Moderate Islam is a paradox. In the United States, Muslim intellectuals and activists use this term with super caution and reservation, avoid it when possible. In contrast to that, their counterparts in Indonesia enthusiastically and proudly claim to be the champions of moderate Islam. The question is why those intellectuals and activists from the same religion but coming from different continent and type of country responded the idea of moderate Islam differently, if not contradistinctively. Given that this term is commonly used as a translation of Qur’anic term umma wasaṭ, it is also important to ask the meaning of this term in Islamic history, how Muslim exegetes throughout Islam history conceptualise umma wasaṭ? And finally, how Indonesian Muslims define moderatism after the 9/11 and what are the criteria of moderate Islam in their views? By analysing the concept of moderate Islam as adopted by the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), the largest Islamic movement in Indonesia, this article shows that the meaning moderate in Indonesia is more theological, while in the US it is more political. Moderate Islam in Indonesia is more related to the doctrine of Aswaja, while in the US this notion has more connection with George W. Bush’s ‘war on terror.’

Muhammadiyah has been perceived as an example of a successful blend between Islam and modernity. By adopting modern spirit of discipline, equality, and a hard work ethics, this organization has become a vibrant and independent movement. The number of Muhammadiyah educational and health institutions is only surpassed by those owned by the Indonesian government. Muhammadiyah has 177 universities; thousands of secondary, middle, and elementary schools, as well as hundreds of hospitals and other health institutions. However, the organization’s successes in social, educational, and economic do not necessarily indicate that it also embraces pluralistic values and religious tolerance. This paper, therefore, intends to describe Muhammadiyah’s position in the context of pluralism, liberalism, and Islamism. It argues that although Muhammadiyah is predominated by members with moderate religious inclinations, but a significant number of them are exclusively puritan in their theology. The organization’s focus on social services is the reason why Muhammadiyah has evaded Islamist tendencies.

No abstract

Surveys and researches have indicated various factors leading to or instigating the rise of religious intolerance in Indonesia after the Reformasi in 1998. This study, however, aims to see intolerance and discrimination as something embedded in Indonesian ideology, i.e. Pancasila, which seems to be lacking in previous studies, including the studies on the connection between Pancasila and discriminative regulations implemented is several districts and provinces in Indonesia. The questions dealt with in this paper are the following: Why did religious radical groups able to exert their influence to the government and moderate Muslim majority in treating minorities? What are, if any, the constitutional and legal limits of religious freedom in Indonesia? This paper aims to scrutinize constitutional and legal documents, including the first pillar of Pancasila, to find their shortcomings in protecting religious freedom. This paper argues that Pancasila has set Indonesia into religiously monotheistic state, which provided the government the necessary tool to force non-theistic, polytheistic, and non-monotheistic religions to modify their theological beliefs in order to be accepted as recognized or official religions. Pancasila also justifies the existence of favoritism to certain religions deemed fit to this ideology. Berbagai survei dan penelitian telah menunjukkan berbagai faktor yang menyebabkan atau memicu bangkitnya intoleransi beragama di Indonesia setelah Reformasi tahun 1998. Penelitian ini ingin melihat intoleransi dan diskriminasi sebagai sesuatu yang secara tak sadar tertanam dalam ideologi Indonesia, yaitu Pancasila. Tema ini tampaknya kurang menjadi perhatian dalam studi sebelumnya, termasuk studi tentang hubungan antara Pancasila dan peraturan diskriminatif yang diterapkan di beberapa kabupaten dan provinsi di Indonesia. Pertanyaan yang dibahas dalam artikel ini diantaranya adalah: Mengapa kelompok-kelompok radikal keagamaan dapat mempengaruhi pemerintah dan mayoritas umat Muslim yang moderat dalam bersikap terhadap kelompok minoritas? Apa, jika ada, batasan konstitusional dan legal kebebasan beragama di Indonesia? Artikel ini bertujuan untuk meneliti dokumen dokumen konstitusional dan hukum, termasuk pilar pertama Pancasila, untuk menemukan kekurangan dalam melindungi kebebasan beragama. Artikel ini berargumen bahwa Pancasila telah menetapkan Indonesia menjadi negara monoteistik religius, yang memberikan pemerintah piranti yang diperlukan untuk memaksa agama-agama non-teistik, politeistis, dan non-monoteistik untuk memodifikasi keyakinan teologis mereka agar diterima sebagai agama yang diakui atau resmi. Pancasila juga membenarkan keberadaan favoritisme untuk agama-agama tertentu yang dianggap cocok dengan ideologi ini.