This year is the 50th anniversary of the demise of Haji Agus Salim, an outstanding figure in the progressive Islamisation movement. He is considered as one of the 'founding fathers' of the independent Republic of Indonesia.

It is not be wrong to say that Agus Salim was an initiator and patron of the progressive Islamisation movement in the Malay archipelago. His great services to the progressive- democratic movement still benefit the Asian people to this day.

It was Agus Salim who set up the Jong Islamieten Bond (JIB) or Angkatan Muslim Muda (Young Muslims Movement) in 1925. The members and leaders of the JIB were later to become the members and leaders of the first democratic-Islamic party, the Partai Masjumi (which unfortunately was banned in 1960 by Sukarno).

Agus Salim, together with another outstanding leader, Haji Omar Said Tjokroaminoto, who was his contemporary, led the Sarekat Islam (which later changed its name to Partai Sarekat Islam) during the 1920s and 30s.

The two leaders determined the guidelines and direction of the Islamisation movement in Indonesia, and made democracy, independence and universal justice its main goals.

In 1936, Agus Salim set up the Partai Penyedar and continued his efforts to expand and deepen the understanding of the people of the Malay archipelago about the meaning and relevence of Islamisation in the context of modern living.

And it should not be forgotten that Agus Salim, throughout his life, stressed the universal values and equality of mankind in all his writings, sermons and speeches, until he was even called the first feminist in Indonesia as well as the first anti-communitarianism fighter.

He held firmly to these universal principles; it was he who determined that the post of Indonesian president should not be monopolised by the pribumi race (original people) alone, when he served on the commission that drafted the Basic Laws of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945.

In his religious writings, he reminded Muslims that the physical difference between males and females should not be used as an excuse to strengthen and further extend the patriarchal power structure and relationship.

Indonesian historians often recount how Agus Salim lowered the barriers that separated the high officials from the women during the Jong Islamieten Bond meeting, so that the officials and the women could discuss matters together.

Malaysian leaders

The progressive Islamisation movement in Malaysia was no less inspiring. At the time when Agus Salim and HOS Tjokroaminoto were planting the seeds of progressive ideas among the Muslims in Indonesia, in Malaysia there were also leaders like Syed Sheikh al-Hady dan Sheikh Tahir Jalaluddin.

They are considered the pioneers and initiators of the modern and progressive Islamisation movement called Kaum Muda or Brotherhood of the Youth. At that time, Syed Sheikh al-Hady was given the title 'Caliph of the Kaum Muda' in Malaysia even though that label had negative connotations to the feudal-traditional group.

Just like Agus Salim, Syed Sheikh al-Hady also promoted the concept of awareness of questions relating to gender and joint rights between high officials and perempuan.

His novel entitled Hikayat Faridah Hanum (Story of Faridah Hanum) was considered most revolutionary at the time, and against the general trend of the time, which viewed Malay Muslim women as lower class, incapable of self-education and dependant on men.

Syed Sheikh al-Hady portrayed an entirely opposite view. His Faridah Hanum character was a strong and dignified woman, with individualistic rationalism and ability to make her own life choices, with no interference or aid from men.

The conservative Kaum Tua (Brotherhood of the Old) in Malaysia were most perturbed and worried by the novel, so much so that some of the conservative Muslim scholars wanted to ban the novel on the premise that it was pornographic, and Syed Sheikh al-Hady was accused of insulting Islam and leading Muslims astray!

Cases such as the lives of Agus Salim, Tjokroaminoto, Syed al-Hady and Sheikh Tahid Jalaluddin are concrete proof that the progressive Islamisation movement had already established a presence and thrived in the Malay archipelago since the 1920s and 30s.

We must remember that this progressive Islam is not a new phenomenon, invented by American intellectuals and intelligentsia!

Further, it is very clear that progressive Islamisation is not passive or tame in nature: At that time, its prograssive leaders were feared and held in awe by the authorities, whether they were the colonial powers (the British and the Dutch), or the feudal-traditional elite of the pribumi.

The criticism from the Kaum Muda about the power structure and relationship of their time was born from of Islamic values and formed by their modern understanding. They strived to uphold justice and truth, by means of a strategy based on discourse-power criticism, which linked the dominant discourse with the power structure of that time.

To the Kaum Muda leaders, there was no difference between the discourse-power structure of the colonial powers, and that of the conservative pribumi elite, because both of them had the same objective: to monopolise the political power, with the cultural-discursive justification that an unfair and unbalance power relationship can be normalised.

Because of that, the writings of the Kaum Muda were very hard and sharp indeed, stabbing precisely at the contents of the power-politics culture of the regime at the time.

In the end, all the empty babbling of the authorities were stripped bare. What was left was only the naked power which was disgusting and despotic.

Practical minds

Compared with other leaders of their time, the ideas of individuals like Agus Salim, Syed Sheikh al-Hady and their ilk were certainly most progressive. Why? Because they were ahead of the development trends of their time, and developed free of the ideological and epistemological constraints and restrictions, which were very narrow at that time.

While their contemporaries were engrossed in their struggles with esoteric questions like genies and spirits, questions about normative rituals, like whether the Quran can be printed (and not written by hand as had been traditionally done), whether Friday sermons can be delivered in local dialects, and others, they were far ahead with more practical discussions about matters such as how Muslims can consolidate their economic power to establish a nationalist anti-colonial movement.

The 'progressive' label was applied to them because they gave life to the dynamics of the social revolution of their society, and did not blindly submit to old ideas. The most important factor of all was their inclination towards a tradition and practice of study and research, thinking about complicated issues with open minds, which had been exposed to fresh ideas and new truths.

They were also not worried or hesitant about technology or western ideas. Agus Salim even tried to study medicine in the Netherlands. Clearly, they were comfortable with technological innovations, which they wanted to make use of to strengthen and advance their own society.

'Progressive Islamisation' is only progressive if it develops. The word 'progressive' here is not an essentialist or ontological category or label. It is also not a label applied to a certain group or tribe of Muslims.

It can be said that there are 'Jawa Muslims', 'Sumatran Muslims', and 'Malay Muslims', because labels like 'Jawa', 'Sumatran" and 'Malay' are essentialist labels. But the 'progressive Islam' label is a label which is descriptive, that is, it describes the condition of an object or phenomenon.

A car which can 'progress' is one which can move. When the car stops, it can not longer be said to 'progress'. In the same way, progressive Islam only 'progresses' when it is in a dynamic state and developing.

But it is not Islam - from the aspect of its basic ideas and fundamentals- that changes, because the question of beliefs does not arise at all. Leaders like Agus Salim and Syed Sheikh al-Hady did not question or were not uncertain about, much less reject or deny, basic Islamic ideas. They held firmly to the concept of tauhid (oneness of Allah), the pillars of their faith and the tenets of Islam.

What developed and changed was only the normative expression and ritual-social aspects of Islam, such as the manner Muslims can dress up, the way they carry out social activities, the approaches they have towards questions of their time.

Their ability and readiness to question and dismantle normative-social aspects of communal Islam was what made these leaders so progressive compared to their contemporaries.

The progressive Muslims and the Kaum Muda in Indonesia and Malaysia were those who started many initiatives like Muslim companies, modern madrasahs (Muslim religious schools), translation of Arabic books into local dialects and languages, fighting the cultural-Islamisation fight, and others.

It is not surprising that the changes resulted in social-political conflicts and antagonism. That is because - as I have mentioned in part two of this series - this pure discourse and vision of Islam was not something that those supporting the status quo were comfortable with.

The message of Islam, which stressed equality among human beings, social and economic justice, freedom of thought and speech, and others, certainly threatened the dominant position of the group in power.

Because an unfair political-social system can only be sustained by use of power (and sometimes harsh and despotic measures), any alternative idea system, which questions the epistemic and social-political order, is considered as dangerous.

If Prohet Mohammad himself was a cause for concern and suspicion, and was 'black sheeped' as a radical and revolutionary subversive element, then surely those who seek to revive the radicalism spirit of pure Islam will also be categorised as 'revolutionary' and 'radical'.

For that reason, leaders like Agus Salim, Tjokroaminoto and Syed Sheikh al-Hady, and the Kaum Muda, were rejected, ejected, isolated and even threatened by their enemies.

In the case of Malaysia, Syed al-Hady and Sheikh Tahir were deported by the Malay (state) governments and had to carry out their reform activities in Penang, Singapore and Malacca (which was under British patronage at that time).

Sheikh Tahir was also sacked from his Mufti (Islamic jurist) post and labeled as an enemy of Islam by the Sultan who had been influenced by old-fashioned Muslim scholars from the Kaum Tua group.

Enemies of Islam?

But who were truly the enemies of Islam? Those who wanted to bring about renewal, opening up minds which have been closed for so long? Or those who were hard-line right-wingers, who held on to obsolete orthodoxy and praxis, who still referred to yellowing texts, which were no longer relevant with current requirements?

At the time (during the 1920s and 30s), the leaders of progressive Islamic renewal were considered as 'wolves in sheep's clothing' and dangerous radical Islamic scholars. Even so, in our time, we are thankful to them because they blazed the path for Islamic reform and renovation which is now gaining in momentum.

Currently, the ideals and struggles of Agus Salim, Syed Sheikh al-Hady and the Kaum Muda leaders are being continued by the thinkers and activists of the Malay archipelago like Nurcholish Madjid, Abdurrahman Wahid, Amien Rais and also Hidayat Nurwahid in Indonesia, and Chandra Muzaffar and Osman Bakar in Malaysia.

But although we value the deeds and efforts of leaders like Agus Salim and Syed Sheikh al-Hady, we must still face the truth that the times have changes, and the realities of today - the age of the American hegemony and rise of American global power - are far more complicated, complex and dangerous

Globalisation and the global economic rebuilding process has brought unfortunate consequences and calamities to mankind around the world from the urban poor in Brazil to the rural oppressed in Bangladesh.

Can we start a progressive Islamic discourse and vision capable of withstanding the turmoil? Can we set up a universal Islamic discourse that can bridge the power, wealth and economic chasm that exists between the rich and the poor nations?

Can we build an Islamisation ideal, which incorporates anti-communitarianism, anti-racism and anti-discrimination as part of its overall struggle? That is the question that we will try to answer in part four of this series which follows.