Dahlan
thus emphasized the needs for awakening and self help. He often quoted
The Qur’an, Sura 3, The House of Imran: 104, which reads “And let there
be one group of you who call people to good, and urge them for virtuous
conduct and restrain them from evil deeds. Those are the ones who
prosper.”
[3] Also Sura 13 Thunder : 11, which reads “God changes not what is in a people, until they change what in themselves.”
[4]
Based
upon these Quranic injunctions, the fundamental character of the
movement has been defined as the one led by the motto: “amar ma’ruf
nahi munkar,” or roughly meaning “inviting people to virtuous conduct
while restraining them from evil deeds.” From this perspective, the
Muhammadiyah movement has been a movement of enlightenment, promoting
‘re-Islamization’ or ‘internal conversion’ among the Muslim population
of Indonesia, liberating them from the yoke of traditional Islam (kolot) to the acceptance of progressive Islam (maju) on the basis of rationality.
By
the way, it should be mentioned here that NU started as a reaction to
the emergence of reformism and modernism in global context. In fact, NU
as an association of traditionalist ulama was formed in an immediate
reaction to the abolishment of khalifat by the newly born
Turkish Republic in 1924. Before that, as with all Sunni Muslim
communities over the world, the Indonesian faithful paid allegiance to
the Sultan of Ottoman Empire at every Friday prayer gathering.
The Muhammadiyah movement employed the methods of propagation (dakwah), informal social education through pengajian
(religious lecturing), and formal education through school education.
Nationalism, the use of Bahasa Indonesia, as official language of the
organization in verbal communication as well as in official printing;
efforts to unite all Muslim ethnic groups in the Netherland Indies, and
enhance cooperation with secular nationalist movements in the struggle
for independence.
2-4. Rationality and Independent Thinking
In Muhammadiyah,
rationality and independent thinking were encouraged, with the
implication of not to be subjugated by Western intellectual dominance as
well as by the constraints of local traditional social hierarchy,
superstitions and irrational customs.
This
was typically seen in the fields of education and social welfare.
Muhammadiyah from the beginning adopted modern western school system in a
definite break from the traditional system of Islamic education in
Indonesia, i.e. pondok pesantren. It adopted ‘graded class
system’ with a structured curriculum for consecutive school grades. It
introduced ‘class hours’ in which instructions were given by teachers
within a limited time according to curriculum and textbooks. It gave
periodic tests to assess the achievements of pupils. They passed or
failed according to the results of tests. And all this was given in
classroom, in which pupils sat on chairs or banks in front of desks
while the teacher used a blackboard for instruction. The content of
instruction consisted of secular subjects following the ones given at
government schools while the teaching of Islamic religion, especially
the essentials of the Qur’an, was given within the curriculum. Thus a
typical name for such a Muhammadiyah elementary school during the Dutch
rule was HIS, Hollandsch Inlandsche School met de Qur’an, or Dutch
Native School with the Qur’an.
According
to Amir Hamzah Wirjosukarto, who has written a classical work on
Muhammadiyah’s education, the founder of Muhammadiyah K H Ahmad Dahlan
launched its schools in order to educate:
(1) Muslims to equip with high morality deriving from The Qur’an and Hadith with their broad understanding;
(2)
Muslims who possess full individuality in the sense of balanced
development between spirit and body, faith and reason, and feeling and
thinking; and
(3) Muslims who possess positive social attitude in the sense of being always prepared to work for the progress of society.
[5]
Thus, morality, rationality, and social engagement were set as the basic guideline of Muhammadiyah education by Ahmad Dahlan.
Here a mention should be made on the attitudes of Muhammadiyah towards Sufism: It rejects tarekat as personal cult, which, it said, is not allowed in Islam, but it emphasizes the importance of building ‘good character’ (akhlak) and attainment of internal peace. So, individual practice of dzikir (repeating God’s names) is tolerated. In contrast, NU recommends and recognizes tarekat as a legitimate component of Islam.
In
one of its earliest national conference held in Yogyakarta where
Javanese language, instead of Bahasa Indonesia, was still used, one
participant emphasized the significance of Muhammadiyah’s new
educational approach by declareing, “Bocah-bocah, dimerdekaake pikire”
(Chirdren, Do Independent Thinking!”)
[6]
In
practice, modern science, technology and social institutions developed
and brought by Western powers were adopted actively yet selectively in
order to uplift the intellectual levels, professional skills, and living
standards of the Muslim population. To make this point clear,
Muhamaddiyah’s educaters have often quoted Dahlan’s instruction as
follows:
“Become a medical
doctor and then come back to Muhammadiyah; Become an engineer and then
come back to Muhammadiyah; and Become a lawyer and then com back to
Muhammadiyah.”
[7]
The
appeal by Dahlan was well heeded by Muhammadiyah youths, and, as a
result, a number of well-educated individuals in modern institutions of
higher education, domestic as well as overseas, emerged by the end of
the Dutch rule. They played an important role in Muhammadiyah leadership
in the Japanese occupation period, and during the war for independence,
and in the post-Independence period.
2-5. Social activism for Islamic philanthropy
Another Sura of the
Qur’an often quoted by Dahlan was Sura Al Mau’n, which urged humane
concern and sympathy for the orphans and the needy. On the basis of this
injunction, a department called PKO was launched in 1921. PKO was a
short for Penolong Kesengsaraan Oemum or Assistance for Those Suffering.
Its immediate purpose was to help victims of the eruption of Mt. Kedu,
a volcano. Thereafter, it has become one of the major areas of
Muhammadiyah to engage in philanthropic activities to help alleviate
public sufferings including poverty, disease, and victims of natural
disaster. Also medical services for the public was provided by PKU
(PKO), not only for curing medication but for enlightenment as well.
For, PKU was instrumental in combating the influence of dukun, or magic doctor, who employed traditional healings with a good dosage of magic and sorcery. In particular, dukun bayi,
mid-wife, who was usually called in to assist delivery of baby had very
low standards of sanity or medical knowledge. The result was a very
high rate of deaths of mother and/or baby at the delivery and
thereafter. PKU’s facilities maintaining modern sanitary standards and
instructions given to mothers concerning their and their baby’s health
have resulted in a significant reduction in the mortality rate of deaths
at child birth. So, PKU was not only providing medical services but
also enlightening the community in terms of scientific hygiene
knowledge. Thus Muhammadiyah has impacted on society at two fronts, i.e.
education and medical services.
Modernity, rationality,
nationalism and social activism are the explicit features of
Muhammadiyah from the beginning. In those spirits, organizations for
women, ‘Aisyiyah, and for young boys, Hizbul Wathon (Patriotic Troops)
were also established as autonomous organizations of Muhammadiyah and
became quite active in a number of cities before the outbreak of the war
in the Pacific.
2-6. Muhammadiyah and National Education
After the WWII,
Muhammadiyah has become truly a national movement in the sense that its
branches spread over to all major cities of the country. Schools and
clinics under the Muhammadiyah’s management were established in those
places. Muhammadiyah’s schools presented a model for faith-based private
schools in that they were built and managed by a large number of
volunteers and supported financially a good amount of wakaf and monetary
donations. In many places, those Muhammadiyah schools were in sharp
contrast to government schools, many of which became under the influence
of PKI (Communist Party of Indonesia) and leftist nationalists in PNI
(Nationalist Party of Indonesia) in the 1950’s and the early part of
1960’s. The Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education became a
stronghold on these two leftist parties. So, after the regime change
from Soekarno’s ‘Guided Democracy’ to Soeharto’s ‘New Order’ in 1965-66,
a new direction of Indonesian government’s education policy was sought.
To start with, the government under the firm control of anti-Communist,
anti-Soekarno army, purged all these leftist teachers -- perhaps
numbered in tens of thousands -- from the field of primary and secondary
education in addition in addition to those who were arrested or killed
because of their apparent affiliation with those parties.
Meanwhile,
a new policy guideline was needed to fill the void left by those purges
and more positively to prepare ‘human resources’ to meet the need of
long term programs for ‘modernization and development’, which became the
fundamental goal of the Soeharto’s government. Amir Hamzah’s work cited
above also mentions the fact that, after a period of secularist
dominance in the field of education policy under the New Order, the
significance of religious education as integral part of national
education came to be emphasized as a means of national character
building and, for that, the educational model of Muhammadiyah was given
serious consideration as a basis for ‘consensus formation’ in
formulating basic policy for national education.
[8]
However, the strategy for national education of the Soeharto regime
seems to have experienced a zig-zag course especially concerning the
positions of civic and religious education.
Since the so-called
Soeharto’s ‘Islamic turn’ occurred in the early 1990’s, government’s
attention for the education reform a la Muhammadiyah model seems to have
become truly serious. This was exemplified by the fact that a
Muhammadiyah leader was appointed to Minister of National Education by
President Habibi who succeeded Soeharto in 1998.
On
the part of Muhammadiyah, it has maintained and developed its own
identity through the Soeharto era including the field of education. It
maintained the stance of ‘critical partner’ for the government on the
basis of the principle of “amar ma’ruf nahi munkar”. At the level of
ideal individual personality, emphasis was placed on the balanced
development of akhlak, a good character internalizing devotion to God,
honesty, sincerity, selflessness, dedication, asceticism, discipline,
and loyalty. Muhammadiyah, while growing rapidly in terms of members and
institutions, maintained tight unity in spite of the enormity of its
organization growth. No serious internal splits, even minor differences
in opinion rarely went beyond the boundaries of the organization since
the integrity and internal unity of the organization was given top
priority. So much so that, the election of leadership, held in every
five years at all levels of the organization, took a very elaborate way
to ensure legitimacy and authority of elected leadership. There was
little room for factionalism or intervention from the outside.
2-7. Muhammadiyah in Post-Modern contexts
The organization is now
one hundred years old. Drastic changes have occurred in external
situations surrounding Muhammadiyah during the decent decades. At the
national scale, urbanization has progressed deeper and wider
transforming its ‘traditional constituencies’, i.e. urban middle
classes, more atomized, diversified and heterogeneous. Meanwhile,
government services have improved greatly, exemplified by the spread of
PUSKESMAS (primary medical and health service centers) to almost every
corner of the country providing easy access for the large portion of the
population to these services at a low cost. The growth of government as
well as private educational institutions was also one of the most
distinct results of the development program of the Soeharto’s era.
Popular accessibility to primary to higher education was significantly
improved during his rule. Thus, ‘monopoly’ or the pioneering position of
Muhammadiyah in the fields of education and welfare services have
become largely over or insignificant in many places of the country.
Meanwhile,
with the growth, Muhammadiyah’s schools and social welfare institutions
have been experiencing bureaucratization and commercialization while
getting less competitive in quality of services and less beneficial for
the ‘customers’. Also challenges from other Islamic movements have been
keenly felt in recent years. At present, Muhammadiyah seems to be
seeking the ways to counter these tendencies by re-invigorating its
entire organizational activities. Entering the second century of its
history, Muhammadiyah is now faced with the challenges of post-Modern
world squarely. It seems to stand at a critical crossroads.
3. Characteristics of GM
Now let me shift my
discussion to GM. The first point to be mentioned is the fact that it is
a relatively young social movement. It was originated in the 1970’s by
Fethullah Gülen, who was born in 1938. Gülen’s birth year is 70 years
later than that of Ahmad Dahlan, 1868, who established Muhammadiyah in
1912. So, there exists a time span of more than half a century between
the two movements besides the difference in the place where they were
born, Turkey and Indonesia. Implications of those differences in time
and space will be discussed later, but here it should noted briefly that
GM was initiated in modern Turkey, which was newly born as a secular
nation state out of the legacy of Ottoman Empire, which collapsed under
external attacks and internal revolution. When Muhammadiyah was started,
Dahlan’s Java was still under the yoke of Dutch colonial rule, in which
the Sultanate of Yogyakarta was allowed to survive with full obedience
to the colonial overlord. As anticipated from preceding discussion,
there are many similarities as Islamic reformers obtained between the
two figures, Ahmad Dahlan and Fethullah Gülen, but the movements they
led do differ significantly, too. So, after making a brief review on
GM’s general features, let me focus of those similarities and
differences between the two figures and the two movements and discuss
their significances.
However,
at the outset of discussion on MG, I must warn the distinguished
audience the following: Since my knowledge and understanding on GM is
still meager, so please correct me if I err. Also please provide me
accurate information if mine is wrong or insufficient. Since what I am
going to say about GM may be a lot of my own hypothetical assumption
instead of validated fact.
3-1. GM’s General Features
As mentioned before, my
acquaintance with GM people and their activities are still brief. Even
so, my impression about them is almost in full agreement with the
observation made by an American couple, Karen & Michael Fontenot,
and reported in the recent conference proceedings
[9] as follows:
“Generally,
Gülen’s followers are enthusiastic, hard-working, highly motivated, and
filled with good will. They lead purposeful lives, labor without
expectation of tangible reward, and more concerned about the quality of
the work than whether they will receive credit for it. Most of all, they
have tended to internalize one of Gülen’s most significant ideas – that
everyone, through their daily activities and daily lives, can
positively influence the world.”
I believe that nothing more is necessary to add to this brief but precise characterization of GM supporters.
3-2. GM and Education
As everybody with a
modicum of familiarity with GM will acknowledge, the strategy for a new
educational movement is central to GM. On this point, a paper presented
in another conference on GM by a pair of academics from within the GM
provides a succinct statement on its major characteristics as follows:
“Notable
characteristics of Gülen’s educational framework include a high status
for the enterprise of education and the profession of teaching, an
altruistic approach to service in education, the idea of reward-free
sponsorship, non-politicization, successful combination of the
scientific outlook with sound morality, and an emphasis on a healthy
educational environment conducive to success in every field of human
endeavor including science, math, arts, language, and sports. None of
the activities of the GM schools breach the limits of the system or
break the laws of the countries in which the operate.”
[10]
3-3. GM and Islam
Besides these beautiful
summary characterizations just quoted above, let me add a bit of my own
observations, not so much as a description of MG’s reality but rather
as a questioning of why things are like that. The first point of my
observation of this nature is the position of Islam in GM. In spite of
the very fact that Fethullah Gülen is an Islamic scholar (‘alim)
and was an official religious leader (imam) appointed by the
government, his teaching has not been narrowly Islamic but rather wide
enough to emphasizes the need to full-fill the spiritual quest of men
and women in modern Turkey. To answer the quest, Gülen presents a set of
universal values and invited Turkish men and women to engage in the
noble work of hizmet, altruistic dedication for common good.
Apparently, GM has been free of sectarian tendency of any faith-based
social movement. I wonder how it was possible for Mr. Gülen and GM.
Perhaps, here comes in the historical context of GM. GM proudly looks
back to the heritage of the Ottoman Empire, especially its
civilizational tolerance with religious and cultural pluralism. Also,
the secularism of the modern Turkish republic is so deep that any hint
of sectarian Islamic revivalism was out of question.
3-4. GM and ‘Turkish Patriotism’
The second feature of
GM, which I have noticed with full curiosity, is the co-existence of
nationalism, or one should rather say ‘patriotism’, and
cosmopolitanism. Gülen himself emphasizes the necessity on inheriting
Turkish traditions and culture. He also praises the contribution of the
Turkish Army who defended independence and integrity of the Republic.
Symbolically, loyalty and obedience to the founding father of the
Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, are expressed constantly in the
everyday life at Gülen schools. Learning of the history of heroic
struggles for the creation of the Republic is also the must in their
school curriculum.
At
the same time, Gülen and GM urge a cosmopolitan approach in spreading MG
schools outside Turkey with emphasis on the use of English as an
indispensable teaching subject as well as a central teaching medium at
secondary level of education. Perhaps, this cosmopolitanism is again
deriving from the Ottoman heritage in which the global extension of its
civilization was a natural thing. Then, what about the patriotic
Turkishness in the cross-cultural contexts? Personally, I was puzzled
by the picture of Ataturk hung on the wall of the central hall at
Kharisma Bangsa School in Jakarta. Turkish patriotism in a cosmopolitan
school in the capital of Indonesia? Is this not a combination or
mixture of mutually antagonistic elements in one receptacle? Can we
expect a creative fusion?
On
this point, there is undoubtedly a recent acknowledgement by Mr. Gülen
himself that the contemporary mankind has become “a global village.”
So, the above-mentioned mixture might be indication the direction of a
kind of natural intellectual development in the future. But, I wonder
how Turkish activists of GM are negotiating in practice universalism and
cosmopolitanism a la Ottoman Empire of GM and local culture and
language in which they have to live and work. I was a bit shocked when I
found that no one among the Turkish staff and teachers at the Jakarta
school had a command of Bahasa Indonesia. Perhaps, I can anticipate in
the near future a development in which fruitful mutual cultural and
civilizational penetrations, or fusions, will occur in a number of
places where GM is working in the world.
3-5. Amorphousness of GM
The third point of my
curiosity about GM: that is the amorphousness of the movement. Barton
characterizes it as an ‘organic movement’. Indeed GM was born and
promoted by a number of people’s spontaneous dedication (hizmet).
However, according to my observation, it defies the sociological common
sense of ‘voluntary organization’ or ‘voluntary work.’ The notion of
‘voluntary organization’ usually contains the explicit purposes or goals
to achieve through collective action, the definition of membership and
the method of affiliation (and withdrawal and elimination), the rights
and duties of members, the organizational structure and the ways to
elect its leadership, the membership fees and other sources of income,
and transparency in treasury and mechanism to guarantee its
accountability, etc. It is not just a ‘voluntary work’ either, in the
sense that a supplementary element in established institutions, usually
unpaid yet forms a part of them as sufficient factor to promote their
smooth running. GM’s ‘voluntary work’ is far more than that,
constituting the core or indispensable elements of GM-inspired schools,
dormitories and others.
So,
GM does not have any of the attributes of voluntary association or
voluntary work in their textbook definition except for that it consists
of a series of the basic units of operation, i.e. individual units of
schools, dormitories, teaching centers, etc. Yet, GM does exist and
grows rapidly as a robust ‘organic’ movement worldwide. Defying
sociological common sense, it grows and spread globally like an amoeba,
if not a virus.
GM has emerged to the horizon of 21st
century world, with the message of the common duty for every human
being to eliminate ignorance, poverty and division from the mankind. It
is gaining momentum in many places of the world, significance of which
cannot be denied by anybody now. Perhaps, all those who are engaged in
education, governmental as well as private, will soon be required to
take a stock of their own endeavors in the light of the achievements and
promises GM is offering.
3-6. The relevance of GM for Muhammadiyah
Now let me talk specifically about Muhammadiyah in reference to GM.
Muhammadiyah has been
an Indonesian Muslims’ adaptation to the paradigma of modern
nation-state. So is NU. Now the first point to which attention should be
paid among GM’s endeavors is, according to my observation, its firm
commitment to universalism. In other words, the reference group of GM is
not longer the ummat Islam of Turkey or the Turkish nation either, but
the entire mankind.
Certainly,
recently both Muhammadiyah and NU emphasize the point that Islam is
‘Rahmatul Alamin’, the blessing of God upon the mankind, and they pursue
global solidarity for peace and prosperity of the mankind across
national borders and cultural and civilizational boundaries. Both are
engaged in concrete actions for those purposes in the forms of ‘World
Forum of Peace’ sponsored by Muhammadiyah and ‘International Conference
of Islamic Scholars’ organized by NU. Yet, in both cases, Islam is still
the reference point, not the mankind. Should and can we expect from
Muhammadiyah and/or NU a kind of Copernican revolution of paradigm in
approaching the matter of global solidarity proposed by Mr. Gülen?
On
the level of everyday activities on the ground, the centrality of
schools and teachers in GM is so obvious. The identity and ideals of
teachers are defined as an ethical model for students and also as change
agent in that regard. Now, to what extent, is this proposition
comparable to the cases of Muhammadiyah and NU?
As a
long time observer of Muhammadiyah, its recent bureaucratization is so
obvious. Many of Muhamamdiyah teachers have become paid workers not much
different from any office workers. Worse still, those Muhammadiyah
teachers who are educated and qualified in pedagogy or as the teachers
of subjects in school curricula tend to regard Muhammadiyah schools to
be the second choice in getting jobs since Muhammadiyah schools offer
lower wages and less favorable fringe benefits compared to government
schools, and insecurity for pension years. In my view, how to
re-invigorate its teachers’ corps is one of the fundamental challenges
Muhammadiyah faces now. Is it possible at all? If not, what is the
alternative?
3-7. Challenge of Paradigm Change for Post-Modernity
Finally, what is the
relevance of the paradigmatic change in GM for the adaptation of world
Muslims to the challenge of post-modernity? Are the Indonesian
counterparts of GM, i.e. Muhammadiyah & NU prepared to follow the
suit of GM and universalize its movement, especially its education? If
they are, how are they going to do it?
This
is all for my presentation at this moment. Probably, I have posed more
questions than answers. I humbly hope that my questions are meaningful
to ignite fruitful discussion among us. Thank you.
[1]
Greg Barton, “Progressive Islamic thought, civil society and the Gülen
movement in the national context: parallels with Indonesia,”2005,
Fethullah Gülen On-Line.
[2] Program Muhammadiyah Periode 2010-2015, Pimpinan Pusat Muhammadiyah, 2005-2010, p.25. Also, see website, Muhammadiyah On-Line.
[3] English translation adapted from A.J.A.Arberry,
THE KORAN INTERPRETED (MACMILLAN 1955), p. 87.
[4] English translation from A.J.A.Arberry,
THE KORAN INTERPRETED (MACMILLAN 1955), p.268.
[5] Pembaharuan Pendidikan & Pengajaran Islam, Universitas Muhammadiyah Jember, 1985 [1962], pp.86-87.
[6] Quoted from M. Nakamura,
The Crescent arises over the Banyan Tree, Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press, 1983, p. .
[7] Quoted from Nakamura, ibid., p. .
[8]Ibid., pp.116-125, “Kearah konsesnus nasional.”
[9] Conference Proceedings, East and West Encounters: The Gülen Movement, December 5-6, 2009, University of Southern California, LA, CA, pp. 15-18.
[10]
Yuksel A. Aslandogan and Muhammed Cetin, “The Educational Philosophy of
Gülen in Thought and Practice,” in Robert A. Hunt and Yuksel A.
Aslandogan (eds.),
Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World: Contributions of the Gülen Movement, Somerset, NJ: The Light, Inc & IID Press, 2006, pp. 31-54.
source: http://www.fethullahgulenchair.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=688:prof-dr-mitsuo-nakamura-qrationality-and-enlightenment-a-comparison-of-educational-reforms-promoted-by-guelen-movement-and-muhammadiyahq&catid=75:conference-papers&Itemid=227
orcid.org/0000-0002-0333-8344