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.