NU finds itself in the midst of change

NU finds itself in the midst of change

Tradisionalisme Radikal, Persinggungan Nahdlatul Ulama - Negara
(Nahdlatul Ulama, Traditional Islam and Modernity in Indonesia);
Edited by Greg Fealy and Greg Barton;
Foreword by Abdurrahman Wahid;
Published by LKIS, Yogyakarta, 1997;
xx + 250 pp.;
Rp 17,500.

YOGYAKARTA (JP): Little attention has been paid to
traditionalist groups such as the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU). Just as
Ben Anderson has his own concern about this, the situation may
result from the presence of strong scholarly prejudices in
studies on Indonesia. The result is that studies on such groups
as the NU have become neglected.

From the modernist point of view, traditionalists are viewed
as a symbol of rigidity, conservativeness and, not infrequently,
opportunism. It is often the case that organizations like the NU
have to receive this labeling. It is often assumed that the
performance of the NU, the organization of kyai (venerated
scholars or teachers of Islam) is nyleneh (strange) and puzzling
to other groups.

Historian Kuntowijojo once said that Abdurrahman Wahid, more
commonly known as Gus Dur, is a person full of controversies and
at the same time, one that easily sways with the wind. Gus Dur
has bewildered many observers with his frequent get-togethers
with the eldest daughter of President Soeharto, Siti Hardiyanti
Rukmana, because he is usually considered a prodemocracy figure,
in a way, opposing the government.

Perhaps the strangeness shown by Gus Dur is not much different
from what Kyai Wahab Khasbullah showed when he led the NU during
the Old Order. Then, the NU was accused of practicing opportunism
because it threw its support behind the Sukarno regime when it
was in its critical stage.

In the course of the New Order, the NU once differed from
other Moslem mainstream groups when it became the first to accept
Pancasila as the sole principle. Although Gus Dur and the NU have
been accused of inconsistency, they have firmly held their
ground.

This book attempts to elaborate on the performance of Moslem
traditionalists, whose ideas are often considered weird. It is
interesting to note that although the articles in this book are
written by foreign observers, the NU and Gus Dur have been
sympathetically portrayed, even somewhat defensively.

First, as a religious organization, the decisions made by the
NU are the outcome of its deep studies on the yellow book texts,
which is characteristic of the pesantren (Islamic boarding
school) tradition. The yellow book as the codification of
classical Islamic laws of the Sunni school legitimizes all the
decisions made. The accommodating attitude that the NU adopted
during the Sukarno regime, for example, reflected the principle
of tamazzun (keeping the balance). It was a political tactic
employed for the benefit of Moslems in general. Putting up
resistance was then more dangerous than accepting without a
protest, Greg Fealy writes in his paper. The NU adopted this
attitude in order to maintain its political clout and, in this
way, protect Moslems.

With Islamic law characterizing its way of thinking, the NU
shows its commitment as an independent and populist organization.
As one of the writers, Mitsuo Makamura says, the NU is committed
to creating real Moslems (p. 72) and to making the Koran and
sunnah (practices of Prophet Muhammad), as interpreted by ulema,
as guidelines -- not at the insistence of other forces -- to
respond to external situations. (p. 72).

The populist stance of this organization is reflected in the
eclecticism of its patterns of thought and action. In politics,
the NU will adopt an adaptive or opportunistic attitude when
dealing with external situations. If it sees that these
situations are moving away from the goal, it will be radically
critical of these situations (p. 73). This attitude is often
adopted by a kyai when dealing with his followers, and Gus Dur
calls this an element of "dynamization". To him, dynamization may
give rise to a progressive quality, a factor which enables Islam
to maintain its relevance and acceptability. Without this
quality, Islam will degenerate into a mere dry and doctrinaire
formula.

Second, this book shows that the traditionalism of the NU does
not mean rigidity and conservativeness. Greg Barton describes how
the ideas of Gus Dur on pluralism, democracy and inclusivism are
considered more progressive than those echoed by the modernists.
Regarding the sharp distinction between traditionalism and
modernism, which some people have attempted to make, Gus Dur said
that what had previously been considered rigidity turned out to
have the dynamics of its growth, something that he called dynamic
traditionalism.

He went on to say that what had previously been formulated as
a total conflict between two schools of thoughts should later be
reformulated as two entities which are complimentarily related
and, dialectically, mutually influential (p. 168).

This book is both important and interesting because of the
anthropological nature of the studies it presents. There is more
to the NU than just an association of traditional ulema who
assume a fairly strategic position in the national political map.
The NU is a collection of ideas and is ready to absorb and
establish relationships with the modern community in its unique
way.

If a weakness is to be found in this interesting book, which
is a compilation of papers, it is that it does not give a
complete portrayal of the NU, an organization with myriads of
meanings.

-- M. Nurkhoiron

The reviewer is a student of School of Sociology, Gadjah Mada
University, Yogyakarta.