'The Framework Behind the Development of Orthodox Islamic Doctrine' For Abdurrahman, Islam, both in its world view and in its central ideals, lays the foundation for a profoundly humanistic world view.42 This can be clearly seen in the following passage from a paper entitled 'Kerangka Pengembangan Doktrin Ahlussunnah Wal Jama'ah (Aswaja) (The Framework Behind the Development of Orthodox Islamic Doctrine).43 After outlining the historical development of Orthodox Islamic teaching Abdurrahman proceeds to set forth the 'The General Foundations of Orthodox Islamic Social Life' with discussion arranged around seven key points of view. In the fourth of these key areas, entitled 'The View of the Relationship Between the Individual and Society' Abdurrahman has the following to say: A view of the relationship between the individual and society. The exalted position of humankind in the scheme of life, demands that individual human beings be treated in a manner that befits the status of humanity. Individuals possess rights that can only be violated at the cost of trivialising their status as human beings. These basic rights, which in another context are referred to as Basic Human Rights, concern protection under the law, being treated in a just manner, the provision of basic needs, the provision d education, equal opportunity and freedom to express opinions, convictions and religious belief, together with the freedom to form unions and to work. In realising all of these rights, the individual must be able to grasp the limitations on the society in which they live to fulfil the needs of all its citizens. Because of that, each individual must submit to the basic principle of balancing their own needs with those of society. But this submission in no way means that society has a right to defer, or put off, the basic rights of the individual as put forth above, in fact this submission itself encapsulates what is meant by society's responsibility to uphold these basic rights, because such submission is one 6 the needs of the individual in respect to certainty in society, which also demands that society itself demonstratively protect the interests of citizens, as individuals, in society. A balance between the two can only be achieved through the growth of individual creativity in order to simultaneously fulfil the life needs of the individual and fulfil the demands 6 the society that nurtures them. The growth of this creativity indicates that the individual has sufficient opportunities to participate in all aspects of society in an orderly and meaningful fashion.44 By any measure this is a reasonably complete and broad view of human rights, and one that convincingly balances the rights of individuals with their responsibility to society. It is even more apparent when this section is read in the context of the preceding sections such as 'The View of Humankind and the Place of Human Beings in the Scheme of Life' (in which the immeasurable worth of individual human beings is expounded from a Qur'anic point of view) and 'The View of Economics and the Structuring of Life' (in which it is stressed that economic growth and development is good but only if it is combined with equitable social policy). What makes these ideas especially interesting though, is the fact that they are expressed here, as being based unambiguously on theological convictions, specifically that human beings are created to be the pinnacle of God's creation. This supports Abdurrahman's claim that his humanitarian convictions have their origin in Islamic thought and are not merely superimposed onto it. 'Democracy Must be Fought For The conviction that Islamic intellectuals (or indeed intellectuals in general) should be very active in striving to change society is a theme that runs, explicitly or implicitly, through much of Abdurrahman's writing. Generally this theme is left unstated and implicit in Abdurrahman's writing but occasionally, as in the essay discussed in the above section, it is very explicit. This is also the case in 'Demokrasi Haruslah Diperjoangkan' (Democracy Must be Fought For), also published in Tempo, but this time in August 1978.45 In this very powerful essay Abdurrahman once again argues that intellectuals must be concerned with the sufferings of ordinary people, and be prepared to, as it were, 'get their hands dirty' in the struggle for social change: In our nation democracy is not yet firmly upheld; it is more of a cosmetic adornment than a fundamental attitude undergirding the structures of life. In this sort of atmosphere, elements in society that wish to preserve the current social defectiveness are, of course, going to try and stem the democratic aspirations that exist in those circles that are aware of the need to work to build up the level of freedom in the nation. If sincere efforts are not made to build up true democracy in this nation, it is certain that these aspirations will be stemmed by those anti-democratic forces. Our nation is not the only place in the world were such a state of affairs prevails. This sort of situation, in fact, represents a basic characteristic in nearly all developing nations. Because of that, what is now in fact required of us is that we are willing to work together to strive for freedom and the perfecting of a living democracy in our nation. This struggle must begin with a willingness to build up a new morality in the life of our people, that is, a morality that feels involved in the suffering of the masses.46 Once again Abdurrahman rails against complacency: As with the matter of independence, democracy in the true sense, free from any predicating elements that can be placed upon it, will not come of its own accord. It must be achieved through sacrifice.47 'The Eccentric Kiai Stands Up for the Government' Finally, in this struggle to change society Abdurrahman sees a special place for ulama who strive to extend their thinking beyond the narrow bounds of traditional Islamic education, and who seek to become, in the best sense of the term, intellectuals. In another of his 'eccentric kiai' essays in Tempo titled 'Kyai Nyentrik Membela Pemerintah' (The Eccentric Kiai Stands Up for the Government), Abdurrahman provides what at first seems an unlikely example of such intellect in the person of Kiai Muchit.48 Kiai Muchit, a seemingly shy and unassuming man to those that do not know him, appears an unlikely candidate for Abdurrahman's appellation 'ulama-intelek', until his long history of standing up for justice, often at great personal cost in terms of popularity, is explained. But standing up for what is right, regardless of the cost, is precisely what defines a true intellectual, Abdurrahman cogently argues. Such intellectual kiai, or 'ulama-intelek', are, Abdurrahman suggests, of far greater importance to society than 'intelek-ulama', intellectuals who pass themselves off as ulama on the basis of displaying a modicum of religious learning: Coming to terms with these cross-categories of 'intellectualist-ulama' . and 'ulamaist-intellectual' is certainly fascinating work. On one hand, the first type is very much fuelled by an intimacy with many layers of society, which develops because of the flexibility of approach it employs. The second kind is more driven by a flaming spirit to prove the truth of religion through argument and scholarly syllogisms, which, of course, often gives rise to polemical discussions with 'outsiders'. Looking at it another way, the 'intellectualist-ulama' type tend to stress, in the message that they bring, reform in the area of personal morality. Whilst the 'ulamaist- intellectual' type are more happy dealing in some grand theme, such as the superiority of Islamic civilisation and the like.49 Abdurrahman's complaint is not with secular intellectuals per se but rather with the sort of superficiality in the sphere of religious thought that would confuse narrow apologetics with social ministry and religious symbolism with religious commitment. Once again Abdurrahman's central argument is that intellectuals, Islamic intellectuals especially, must be socially engaged in a profound sense. Conclusion A number of central themes thread themselves through Abdurrahman's work and to speak of these is to give a fair rendering of his chief concerns. Throughout Abdurrahman's writing from the 1970s we can see something of his affection for the pesantren world and learn what it is that he assessed to be its strengths. The strong sense of community to be found in a pesantren and the way in which a pesantren community can act as a sort of 'cultural broker' between its world and the community around it were clearly seen as major strengths both of the pesantren system and of traditional Islam. Another strength is the way in which pesantren teach their santri to develop self-reliance whilst at the same time learning to appreciate a materially modest lifestyle. Also clear, however, is Abdurrahman's conviction that, in the early 1970s, the entire pesantren tradition stood at the crossroads and was in grave danger of being steadily extinguished. This may have come about directly because of the process of modernisation, Abdurrahman argued, but it was as much the result of a general trend within the tradition as it was changed circumstances alone. Amongst the various problems besetting pesantren were those that arose out of the over-reliance upon charismatic leaders and the attendant problem of determining succession when a kiai dies. Allied with this too are an all too narrow approach to long term planning and the failure to adapt adequately to the demands of a rapidly changing society. All of which contributed to pesantren in the 1970s being burdened with curricula that were woefully inadequate to meet the demands of modern society. Making this all the worse, Abdurrahman argued, was the fact that these various problems did not develop by chalice, but rather grew directly out of a world view that had not only failed to take into account the degree to which Indonesian society had changed in the past fifty years, but also saw all change in the most negative of terms. This view, in turn, was based upon a set of convictions relating to the total sufficiency of traditional Islam that constituted a dangerous self-delusion. Moreover this self-delusion was not confined just to traditionalists, modernists too had become so caught up, Abdurrahman argued, in the rhetoric of their own shallow apologetics that they failed to appreciate the degree to which Islamic society was in need of reform. A recurrent theme in Abdurrahman's writing is that progressive reform is essential. Moreover, he does not regard reform as being something that is required merely now and again, believing rather that it should be a continuous, ongoing process. So central to Abdurrahman's thought is this concept of continuous, ongoing reform that he coined a term to describe it: dinamisasi. Dinamisasi, for Abdurrahman, describes the essential progressive quality that enables Islam to be continuously updated and remain forever relevant. Without this, Islam becomes a dry and doctrinaire exercise in legalism that neither excites the interests of society nor serves its needs. When Islamic society was healthy and was enjoying the renewing of vigour that comes with dinamisasi, it would automatically become the sort of society that was more attractive to all citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, for it would be a society that welcomed difference and rejoiced in its plural composition. At the heart of this view was Abdurrahman's conviction that Islam called on people to be tolerant of others and that one could not be a good Muslim without showing goodwill to all in society. Certainly Abdurrahman's own tolerance of others and general broad-mindedness are abundantly evident in his writing. Arising out of this pluralistic frame of mind came also a deep concern that Islamic political parties, and Islamic 'party politics', should not give rise to sectarian sentiment in society. Indeed the very notion of Islamic political parties is something which makes him decidedly uneasy. Thus in his writing from this period we can see also something of Abdurrahman's deep commitment to liberal humanitarian concerns. His concern for equitable community development, for democratic reform and for the creation of a more tolerant society all arise out of his understanding of Islam. It is an understanding that leaves no room for mere standing on the side lines but rather demands social engagement. In summary, it can be said that almost all of Abdurrahman's writing from the 1970s is concerned with traditional Islam, whether centrally or peripherally, whether praising its simple virtues or pointing out its frustrating shortcomings. Almost invariably it deals, to a greater or lesser extent, with the creative, progressive response of Islamic thought to modernity, which Abdurrahman calls dinamisasi, and threaded through it all is an overarching concern with pluralism. But if these themes are prominent in Abdurrahman's writing, then the theme of liberal humanitarianism, is in fact the dominant theme. The determining factors that explain just why this should be the case are difficult to isolate. Environment, upbringing and a personality dominated by a certain kind of gregarious intelligence must all be determining factors, but in themselves they do not fully explain the passion in Abdurrahman's thought. Given this then, we could do worse than consider Abdurrahman's own explanation of why it is that he is so deeply committed to humanitarian ideals. Abdurrahman's explanation of what motivates, or at least directs, his liberal humanitarian concern is often repeated but at heart is profoundly simple. Abdurrahman is first and foremost a religious thinker: Islam provides the grand template of his thought and Islam, for him, is fundamentally liberal. ************* 42 The word 'humanitarianism' is being used here. as Abdurrahman himself uses it, to speak of an overarching appreciation for all that is good in humanity combined with a concern for the welfare of every individual. As such it has much in common with secular humanism but unlike secular humanism it is not at all at odds with a call for submission to God. On the contrary, and this is the central point of Abdurrahman's thought, reverent submission to God is the very best foundation for a humanitarian ideology. 43 'Kerangka Pengembangan Doktrin Ahlussunnah Wal Jama'ah (Aswaja)', in Wahid, Muslim di Tengah Pergumulan, pp. 38-45. As Abdurrahman explains in the paper itself, those who regard themselves to be Orthodox Muslims have, for centuries, collectively identified themselves as being 'ahlussunnah wal jama'ah' (often abbreviated in Indonesia to 'aswaja'), this literally means 'The People of the Sunnah tie. the exemplary 'way' of life of the Prophet Muhammad) and the [majority) of the Community'. 44 Ibid., p. 43. 45 'Demokrasi Haruslah Diperjoangkan', in Tempo, 12 August 1978, p.22. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 'Kyai Nyentrik Membela Pemerintah', Tempo, 5 April 1980, p. 37. 49 Ibid.