However, Islam did not destroy the Borobudur Temple. Islam did not destroy the Prambanan temple. Islam also did not destroy places of worship like vihara and Hindu temples. Instead, Islam developed a way of preaching that provides examples through good values, such as helping one another, love and compassion for one another and keeping one another safe. This is the manhajul fikr (methodology of thinking) applied by KH Hasyim Asyari. His view was that Islam’s values should merge with good local cultures and make way for a spirit of wathoniyyah or nationalism.

When Islam came to Indonesia, the Walisongo (nine saints of Islam who spread Islam in Java) harmoniously merged Islam with local cultures. Good local cultures were kept while values that carry the spirit of Islam were disseminated. Cultures that run against religious teaching, such as getting drunk, free sex, gambling and killing, were erased.

Rejecting “pokrol bambu”

Great thinker Ahmad Amin (1980) said that wherever Islam arrived, it always brought a concept of liberation. The spirit of Islam is always to drive away all the shackles in life. Surely, the shackles that Amin was talking about refererd to so many things, including the shackles of stupidity, hipocrisy, backwardness in morals and virtues and many other aspects in life.

This basic concept serves as a concrete fundament and credo for whoever claiming to inherit the Prophet’s teachings, including those who preach it. Ulemas, as the inheritors of the prophets’ teachings, have the duty to spread Islam teachings that, as described above, carry the spirit of liberation.

In contemporary context, as we see the opposite condition, where many preachers are preaching rigid messages about Islam, there is surely something wrong. Islam’s spirit of liberation, in the hands of contemporary preachers, are becoming shackles for the people. Religion becomes nothing more than an encyclopedia of halal and haram

(allowed and prohibited matters). More frustratingly, these preachers are making it as if this life is filled with many more haram things than halal ones.

In his book “Islam Sontoloyo: Progressive Ideas about Islam” (republished 2017), founding father Sukarno sharply wrote: “Followers of Islam considers fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence] as the only pillar of religion. We have either forgotten or refused to acknowledge that the most importance pillar of Islam is the submission of our souls to God. We forget that fiqh alone, despite its purity, is not enough to fulfill all the purposes of Islam. Helide Edib Hanoum was right when he said that Islam in recent times is ‘no longer a guidance in life but instead a form of pokrol bambu [loud-mouthed foolishness]’. We should never think of ourselves as pious but we should really introspect that many among us are practicing Islam sontoloyo [crooked Islam]”.

Sukarno’s statement more or less is relevant to what we are facing right now. The liberation that Islam upholds has become a mere list of prohibitions, shackles, threats and anti-tolerance in the hands of incompetent preachers. Folloewrs are asked to be repressive towards others. In the old times, the Walisongo preferred a more tolerant and compromised way of preaching, filled with concessions and personal freedom. This is how santri choose to embrace Indonesia.

Therefore, it is important for us to rethink and review the meaning of the spirit of freedom promoted by Islam and santri, both in the individual and nation-state contexts. Being free means being individuals that liberate others, instead of seeing other people as always wrong and therefore must be shackled.

This is the essence of Islam. In the nation-state context, we need to keep the spirit of ukhuwwah Islamiyah (Islamic brotherhood) towards achieving ukhuwwah wathoniyyah (national brotherhood) within the framework of ukhuwwah insaniyah (humanity brotherhood). This is the path towards a peaceful and harmonious life in the framework of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia. This is how we practice the religion and state affairs in the way of santri. (A Helmy Faishal Zaini, Secretary General, Nahdlatul Ulama)