Whose Islam? The Western University and Modern Islamic Thought in Indonesia

Abbas's Whose Islam? is a welcome contribution, analyzing Indonesian intellectuals’ attempts to reform Islam by applying new lenses to understand society's problems. The focus is refreshing, as it highlights North American universities’ role in positively shaping religious discourse in Indonesia, particularly from the 1960s up to the 1990s. Numerous works written by conservative Muslim scholars portray the West's dealings with Islam in Southeast Asia as corrupting it through promoting secularism, liberalism, and Westernization.Whose Islam? begins by discussing several Indonesians who pursued their postgraduate degrees at McGill University and then at Chicago University, and how they placed themselves in key decision-making positions in the government and institutes of higher learning upon their return. The crux of Abbas's work underscores the role of “fusionist thinking” to reform Islam that amalgamates Western academic approaches, often regarded as scientific and objective, with Islamic studies, linked as subjective. The book analyses how some Western scholars have also become active participants in this debate.The book's introductory chapter sets the theoretical premise: the distinction between the fusionist and dualist orientations (9) and the so-called insider versus outsider perspectives. The next five chapters then touch on the following themes: the role of Western universities McGill and Chicago in shaping fusionist thought among Indonesian students; how fusionist ideas became central to Indonesia's Ministry of Religious Affairs during the New Order period (the term coined to describe Suharto's presidency between 1966 and 1998); and Professor Fazlur Rahman's and Professor Leonard Binder's contributions in mentoring Indonesian fusionists. The book then examines the broader debates relating to academic imperialism. It concludes with a reflection on the future of Islamic studies.Central to Whose Islam? is how the fusionist paradigm has evolved over time. On the one hand, it points to the sharp boundaries between Islamic studies and Western academia, proposed by groups with a dualist orientation. On the other hand, the fusionists attempted to reconcile the two; but still, intellectuals and theologians were in disagreement over how this could materialize. For example, Abbas highlights how Indonesian thinkers Mahmud Yunus and Muhammad Natsir were both critical of the dualists but could not agree on the way forward. It took someone like Wilfred Cantwell Smith, based miles away in the United States, to spur this fusionist creativity. The book appraises the role played by the McGill Institute of Islamic Studies in forming the reformist, fusionist school, which undeniably led to a backlash from Orientalist scholars who had fixed and preconceived notions of Islam's regressive nature.Chapter 3 is the book's pivot, which helps readers to connect the theoretical and historical discussion to contemporary Indonesia. It focuses on how the fusionist schools played out in the Indonesian discursive terrain during the New Order period, led by intellectual giants Mukti Ali and Harun Nasution. As a minister, Mukti also shaped the State Institutes of Islamic Studies (Institut Agama Islam Negeri, IAIN). The chapter then discusses critics of the project, particularly Mohammad Rasjidi. This chapter would be the most interesting for scholars interested in evaluating how Fazlur Rahman and Binder shifted the focus of the fusionist approach from one focused on Smith's objective-subjective paradigm to one focused on Islam and development (123).Whose Islam? is a significant contribution, particularly for observers who wish to understand Indonesian Islamic studies’ intellectual history. Conservative critics of Indonesian Islam dismiss the country as a bastion of liberal Islam without appreciating the efforts of past thinkers attempting to align Islamic texts with critical scholarship. Abbas calls these “academic methods.” However, this approach went beyond academic exercises, genuinely attempting to improve society's conditions. Moreover, key lessons can be drawn from the Indonesian experience from the 1960s to the 1990s, especially for policymakers in the Islamic world seeking reforms in Islamic studies. Abbas's book also delves greatly into the debates by protagonists and antagonists of the fusionist project, who cast aspersions toward Islamic studies in Western universities. Not all Western Islamic studies scholars are objective—as she reminds readers about the importance of unmasking Orientalism—and how geopolitics and state interests (including intelligence communities) determined which Islamic studies institutions and students got sponsored.Despite making important contributions to Indonesian studies, several criticisms must be raised. First, Western influence on modernist Islamic discourses predates Indonesians’ entry into Western universities. Omar Said Tjokroaminoto's (1882–1934) discussion on Islamic socialism during his lifetime and Hamka's (1908–1981) grappling with scientific discoveries despite not spending time in any Western university demonstrate that attempts toward fusionist thinking existed before Indonesians sojourned to the West.Second, the fusionist/dualist paradigm lacks explanatory usefulness when describing Natsir's case. For someone who saw Islam as a totalizing ideology and was anti-secularist, but who cited Orientalist sources, he ticked both definitions. In this regard, Natsir fits the bill of a Muslim revivalist who would ride on Orientalist works to showcase a bigger objective: to glorify Islam.Third, there are numerous mentions of the academic approach throughout the book, but it is unclear what Abbas refers to or how the actors describe it. Is she referring to academic disciplines or citation methods, or is she measuring objectivity? Only in the concluding chapter does Abbas make clear that she is referring to objectivity. This explanation should be clarified at the outset.Fourth, the focus on Indonesian graduates in North America ignores, albeit surprisingly, Abdurrahman Wahid, a fusionist who did not study in the institutes discussed. There is little discussion of intellectual agency on the part of Indonesians after their return from abroad. The divergences between Nurcholis Madjid and Fazlur Rahman discussed by Abbas in chapter 5 suggest that Indonesian Islamic elites were able to chart independent pathways.Last, could Abbas's focus on McGill and Chicago have ignored Australian and European universities? Progressive Muslim scholars from neighboring Malaysia, such as the late Syed Hussein Alatas, who founded the journal Progressive Islam, graduated from the University of Amsterdam under the supervision of Wilhelm Wertheim. Alatas later led modernist, anti-feudal, and developmental Islam in his own country. Wertheim also had Indonesian students whose contributions are not examined due to them not attaining national prominence. This can be the subject of further inquiry following from Whose Islam?Gaps found in Whose Islam? do not in any way belittle Abbas's scholarship. It is an insightful analysis of Indonesia's attempt to modernize Islamic thought and a work that is a useful conversation starter.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.