'Puritan' Muhammadiyah and indigenous culture<\/p>\n
Ahmad Najib Burhani, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Muhammadiyah held a national meeting from Thursday to Sunday
\nin Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara. One of the most important issues
\ndiscussed during the meeting was the organization's stance toward
\nindigenous culture.<\/p>\n
Muhammadiyah has for a long time been associated with the
\n"puritan" Islamic movement. This is a style of religiosity based
\non the view that the Koran and the hadith (the collection of
\nnarratives describing the actions and sayings of the Prophet
\nMuhammad) are the only proper basis of any religious authority.
\nThese purists are against any acculturation or inclusion in the
\nreligion of external elements such as local culture.<\/p>\n
Muhammadiyah, in its early years after its establishment in
\nthe 1920s, was known for its ambiguous attitude toward politics.
\nDespite the fact its political sentiments were as anti-Dutch as
\nthose of other nationalist movements, the Dutch colonial
\ngovernment regarded the group as safe.<\/p>\n
In the cultural field, the Muhammadiyah also wrestled with a
\nsimilar ambiguous attitude toward Javanese culture. No attempt
\nwas made to deny that almost all of the founding fathers of this
\nmovement were servants of the kraton (Javanese royal palace).
\nMoreover, the leaders of the movement preserved an intimate
\nrelationship with the kraton.<\/p>\n
Yet, this organization proclaimed that its objective was to
\nrationalize traditional practices and to modernize the social
\nsystem. Logically, this would imply that Muhammadiyah had an
\nagenda for reforming syncretic customs and making inroads into
\nthe feudal, aristocratic social structure that prevailed in
\nJavanese society and that had the kraton squarely as its axis.<\/p>\n
Ahmad Dahlan, the founder of the movement, provides the best
\nportrait of the ambiguity of this movement toward Javanese
\nculture. He remained an obedient and loyal servant of the kraton
\nof Yogyakarta until his death.<\/p>\n
Ahmad decision to maintain this ambiguity was apparently
\naimed at ensuring the growth and survival of his new
\norganization.<\/p>\n
Another factor that caused the Muhammadiyah to appear to
\nentertain an ambiguous attitude toward Javanese culture was the
\nhistory behind its establishment. Among the main supporters for
\nthe founding of Muhammadiyah were devout Muslim priyayi (Javanese
\naristocracy) and non-devout priyayi. The other main supporters
\nwere traders.<\/p>\n
Cogently, in line with the interests of its main supporters
\nand its dominant members, the Muhammadiyah paid serious attention
\nto social welfare and educational activities by founding schools
\nand hospitals. The agenda for modernizing and rationalizing
\nreligious beliefs was regarded as a secondary project.<\/p>\n
Why then did Muhammadiyah change and become a puritanical
\nmovement? Why did Muhammadiyah change its cultural character? The
\ninfluence of several prominent members from Sumatra and the
\nvictory of Wahhabism for control of Mecca and Medina in 1924
\nforced Muhammadiyah to pay more attention to religious beliefs
\nand behavior than it had done before.<\/p>\n
The Sumatrans, especially West Sumatrans, were more
\npuritanical than the members from Java. Although the official
\nobjectives of the foundation of the Majlis Tarjih (law making
\ncouncil) in 1927 were to protect the unity of the movement and to
\nresolve any disputes over religious and legal questions, it
\ncannot be denied that the council also marked the beginning of
\nthe shift in the Muhammadiyah's attitude toward Javanese culture.
\nCertainly, after the creation of the council, Muhammadiyah was
\nmore concerned with religious matters and the behavior of its
\nmembers.<\/p>\n
In politics, in the 1930s Muhammadiyah also tended to
\nassociate itself with other religious movements. One of the
\neffects of these new trends in Muhammadiyah was the decline in
\nits attraction for non-devout priyayi. Their interests no longer
\ntallied with the programs of Muhammadiyah.<\/p>\n
The more dominant devout-priyayi and traders became in
\nMuhammadiyah, the greater the loss of interest of the non-devout
\npriyayi, and finally the Muhammadiyah was less inclined to
\nJavanese-ness.<\/p>\n
This marked one sequence in the story of the development of
\nMuhammadiyah. After this, Muhammadiyah became a purely Islamic
\nmovement. The non-devout priyayi preferred to leave Muhammadiyah
\nand attach themselves to nationalist or cultural movements.
\nFurthermore, after the 1930s, Muhammadiyah's role as a puritan
\nmovement was more obvious than before. In this period,
\nMuhammadiyah theology was systematized and codified.<\/p>\n
On the eve of the 21st century, two contrasting trends emerged
\nin Muhammadiyah. There were several groups within Muhammadiyah
\nwho regarded the group's move toward puritanism to be
\ninconsequential and superficial, making it too slow and soft in
\nforcing a puritan agenda. They demanded the movement strengthen
\nthe puritan agenda in its activities. In the opposing camp were
\nMuhammadiyah members who regarded the movement as showing extreme
\nrightist tendencies. They believed Muhammadiyah was too
\npuritanical.<\/p>\n
Over the last several years, the tug-of-war between these two
\nopposing groups became a serious problem in Muhammadiyah. Each
\ngroup tried to drag Muhammadiyah in opposite directions,
\nreflecting their own interests; the liberal-cultural versus
\npuritan.<\/p>\n
The struggle between the liberal-cultural group, led by
\ncurrent Muhamamdiyah chairman Syafii Maarif, Amin Abdullah and
\nMunir Mulkhan, and the puritan group, Muhammadiyah Members Who
\nCare About Sharia, was intense from 1999 to 2003. Their conflict
\nspread to Muhammadiyah universities and its supporting
\norganizations.<\/p>\n
The spread and growth in the numbers of kaum berjenggot
\n(people who wear beards as a symbol of religiosity) and radical
\nMuslims at some Muhammadiyah universities was countered by the
\nMuhammadiyah Student Association with the introduction of Sufism,
\npluralism and liberalism.<\/p>\n
Fortunately, the face of Muhammadiyah today is still dominated
\nby moderate and pluralistic Muslims, such as Syafii Maarif. This
\nis the reason why the movement is considered moderate, modern and
\npluralistic.<\/p>\n
Of course, it would be counterproductive for the organization
\nif the radical and puritanical wing took the lead and
\ndisseminated their teachings. This would change the face of
\nMuhammadiyah and Islam in Indonesia from the smiling and tolerant
\nIslam to a more puritanical Islam. The national meeting in
\nMataram was a very important moment for determining the future of
\nMuhammadiyah and Islam in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at Paramadina University in Jakarta
\nand a Pemuda Muhammadiyah activist.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/puritan-muhammadiyah-and-indigenous-culture-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}