What Parents Do Here

In Indonesia, larger part of population lives in rural area. Consequently most of them live their life traditionally. Yet, it's undeniable that information technology has brought about big change in some aspect of their life.
As far as parent-and-children relationship is concerned, relatively, there are no dramatic differences. This we can divide into two extreme positions and from which then to draw some types of such relationship.
These two extremes are parents who are fully totalitarian in their relationship with their children and parents who are extremely liberal in their way conducting their relationship with them. Of course, we'll feel difficult to find such extreme kinds.
Typically, traditional family- like such of Javanese and Madurese-will demand from their young people to respect everyone older then them, with special emphasize on someone who births you. This in itself is good and, I think, no parent would deny that they hope their children to respect them. And this is very natural inclination of human being. Everyone who has good character will do it.
This had happened for long time and, to some extent, is still happening these days. To respect our parents, for religious people, is to obey one of the most highlighted commands in the Scripture, regardless of what our faith may be, I'm sure that every religion will stress this matter. Even, when you have no religious alliance, you will naturally find-or more precisely feel-that somehow to respect your parents is your obligation. It is our natural tendency to feel it, sown by God out of His bounty for the believer or misunderstably existed within us for the atheist.

But then, when their children grow up and start to have ability to understand this world sometime differently from their parents' way of thinking, and then to choose their own choices, something will happen; conflict, either openly or secretly.
And this, it seems to me so, will occur more often in Indonesian traditional society which there is almost no limitation for information coming from 'outside'. There will be clash of cultures, that is, between traditional culture and modern culture brought by information technology. However, this is not the case in many traditional families, moreover in families living in city, town, or suburb. This is because, I think, they are less traditional. By traditional families I mean those who bear their traditional norms as unchangeable things and no one should try to change, moreover their children. The more inclined they are to their tradition, the more traditional they are.
For families living in urban area to give more tolerance to their children is considerably easy. This might be due to openness of information they and their children can gain. For, someone who knows more will become more tolerance, this at least in many cases. This freedom is a wise to choose if accompanied with consultative function from parents.
On the contrary, freedom to choose is somewhat luxurious stuff for many children originating from rural and traditional family. For them, in many cases, it's not easy to make their own decisions. In most instances, they can't decide many things relating to theirselves. Their parents do it all, for their good, they would say. However for some people to decide by their selves makes them more comfort. They don't have to always rely on their parents to decide something and this, in effect, will get them more prepared in facing future. Nevertheless we can hardly find parents from traditional family-in the sense we mention above-to give their children more freedom. This attitude is because parents traditionally intuitively want to see their children happy but, sadly, from their version of happiness. They almost won't, in some cases, even listen to their children what happiness for them is. It’s all about monologue, while the dialog is always the best. The other reason might be that children-until they get married-in traditional family is more dependent economically to their parents resulting in other dependences. That's why children being independent from their parents have freer choice.
Actually, this time in which informations flood us and it's seemingly impossible to control and sort them for our children, it seems the best for parents to let their children make their own choice while listening, talking each other and advising. This will make them more responsible and independent. Added to this, if they make choices they need, they will be mentally healthier and don't need to find out their identity along their life. For, as Candy Natazia said, the choices you made in life define who you are and what you stand for.

Read More...

Some Intellectual Positions and Roads Ahead

Several years ago we heard shocking incident in Bandung where some students openly do some acts to be considered as insulting religion, particularly Islam. For some, it is ironic to see such acts happen in UIN (formerly IAIN) Bandung in which students are hoped to learn more and in-depth about religion. It happened to new students in campus introducing and study orientation (OSPEK). The old students, the committee of the program, demonstrated things which may be regarded as violating Islam. Some of them said “Welcome to the free-God campus”, other said “Let’s recite together ‘anjinghu akbar’” which to them it was an expression of free-speech, though, even for average Muslim, it sounds like trivializing sacred symbols of Islam. It is not interesting to talk about something in past, but it is widely perceived within society, at least for some, that IAIN is no longer a representative institution to learn Islam in Indonesia. Several books have been written concerning this very fact, to remind society of, to say, dangerousness of inappropriate using of freedom in understanding Islam.



In IAIN Surabaya we have nothing with what happened in Bandung. But to some extent, several cases do happen. If we go to any IAIN (or UIN), we will find the same pattern of thought. We see in Jakarta, Jogjakarta, and Surabaya—to name some axis—domination of, say, “liberal” or “rationalist” reformism—to use Tariq’s mapping of trends of thought.[1] I would like to use this typology used by Tariq in his book Western Muslim and the Future of Islam to read phenomenon in IAIN particularly in Surabaya.
According to him, there exist, at least, six tendencies within Muslim world today relating with how to read the Two Sources. It implies that what we are talking about is relating to those who remain concerned to involve the Sources in their way of thinking. It has nothing with people who deliberately put aside the role of Al-Quran and Prophet’s tradition in their thought.
Here are those tendencies in turn. The first of these is scholastic traditionalism. This bears the restricted understanding of Islamic scriptural Texts. People who uphold this tendency read the Texts by the mean of classical Muslim scholars. The extent to which to interpret the Text is very limited and, therefore, not enabling further elaboration. Even, they do not dare to read books written by classical Ulama but in literal way. For many of them, Islam is recognized by religious practices more to which they emphasize their concern. In Indonesia we may find this trend in some Pesantrens which insist on maintaining the old-tradition.
The second trend is salafi literalism. Apparently it seems to be the same with scholastic traditionalism, for they too give emphasis to religious practices. But while the first read the Texts in mediated way, they reject this kind of reading and stress on reading the Texts immediately and, as the name implies, literally. The word salafi refers to the first generations, as mentioned in Prophet’s tradition[2]. It is found in Wahabism in Saudi Arabia and its affiliates around the globe. These two emphasize more on religious practices and tend, with rare exception, to forget the social plane. In the West they are marked by alienation from the society to protect Muslims from Western cultural influences.
The third is political literalist salafism. As the name expresses, it has similarity with the former in the method of reading the Texts. However they differ in their stressing on social and political activities. Their literal reading of the Texts and their inclination to interpret the Text in political connotation place those in difficult situation where they have to face the reality, which is opposite to their ideal, while remain faithful to their literal reading. It gives birth to radical and revolutionary activism against all they consider violating to their values. Typically the goal of this movement is to establish what they call Islamic state; the caliphate. The representative of this movement can be found in secular circumstances, such as in Europe, as well as in religious one, such as in Indonesia. One of which popular example is Hizb al-Tahrir.
The next is Sufism which gives emphasis to spiritual reading of the Sources. They, to me, rather represent the practical aspect of Muslim community. But, to the extent that they have different behavior toward the Texts, it is possible to consider them as one of the approaches by which Muslims think of their scriptural Texts.
The following trend is salafi reformism. They are attached to the first generation as well, but they differ from ‘other salafism’ in contextualized reading to the Texts. Although the Texts remain inevitable for them, they avoid strictly literal interpretation of the Texts and, furthermore, try to read it in the light of context in which they live. Taking example from the Prophet, they also concern more with social issues within Muslim community, not forgetting religious matters—in the sense understood in the West.
The last is “liberal” or “rationalist”[3] reformism. In various degrees, they limit the function of the Texts which at most they reduce them into mere spiritual and ethical matter. It is also valid to call this way of thinking as secular, since, like showed by some scholars, it originates from Western experience of secularism. Within Muslim society, they suggest that the Texts can only be recognized as long as ethical norms are concerned, or at best they consider them merely as inspiration to derive laws relating with social affair. In the matter of daily life, i.e. cases connecting with humanity, they, in different degrees, disregard the Texts, elevating the role of reason over them. Most of them are in opposition to any utterances, actions or even clothing they consider identical to exclusivism and fundamentalism. Sometimes they judge such aprioristically as irrational seclusion.
In the light of this typology, we find the same trends in IAIN. Nevertheless, there is one dominant thought that is the last, almost in major IAINs (or UINs). It is noteworthy to recall this fact, since IAIN foremost is aimed to be centre for Islamic studies at high education level. Many lecturers say that, in IAIN, all Islamic schools of thought should be treated equally. But the fact that almost nothing of Islamic schools—to say the least—are studied deeply and comprehensively and that thought resulted from the West dominates make us have to think more deeply. It is not the question of being fundamentalist, but rather of intellectual balance and, for some, of identity.
On the other hand, the so-called Western thought is widespread consequently. This statement should not be read politically; one dominates other, but intellectually. Not only is it not desirable to reject any of Western stuffs blindly, but it is a matter of being more fair to the society we live in and, in academic sphere, to offer more various discourses both from West and East; Islam and secular, Left and Right—to say so. It is important to underline this, for, here, in IAIN Surabaya, as I feel, there is too hegemonic discourse, while other discourses are marginalized and cannot compete fairly intellectually. The fact becomes like what G. W Bush said when declaring war against terrorism “Either you are with us or with terrorist”.[4]
To build a healthier intellectual sphere, we need to free any discourses, to use more diverse reading ranging from Left to Right, and more important not to discriminate any of these readings. To make an example, here, we hardly find discourses offered by majority, and indeed, many lecturers, which is not identical to liberal. There is no room for other thought that is opposed to it, or if any it is very limited to those who hold it, no common ideology but liberalism and its descendants. We need to be more open, more pluralist, and more tolerant. Moreover if we recall that we are Muslims—whatever it implies for you. We must have differences, but with an open dialogue we can acquire better understanding. “Acknowledged differences may create mutual respect, but hazy misunderstandings bring forth nothing but prejudice and rejection”[5], said Tariq Ramadan. We need to get closer each other for the future of humanity. We hope together next we will be able to see a discussion involving leftist, salafist, liberalist, fundamentalist, atheist, and traditionalist where all are able and will to respect others no matter how sharp divergences they have.

endnotes:

1.Tariq Ramadan, Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, pp. 23-30.
2.See, for instance, Al-Bukhari. Al-Jami’ Al-Shahih, XI/481.
3.These labels should not be understood that other trends have no liberal or rational tendency.
4.In this context we can paraphrase this sentence to: “Either you become liberal or you will be marginalized from campus intellectually and socially”. This, of course, is to say the least.
5.Islam, the West and the Challenges of Modernity, pp. 3.

Read More...