Political Reform in Islam: an Analysis of Modernist and Traditionalist Thought

Initially, the reform movement carried out by modernist groups in Indonesia was triggered by the purification movement of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab in the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the work of Jamaluddin al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh in Egypt. Muslims in urban areas were the first to realize the spirit and substance of this revolution of Islamic thought. Compared to rural communities, urban communities are more susceptible to external influences geographically and culturally. They identified themselves as a group of Islamic modernists because they followed the reformist teachings that developed in the early 19th century. Initially, the reform movement carried out by modernist groups in Indonesia was triggered by the purification movement of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab in the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the work of Jamaluddin al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh in Egypt. Muslims in urban areas were the first to realize the spirit and substance of this revolution of Islamic thought. Compared to rural communities, urban communities are more susceptible to external influences geographically and culturally. They identified themselves as a group of Islamic modernists because they followed the reformist teachings that developed in the early 19th century.

The emergence of various Islamic modernist groups such as Al-Irsyad, Jami'atul Khair, Muhammadiyah, and the Islamic Trade Union, as well as various other modern educational institutions, shows how strong the reform or modernization movement of Islamic thought driven by reformists is.

The characteristics that distinguish it from the traditionalist group are these modernist characteristics. First, they believe that the door of ijtihad is always open. As a result, they oppose the practice of taqlid and believe that the teachings of Islam must be logical.

Various reform movements have raised concerns for Islamic traditionalists in West Sumatra and Java. In West Sumatra, a traditionalist reaction emerged from the indigenous peoples led by Datuk Sutan Maharadja, which initially emerged from differences in the inheritance distribution system. In Java, traditionalists responded by founding NU as an organization that sought to prevent the spread of apostate ideas.

However, there are currently efforts to bring these two groups closer mentally and physically. In a circular in 1935, Kiai Haji Hasyim Asy'ari, leader and teacher of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), and Kiai Mahfudz Siddiq, the general chairman of the organization, acknowledged ijtihad in many ways.

Traditionalist groups are not always silent. They started changing their group as well. They first organized themselves by establishing Nahdhatul Ulama in 1926 and the Tarbiyah Islamiyyah Association in 1929. They carried out propaganda openly, introduced the classical system with the curriculum, and published magazines and brochures that mimicked the methods of modernist groups. There is agreement and approach between the two groups---traditionalists and modernists---when these changes come into the traditionalist class. Although each of them maintained their own stance on some religious issues, both realized that the pillars of Islam and faith were the basis of their teachings for the most part.

In general, both modernists and traditionalists realize that their differences lie in the issue of furu' (branches of religion), while they agree on the core of their teachings. As a result, they began emphasizing the importance of unity and tolerance in 1935. Many of them even collaborated on propaganda journeys for the benefit of Islam, showing the same way. In addition, both groups agree that Islam includes aspects of religion and societal issues, including politics.

Based on the above description, it can be concluded that, although there are differences between modernist and traditionalist groups, which sometimes lead to conflicts, those differences and conflicts are more related to the way they view the teaching of Islam. Therefore, a thought can be polluted because of the problem of furu'iyah, which means that it is different but includes the problem of principle.