by Amhar Rasyid
Jambi, Febr 27th, 2026
There was a Studium Generale at Universitas Negeri Makassar delivered by Mr. Islah Bahrawi (Executive Director of Jaringan Moderat Indonesia/a NU’s Intellectual) where he spoke about Islam and Anti-Radicalism(@Nagara TV). I just here reiterate the lecture as seen from YouTube to inspire more widely young Muslim intellectuals who are fortunately spending their time to read my article. His main thesis was that Islam never fully developed when it is/was/has been engaged in political issues. Rather, it was rather successful in the domain of knowledge. This is one thing that must be reaccentuated in the contemporary Muslim life he said. My question is that will it be sufficient to argue the Islamic political failure just from one angle? The following discussion will try to reinstate his thesis and give some explanations to the extent that it will corroborate my argument. Systematically the discussion will be firstly, his background, secondly early Muslim’s achievements. Thirdly Islamic political pamphlets and agitations and finally conclusion and significance of issue.
Firstly, his background. Mr. Bahrawi said that his nick name “Gus’ is not appropriate, since only was his grandpa a great Muslim ulama (Kiyai) but not his biological father. He himself experienced a homeless, destitute and drifted person particularly in New York prior to enter the university because of the mismanagement of the home country’s agent which sent him studying abroad. Being a homeless, Mr. Bahrawi confessedly in order to survive he ever consumed, he said, waste food and even baby pork crip, etc thrown off into the dumpster in the back of New York restaurants. A truly grief experience for a grand-son of great Kyai of NU but unfortunately in such situations he did not state about practicing his 5 times daily praying.
Secondly, the success of early Muslim intellectuals. To support his arguments Mr. Bahrawi made some proofs. One is the Prolegomena of Ibn Khaldun, he said, had inspired the ideas of economy and modern democracy of Adam Smith, John Maynard (Keynes probably), and John Lock. Two is the controversial books of both Tahafut al-Falasifah by al-Ghazali and the Tahafut al-Tahafut by Averroes had also inspired the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas he said. Three is the classical book al-Mujalasah wa Jawahir l-‘Ilm by Abou Bakr Ahmad ad-Dinawari did the same to Verfassungspatriotrismus by Jurgen Habermas and (Don Stenberger I think) he stated clearly. All the classical Islamic books above, claimed Bahrawi, are sufficient to say that Islam could be successful in the domain of knowledge from where the modern civilization subsequently flourished.
Thirdly, the failure of Muslim world is certainly due to its own political ‘libido’ (in my word). Mr. Bahrawi put herewith some examples. First, every Muslim expansion to Europe, he said, never leaves memorable traces even the Umayyad, the Abbasid as well as the Turks when they were invading Constantinople. In modern time, the Saudi Monarchy he continues also took the same path by politicizing the very credo of Islam saying that he who are not adhere to such teachings will go into the Hell. It is from here then Sayyid Quthb wrote his book titled Ma’alim fi l-Thariq which Mr. Bahrawi underscores as the very misleading book of political Islamic agitations. Since the many political terminologies he uses in the book are of foreign influences said Bahrawi. For example the term Ahl al-Hal wa l-‘Aqd is of the Roman’s Concilium Plebis. Next the term Khilafah itself is of the Roman Respublica Romano, and finally the term Mamlakah is also of the Roman’s Monarchy Absolutu he explained them all enthusiastically to the students. Thus every political Muslim ambitions is groundless. The problem then is that several political Muslim organizations, like Hizbut Tahrir he said, make people believe that the term ‘Khilafah’ is said to be originally of the God. This is the point which was repudiated blatantly by Mr. Bahrawi.
Finally I may conclude that Mr. Bahrawi’s Studium Generale was successful to some extent. By making diachronic comparison between the achievements of the classical Muslim intellectuals and the everlasting failure of Muslim political ‘libido’, he could inspire the young generations in campus to avoid every political agitation and prefer to anti-radicalism instead. Considering the fact that Makassar was the centre of Kahar Muzakkar’s Muslim separatist political headquarter, the Studium Generale by Mr. Bahrawi is deserved to be credited to, especially not to forget to mention that the man who brought him to the campus was Mr. Akbar Faisal (the native). Unfortunately, Mr. Bahrawi did not explore further his thesis to the current domestic political activities by NU. I think it would be better for him to assign to certain issues which would be very significant by the young students to make some practical references and do certain steps. His lecture undoubtedly was meaningful to minimize the political Islamism, but conversely it could generate the students’ curiosity to read the aforementioned political books particularly that of Sayyed Quthb. Thus his lecture was still half ‘On the Sky’ and as yet not retrieve academically the ideological guidelines of Cak Nur’s ‘Islam Yes, Partai Islam No’. It is mine, what is about yours?
