The Report of Book Discussion on Rejecting Wahabi’s Textualism

One of the good things of democracy is that Wahabi Da’wah in Indonesia is increasingly growing. Recently, when the tendency of religious violence reoccurs as well as the disturbance of radical Islamic groups threatens the authority of the Republic of Indonesia, Wahabi is mentioned as one of the radical Islamic sects that has contributed to grow the two problems mentioned above.

Since Wahabi has tended to understand religious texts rigidly and literally, it is not exaggerated if many Indonesian Muslims have tried to relate religious violence and the disturbance of the Republic of Indonesia to the teachings and practices of Wahabi da’wah. For this reason, the Research and Development of the Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA) views that the issue of Wahabism is one of important issues to be explored. For that purpose, on Thursday, June 9, 2011 the Research and Development of MORA conducted a book discussion held at hall room of Park Hotel, D.I. Pandjaitan Street, Cawang, East Jakarta.

The discussion presented two speakers, Dr. Abd. Moqsith Moqsith from UIN and Ridwan Hamidi Lc from Muhammadiah University of Surakarta, dissected Shaykh Idahram’s book titled the Bloody History of Salafi Wahabi Sect: They Kill Everyone Including Ulama. According to the Research and Development of MORA, at least there are two reasons why this book is more proper to be discussed. First, this book has an actual theme that in line with the Research and Development of MORA’s projects. Second, it is interesting that until this June, the book published by Pustaka Pesantren and written by an unfamiliar person for many people has already printed seven times in less than one year (2011). In addition, the book, with less than 280 pages and preface given by chairman of PBNU, Dr. KH. Said Agil Siraj, does not provide a brief biography of the author.

The book Discussion was begun at 10:00 AM opened by Harapandi Dahri from the Research and Development of MORA who prepared a brief paper on points of the book. At the end of the opening, Dahri reminded participants to explore the original sources used by the book as the references. The enrichment of literature on Wahabism issues is also needed in order not to be trapped in stigma which may not overcome problems, but make problems intricate.

The first speaker, Dr. Abd. Moqsith, started his discussion with a critical question on the author’s biography. Moqsith who got difficulty to find the author’s biography assumed that the name is anonymous. This assumption, for Moqsith, is quite reasonable in light of the contents of the book which are full of provocation. He is concerned that the tendency of very strong provocation in this book becomes a free promotion of Wahabi da’wah. In terms of arguing method, Moqsith claimed that there is nothing new related to the style of the author argues. “No argument here is specific for Indonesia, but rather it is ‘copy-paste’ style of argumentation of Middle Eastern writers,” he said.

Moqsith compared the work of Shaykh Idahram to the book al-Radd ‘ala al-Wahabiyyah written by Shaykh Muhammad Jawad al Balaghi. For Moqsith, the arguments used by all the authors in the book are not better than the argument of Wahabi group – meaning the arguments are not based on firm thoughts. For instance, Moqsith gave an example how the author of the book criticizes Wahabi groups simply because they do not aggressively fight against non-Muslims (in this case, England). “If it does simply not fight against non-Muslims, not only Wahabi, but also moderate groups in Indonesia do that. “So can it be called as a mistake?” He explained. This is what Moqsith means by not finding a specific argument for Indonesia.

A good argument, Moqsith explained, is an argument that is built based on the reflections of the contextual conditions. Therefore, ‘copy-paste’ arguments will never be strong arguments. Actually, if we examine carefully, Wahabism in Indonesia has not shifted from the original ideology in Saudi Arabia. This is why contextualization is important; any rigid ideology will surely face a resistance of community. Da’i (preachers/religious figures) of Wahabi, - apart from the strong rigidity in da’wah - certainly do not want to be so stupid to just ‘copy-paste’ the original ideology of the Middle East.

Related to criticism on Wahabism, Moqsith provided positive and negative points. According to Moqsith, at least two positive points can be appreciated from the Wahabi groups. First, Wahabism is respected because of its ability to concretize the abstract concept of monotheism. Sunni’s monotheistic theology, for Moqsith, is incredibly complicated, comparable to the concept of Roman Catholic theology. In Wahabi’s hand, the complicated and abstract concept of monotheism becomes simpler and more concrete. Wahabi does not want to deal with philosophy and complicated definitions, therefore its teachings are easily accepted by lay people.
Second, Wahabism can also be respected because of its ability to develop philanthropic institutions. Wahabi makes the emergence of free high schools which are need by poor students. Poor students from Pesantren are much helped by this free school program. Due to this Wahabi’s effort, they can develop properly their ability of speech in Arabic. Moqsith gave an example that many alumni of Wahabi philanthropist schools have become famous figures, such as Ulil Abshar Abdalla, Imdadun Rachmat and Ahmad Baso.

To make a balance, besides the positive points, Moqsith also mentioned the negative aspects of Wahabi da’wah. First, its simplicity of the method of da’wah, according to Moqsith, makes Wahabi group be trapped in extreme textualism. As the result, it is very difficult to invite Wahabi to think rationally. Moqsith suggested to Wahabi, at least, having a will to develop the concept of basic principles of religious teachings (qawa’id ushûliyyah) and the basic principles of details (qawa’id Fiqhiyyah) to make its fatwa not merely deal with unimportant issues.

For Moqsith, the author of the book who strongly criticizes Wahabi groups is also trapped by an extreme textuality. Moqsith gave an example how the author provides arguments to reject Wahabi, that is Wahabi does not apply the hadist about leaders are from Quraish (al-a’immatu min Quraysh); not join to fight against Christians and Jews, or is too easy to say others as infidels. But all of these examples are not a typical Wahabi group alone.

Second, apart from its ability to differentiate itself from its original ideology in Saudi Arabia, Wahabi da’wah has been criticized because it is still relatively difficult to acculturate it with a local culture. In fact, according to Moqsith, an acculturation as a method of da’wah is an effective proved method on how a concept can metamorphose into big ideologies. Moqsith took the case of Hindu as an example, Hindu has been difficultly developed in Indonesia because its theology is too complicated and difficult to adapt. Based on this example, Moqsith suggested that if Wahabi wants to be large and taken into consideration, it needs to change the da’wah method by affiliating it with local da’wah groups. As joked, Moqsith commented, “It could be possible, someday, Wahabi Da’wah collaborates with Liberal Islam Da’wah, for example.”

Still related to the second point above, Moqsith ended his talk by reminding that an acculturation of tradition is an absolute necessity in da’wah (religious mission). Rigidity toward tradition will make a da’wah concept unacceptable. Look at how Muhammadiyah in previous eras was so strict on tradition. The position of tradition in da’wah, for Moqsith, is analogized to the need of body for nutrition. Refusing to compromise with tradition means to allow the body to be nutritional deficiency. However, it should also be remembered that too many compromises with tradition, such as NU’s da’wah, can spend the energy before getting to the original sources: the Qur’an and the Sunnah. If da’wah with so strict on tradition is analogized by malnutrition da’wah, da’wah with so many compromise with tradition is obesity da’wah, and this also means that the two is equally bad.”

Meanwhile, Ridwan Hamidi Lc, as the second speaker, started his talk by directly criticizing the accuracy of the book titled the Bloody History of Wahabi Salafi Sect. Ridwan whose name is included in the list of Wahabi figures in Indonesia (p. 50), questioned, for example, what is a measure of the author in categorizing someone as a Wahabi figure in the book. “If it was just because I graduated from Medina, many figures who also graduated from Medina but they are not mentioned in the book,” Ridwan protested. On the contrary, as his testimony, he is given an authority to be imam (leader of pray) in Masjid Kampus (Campus Mosque) of Gadjah Mada University to protect the mosque against the extreme thoughts developed there, among them is Wahabi thoughts.

Ridwan also questioned whether the fatwas mentioned in the book do represent Wahabi group’s fatwas as a whole. Some time ago he visited the Middle East and also analyzed Wahabi’s fatwas which have been developed outside Saudi Arabia. In this analysis, Ridwan did not find any indication of adoption on fatwas of Saudi Wahabi for the outside of the country. This means, the Wahabi fatwas mentioned by the author in the book are exclusive for Saudi, therefore it would be mistaken to generalize it.

Still in line with the accuracy of data used in the book, Ridwan regrets that the arguments of the author are full of ‘copied-pasted’ data. Some data downloaded from certain situs in the book are not up to date. The fatwa of forbidding learning English, for instance, is an old fatwa that was now annulled by the Wahabi group itself. Based on this fact, Ridwan wanted to say that the data used in this book is no longer up to date.

In Ridwan’s analysis, the inaccuracies of data in the book also occur in the names of figures and institutions that the authors attributed to the group of Wahabism. According to Ridwan, it is so clear that the author does not fully understand the original texts used as reference by Wahabi. For instance, Ridwan said that there are other historical arguments about Wahabi written by Abu al-Hasan Nadwi and these are different from written in the book.
Still related to Wahabi’s fatwas, Ridwan explained that the author has made a fatal mistake by mentioning fatwas of certain figures as a representation of entire teachings of Wahabi because these figures are not classified as the important figures by Wahabi group itself. In addition, many of fatwas are already changed. “The author of this book needs to put attention on classifying specific-casuistic fatwas from Wahabi teachings, so he is avoided from generalizing to contexts of Indonesia,” Ridwan suggested.

When the participants turned to speak, some questions and comments are addressed to the speakers who then discussed it briefly. First participants commented on the positive point of Wahabi mentioned by Moqsith. If Moqsith mentioned two positive points, this participant added one more point, that is the spirit of wahabi group in jihad. For him, different with JIL group’s understanding, Wahabi groups exactly are at the forefront in jihad fi sabilillah (fighting in the God’s way). Moqsith responded to this comment by saying that the Liberal Islam group also stands at the forefront in jihad fi sabilillah in terms of intellectual jihad, not physical jihad as understood by Wahabi people. By quoting an expert of commentary, Abu Zahra, Moqsith explained that the importance of jihad today is no longer to die in the way of God (al-Jihad’s laysa namûta fi sabilillah), but how to live in the way of God (Lakin wa al-Jihad al-huwa’ashry an nahyâ fi sabilillah).

Concerning the problem of jihad, Wahabi group is not exactly a good model for radical groups in the Middle East. According to Moqsith, Wahabism
jihad is closer to internal jihad (war with the Muslim groups themselves) rather than external jihad.

Meanwhile, the second participant argued the assumption of some people that Padri group is an embryo of Wahabism in Indonesia. Responding to this comment, Moqsith admitted that he agreed with that opinion. Following Luthfi Assyaukanie’s arguments, Moqsith explained that if it is examined more deeply, the Padri is actually an embryo of a liberal Islam instead of Wahabism. This is quite reasonable in light of Padri is closer to reformation than the purification (Revivalism). However, since the post-modern era, this reformation group has made a modification and adopted some classical Islamic traditions. For this reason, Moqsith reminds us how difficult to categorize a group in a particular category.

By taking the example of al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb and Mawdudi, Moqsith confirmed that although these figures have a strong tendency of radicalism, but in many ways they are far better than Wahabi group. For Moqsith, Wahabism is not a group of reformers. The issues raised by Wahabi are only furu’iyyah and unimportant issues. Even in this sense, Wahabi is far behind Ahmadiyya group, for instance, which has successfully formulated the philosophical commentary of its teaching.

Ridwan Hamidi as the second speaker only provided some suggestions to the discussed book. According to him, this book needs to be changed cover slightly in order to seem more polite. Therefore, he suggested that the author revised this book to be a friendly invitation, feedback or advice to the group of Wahabi, instead of slander. Ridwan also proposed that the author is called by the publisher to suggest to mention his real name (which is guessed Marhadi, read backwards from Idahram), to avoid a question and unreasonable suspicion for the readers.

At the end of the dicussion, Harapandhi Dahri from Research and Development of MORA responded on a participant’s criticism about the imbalance of speakers in the discussion. According to the participant, presenting a keynote speaker from Wahabi is needed so that this discussion does not seem to be judgmental. Harapandhi apologized for this. However, as his confession, the Research and Development of the MORA has tried hard to contact some people who are considered as the representation of Wahabi groups. However, because they do not ready to become a speaker, The Research and Development of the MORA chose Ridwan Hamidi Lc by assuming that he graduated from the University of Medina so he has an understanding about the complexities of Wahabism.

* Master Student at Assyafi’iyah University, Jatiwaringin, East Jakarta