However, studying the history of the Muhammadiyah movement, one discovers that, since its establishment in 1912, several labels have been put on the organization to characterize it, labels varying from a 'modernist' movement to, quite recently, an 'Islamis,' and 'a large, well-organized Islamic fundamentalist movement.' Would people still prefer the Muhammadiyah movement, if it was called a Muslim fundamentalist movement, to a Mslim traditionalist organization? They associate probably Muslim modernism in some way or another with Western modernism. Apparently, regarding the future of Indonesia, they have higher hopes for Muslim modernism than they have for Muslim traditionalism. In conversations about the contemporary political situation in Indonesia, I have noticed that, unconsciously, most Western people seem to prefer the modernist Muslim organization to the traditionalist one. Sometimes, it was added that the Muhammadiyah movement was outnumbered only by the thirty-five million members of the Nahdlatul Ulama, which was invariably called a traditionalist Muslim organization. The Muhammadiyah was called a modernist movement and its members were numbered around twenty million, making it a potentially powerful force which had to be taken into account by the main figures in the struggle for power. In the Western news coverage of the events, two aspects were always emphasized. Throughout the turbulent times surrounding Suharto's stepping down as President of Indonesia in May 1998, the Muhammadiyah movement was often mentioned thanks to the actions of its then chairman, Amien Rais (b. Assen, the Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum. Religious identity and the invention of tradition.

'The Borderline between Muslim Fundamentalism and Muslim Modernism: An Indonesian Example.' in Anton Houtepen and Jan Willem van Henten. Beck (Tilburg Faculty of Theology)īeck, Herman L.

Ciri akhlak pelajar muhammadiyah