How Local Is Islam Nusantara? Questions of Tolerance and Authenticity

Abstract

Especially over the last two and a half decades, Indonesian society has witnessed a deepening Islamisation, the impact of which is being felt in domains such as politics, education, morality, and private life. Linked to this development, a rise in religious intolerance and extremism has been noted. This process is often attributed to influences from transnational movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi-Wahhabism, which in turn is framed as an Arabisation of Islam and society in Indonesia. A pivotal reaction has been the launch and successful reinforcement of the concept of Islam Nusantara, a local Islam that is described as peaceful, moderate, and tolerant. Its unique Indonesian history, in which local culture and Islam have become intertwined, is said to have led to these characteristics. Despite its success, the concept has also met with scepticism. How valid is the binary Arabian Islam versus Islam Nusantara? Is it an authentic form of Islam? This article engages with these issues from a new angle by combining an assessment of Islam Nusantara’s claims to tolerance, its status as an authentic form of Islam, and how these issues relate to it being a local Islam.

1. Introduction

Religious tolerance is crucial to societal harmony. This truism is at the centre of much of the research dealing with matters of religious violence and extremism in the region of Southeast Asia.1 Topics such as these have been dominating much of the socio-political and academic agenda for the last three to four decades. The matter is a pertinent one, as can be gauged from the numerous publications that deal with religious tolerance and intolerance in Southeast Asia. The scope is broad, covering religions as disparate as Theravada Buddhism and Islam, and issues ranging from Buddhist extremism in Burma (Bertrand and Pelletier 2017) to non-liberal tolerance in Indonesia (Menchik 2016). This kind of research often revolves around questions concerning the religious origins of intolerance and tolerance. An interesting addition to this debate is the issue of Islam Nusantara. In 2015, the Indonesian Islamic organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU),2 took up the task of formulating an answer to the perceived surge in religious extremism and intolerance that had struck Indonesia and the world at large during the first decades of the new millennium. Upon its introduction, Islam Nusantara was presented by NU as a local Islam, which, thanks to its specifically local character, was more tolerant and more moderate than other local Islams. Such a position opened the floor to both critique and clarification. Topics of debate ranged from the question whether or not Islam Nusantara is a new religion–NU is adamant it is not–over whether or not Islam Nusantara contains unlawful additions, and thus is or is not authentic Islam–NU maintains it does not, and is authentic Islam–to whether or not Islam Nusantara as a model for religious tolerance can be exported to other parts of the world–NU believes it can. (For example, Murtaufiq 2018). As a result, over the last ten years, a voluminous body of scholarship has developed revolving around this concept of Islam Nusantara. This article focuses on two interrelated issues: tolerance and authenticity. The latter issue relates to the question, inherent to the theological discussion surrounding the launch of the concept by NU, of whether Islam Nusantara is properly Islamic. I will discuss it from the angle of its claim to being a local Islam. Does this label of local religion not undermine Islam Nusantara’s status as authentic Islam? Although there are several ways to go about this question, here I intend to provide an answer that relies on a reflection on tolerance, arguably the principal characteristic of Islam Nusantara. What precisely should be understood by the tolerance that Islam Nusantara promotes? Is it the liberal-secular understanding of tolerance, an Islamic interpretation of tolerance, or rather a local, Southeast Asian definition of tolerance? This article starts out with a short exposé on the concept of Islam Nusantara and its central characteristics, the context in which it was presented, and its principal purpose. Subsequently, it briefly discusses the matter of world religions versus local religions, in order to set the framework from which to approach the question of Islam Nusantara’s authenticity as Islam. Lastly, it moves to a brief reflection on tolerance in the context of Southeast Asia, and the kind of tolerance Islam Nusantara promotes. This will allow us to formulate a preliminary answer to the question of how local Islam Nusantara really is, and why this question and its answer are relevant to assessing Islam Nusantara’s claim to fame.

2. The Birth of Islam Nusantara

In the summer of 2015, during its 33rd congress in Jombang, East Java, Nahdlatul Ulama launched the concept of Islam Nusantara.3 This concept designates a local form of Islam that distinguishes itself from other forms of Islam (Lücking 2016, pp. 10–11; Murtaufiq 2018, p. 2). It does so in two interrelated ways. First, it is held to be tolerant towards other religions and traditions. Second, it is said to be a moderate form of Islam, meaning that it has no extremist inclinations. Thus, by virtue of this tolerance and moderation, Islam Nusantara stands in contrast to stricter, arguably fundamentalist forms of Islam. Moreover, Islam Nusantara is presented as an antidote to transnational movements such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Salafi-Wahhabi groups, which have been making inroads into Indonesia since at least the 1990s. These movements are often depicted as forces of Arabisation and as vehicles for importing religious conflict (Burhani 2018, pp. 5–6; Mandaville 2022; Solahudin 2013). In other words, they are regarded as foreign, more precisely as Arabian, forms of Islam that have a pernicious influence on Indonesian society. Moreover, as an Arabisation of Islam in Indonesia, they are regarded as a threat to Indonesia’s cultural and religious identity. Here, issues such as the use of the Arabic language, vestimentary requirements, or architectural considerations dominate the agenda (Lücking 2016; Slama 2008). Arabisation is also associated with extremist interpretations of Islam, which threaten the political makeup of the Indonesian nation-state. Here, the image of a nation-state founded on the principles of shari’ah or even the idea of a caliphate is pitted against that of a secular Indonesia rooted in the Pancasila ideology,4 an Indonesia that is open to religious plurality (Burhani 2018; Schmidt 2021, p. 240). Tendencies towards intolerance and extremism within Indonesian society are thus seen as of foreign origin and NU employs the concept of Islam Nusantara as an indigenous antidote for these developments (Woodward 2017, p. 182). Interestingly, while this form of Islam is held to be typically Indonesian, it is also thought of as a model for a tolerant and moderate Islam that can be exported across the globe (Luthfi 2016, p. 9). Ever since its introduction, NU has invested heavily in developing the theology to ground this new concept and to promote it as a blueprint for moderate and tolerant interpretations of Islam. In fact, this idea of Islam Nusantara as a standard for good Islamic behaviour, both nationally and internationally, was even adopted by the Joko Widodo administration (Burhani 2018, p. 23). Many proponents of Islam Nusantara regard the concept as embodying an Indonesian identity, both culturally and politically. Some scholars even go as far as arguing that Indonesia’s nationalism should be rooted in the idea of Islam Nusantara (Badrun 2019; Luthfi 2016, pp. 8–9). Such a position, to the extent that it represents the intermingling of Indonesian politics with religion, is also met with critique (Fealy 2018). This then is the background against which we will approach the interrelated issues of authenticity and tolerance.

3. Islam Nusantara as a Local Religion: The Question of Authenticity

As mentioned, NU defines Islam Nusantara as a local religion. (Murtaufiq 2018, p. 2) What should we understand by that? And how does that relate to the issue of authenticity? I propose to look at this issue from two angles. On the one hand, we should keep in mind that in the field of Religious Studies, local religions are set apart from world religions. On the other hand, we should consider what makes a local religion a local religion. Here we will touch upon the distinction between syncretism and assimilation.

First, local religions are usually understood in contradistinction to world religions. The idea of world religion was introduced towards the end of the nineteenth century within the then-burgeoning field of Religious Studies (Masuzawa 2005, pp. 107–9). A world religion is typically understood as a large, widespread, and transnational religion. Local religions, however, are typically understood to be indigenous; they are tied to a specific community, culture, or ethnicity. Early terms to designate local religions included folk religion and national religion (Landesreligion). World religions are usually held to have universalist pretensions: their message is for all of humankind. This message is often codified in a (sacred) scripture, the purity of which is safeguarded by some form of religious authority. That is, there is an inclination towards orthodoxy, and there is a need for religious institutions.5 These characteristics are typically said to be lacking when it comes to local religions: they do not have universalist pretensions, there is no tendency towards orthodoxy, and religious institutions are largely absent. Instead, we see that local religions, especially when it comes to local forms of world religions, are often described as being a mixture: either a mixture of different religions, or a mixture of religious and cultural practices and beliefs. The category of world religion minimally encompasses Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—typically referred to as the “Big Five.” These world religions are said to have spread across the world, meaning that their followers stem from many different ethnic, cultural, and national backgrounds. Local religions, however, are to be found in specific locations only. For example, Nat worship is to be found only in Burma, it does not travel.6 However, the distinction between world and local religion can at times be blurry. There are, perhaps overly simplified, two principal reasons for this. On the one hand, a world religion always localises itself. That is to say, it absorbs local practices and beliefs by bringing these in line with its central teachings. Due to this process of localisation, world religions are never just a world religion; they are always a localised version of a world religion. On the other hand, local religions are not static either. Due to processes such as globalisation, they meet with and absorb elements from world religions as well, making it difficult to say to what extent they are a local or world religion. With this in mind, we will consider in what sense Islam Nusantara can be considered a local religion. Should it be thought of as a local religion limited to one ethnicity, “unorthodox,” mixing practices and beliefs from different descent, and non-travelling? Or rather as a localised version of a world religion, one that has brought local practices in line with its central teachings? Establishing what kind of locality Islam Nusantara embodies will help us come to terms with the question of how local Islam Nusantara is.

Second, we should consider what makes a local religion a local religion. In other words, what makes the local religion unique, from where does it derive its specificity? In the case of Islam Nusantara, we are looking at a local religion that is a mixture of a world religion with other religious and/or cultural practices and beliefs. This mixture is typically held to be the result of either syncretism or assimilation. Over time, both terms have come to mean many different things, which is especially the case for syncretism.7 For the purpose of this article, I use these terms in a specific manner. By syncretism, I mean the claim that a local religion brings together practices and beliefs that actually do not go together, thereby implying that there is an inherent tension at the heart of the local religion. By assimilation, I mean the claim that a local religion brings together practices and beliefs in such a way that there is no inherent tension between them. In order to conceptualise the underlying dynamics of local religions, scholars typically refer to either of the two concepts. Here, I illustrate both stances by employing an example that is neutral to the discussion at hand, that of Burmese Buddhism. Burmese Buddhism is typically characterised as a local religion that is said to combine the doctrines and practices of the world religion (Theravada) Buddhism with, amongst others, the beliefs and rituals related to Nat worship. As, for example, Ho (2009) points out, utilising the concept of syncretism to explain the dynamics of this local religion implies the claim that (some of its) constituent beliefs and practices are contradictory. For example, certain scholars argue that in Burmese Buddhism, the belief in Nats and the rituals by which practitioners wish to placate these Nats run counter to the Buddhist principle of not feeding into one’s desires, as these are the root cause of suffering (Mendelson 1963, p. 105). The contradiction is supposed to reside in the fact that a pious Burmese Buddhist would, on the one hand, believe that they should devote their energies to tempering their desires, while, on the other hand, be engaged in practices that constitute the opposite to that belief: one placates Nats in order to obtain some future good, that is, to fulfil a certain desire. In short, by calling a local religion syncretic, one claims that it harbours incompatible beliefs and that this incompatibility is constitutive of this local religion. When it comes to assimilation, however, some scholars have argued that Burmese Buddhism actually bears no such contradictions. What has happened, so the argument goes, is that practices such as the veneration of Nats have been incorporated into a Buddhist cosmology, which makes a distinction between lokutarra, the supermundane world, and laukika, the mundane world. From this perspective, Buddhism’s doctrines are deemed relevant for the next life (lokutarra), while the practices and beliefs regarding the Nats are relevant for this life (laukika) (Walton 2017, p. 84). In this way, the latter practices have been brought in line with the central teachings of Buddhism, which resolves the above-described contradiction. I propose to look at Islam Nusantara from this perspective: either it is a local Islam by virtue of being a syncretic religion or it is so by being an Islam that has assimilated local practices and beliefs.

Islam Nusantara translates as Islam from the archipelago. In other words, within the narrative of NU, it is by definition a local religion. This means the following. First, the claim implies that this Islam is to be found only in a specific location, namely in Indonesia, and is to be distinguished from other local Islams, such as Middle Eastern Islam or African Islam. Second, this claim implies that there is something unique about this kind of Islam. After all, there is no point in differentiating Islam in Indonesia from Islam in other places in the world if there is not some distinguishing trait to it. As already discussed above, the uniqueness of Islam Nusantara is usually defined in two ways. On the one hand, its tolerance and its moderation: the NU narrative sets Islam Nusantara apart from other kinds of Islam for being tolerant of other religions, other Islamic sects, and of cultural plurality. Moreover, it is a moderate form of Islam, meaning that it is not extremist. On the other hand, the uniqueness is said to be the result of how Islam has blended with local culture, that is, with the many local cultures of Indonesia. More precisely, within the NU narrative, the locality of Islam Nusantara resides in this unique blend, which in turn is held to be responsible for the unique qualities of Islam Nusantara. In short, these two aspects of Islam Nusantara’s uniqueness are related in its locality: its tolerance and moderation are said to be the result of how Islam Nusantara blended Islam with local culture. Interestingly, each of these aspects comes with its particular set of theoretical problems. I will discuss both.

4. Blending and Authenticity

The idea of an Islam Nusantara consisting of a blending of Islam with local culture(s) has raised questions as to its authenticity. An important part of the debate surrounding the concept indeed focuses on this, as certain critics regard this blending as a blemish on Islam Nusantara’s Islamic credentials. A similar discussion with regard to blending and authenticity has been especially vibrant in the case of Javanese Islam. (Boogert 2015). Especially during the colonial period, the idea of a syncretic local religion bringing together Islam with local beliefs and customs, some of which are considered to be at odds with Islam, led to a conceptualisation of a local religion that is Islamic in name only. This conceptualisation met with critique, followed by a reconceptualisation along the lines of assimilation: Javanese Islam is typically understood as a localised world religion that has absorbed local practices and beliefs in such a way that they are in line with the central teachings of Islam. This debate has only to some extent been reproduced with regard to Islam Nusantara. Here, scholars rely on the same concepts to explain the dynamics that account for the blending. Semantics are of importance: different terms are employed to point out the dynamics that assimilation and syncretism intend to capture. Some authors speak about ambiguities when they appear to mean syncretism (Schäfer 2021, pp. 4–6). Others speak about, for example, synthesising or synergising, while leaving it unclear whether they mean assimilation or syncretism (Kasdi 2018, p. 301). Generally speaking, though, in the scholarly and theological debate surrounding Islam Nusantara, the idea of syncretism is considered to undermine Islamic authenticity, especially by its proponents, who are keen to establish or safeguard its truly Islamic character (Luthfi 2016, p. 7). Such authors regard syncretism as bid’ah, an unlawful addition or innovation, something that cannot be accepted within the framework of Islam and is thus considered a heresy. Despite the scholarly and societal consensus that Islam Nusantara is authentic Islam, an ambiguity regarding what the blending of local beliefs and practices with Islam really amounts to remains lingering in the background (Burhani 2018, p. 20).

The principal strategy scholars apply to alleviate suspicions of inauthenticity is to revert to the dominant narrative regarding the propagation of Islam in Indonesia. It relies heavily on the stories about the Wali Songo, the nine saints of Java who are credited with having converted Java to Islam (Kasdi 2018; Luthfi 2016; Qomar 2019). It is argued that these Wali Songo spread Islam in a way that was respectful to local customs and beliefs: these were left untouched as long as they did not impede on the teachings of Islam. More so, the Wali Songo would graft Islamic teachings onto local customs and practices in order to make the acceptance of and conversion to Islam easier for the Javanese (Murtaufiq 2018). Both strategies are presented as a form of tolerance. This, so the story goes, ensured a swift and peaceful transition to Islam in Java. A classical example is the tale of Sunan Kalijaga, one of the nine saints, who made use of Javanese wayang to propagate Islamic teachings. This manner of introducing Islam to the Nusantara region is said to account for the uniqueness of Islam Nusantara: it explains both why this religion is a blend and why it has a tolerant character.

However, this origin story of Islam Nusantara elicits a number of critical thoughts. To begin, what we know of the Wali Songo is very much a matter of (local) lore and myth (Rinkes 1996). Actually, there is very little factual information on the Wali Songo, let alone about their proselytisation strategy and theology. Additionally, we know for a fact that the spread of Islam in Java was not merely via peaceful means; it was also spread by means of military conquest (Pigeaud and Graaf 1976, pp. 8, 37–51). Therefore, the idea of a peaceful conversion to Islam should be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, the narrative of the Wali Songo focuses only on Java. Keeping in mind that most of the proponents of Islam Nusantara are somehow tied to NU, that NU originated in Java, and that it has its largest stronghold on that island, it is perhaps not unexpected that the narrative of Islam Nusantara’s origin story is tilted towards the Javanese experience. However, Islam Nusantara cannot simply be equated to Javanese Islam. For example, the history of Islam in Sumatra, especially in the North, is quite different from the history of Islam in Java or Sulawesi. In short, the “evidence” related to the da’wah by the Wali Songo reflects the Javanese experience at best but certainly not that of the entire archipelago and for that reason should be treated with considerable reservation. Lastly, while this narrative offers an explanation for Islam Nusantara’s tolerant character, it is important to note that its respect for local beliefs and customs only extends to those that were not held to be in conflict with the teachings of Islam. Those that were, would not be tolerated; they would be rooted out. This means that there are limits to this respect and tolerance of Islam Nusantara and, as I will discuss below, these limits are set from within an Islamic theological framework. This observation will offer us an opportunity to reflect on the kind of tolerance Islam Nusantara stands for, which in turn sheds light on the issue of how local Islam Nusantara actually is.

5. The Question of Tolerance

“… the Javans in general, while they believe in one supreme God, and that Muhammad was his Prophet, and observe some of the outward forms of the worship and observances, are little acquainted with the doctrines of that religion, and are the least bigoted of its followers.”

(Raffles [1817] 1830, vol. 2, p. 2)

Even though this quote from Raffles is almost two hundred years old and focuses on Java, it illustrates the issue at stake in relating the authenticity of a local Islam to the characteristic of tolerance. We only need to replace “Javans” with “Indonesians.” If Islam Nusantara is such a tolerant form of Islam, does that mean it still is an authentic form of Islam? Differently put, being a blend of Islam and of Nusantara’s local cultural or religious practices and beliefs, what is the origin of Islam Nusantara’s tolerance? Does it stem from Islam, or does it stem from Nusantara? The literature on Islam Nusantara pays a lot of attention to its potential for tolerance. However, it seems to neglect the question as to the provenance of this tolerance and its relation to Islam Nusantara’s status as a local religion. A notable exception is Saskia Schäfer, who maintains that the tolerance that Islam Nusantara stands for actually refers to the thousand-year-old practice of plurality and the ideals of plurality that are typical for Islamicate societies in general (Schäfer 2021, pp. 1, 13). From this perspective, this tolerance is not unique to Indonesia, but is in fact common across the Islams of Southeast Asia and beyond. Moreover, she argues that in order for Islam Nusantara to live up to its ambitions of exporting its model for a moderate and tolerant Islam, it should acknowledge this shared character rather than holding on to its claims of uniqueness. This stance seems to take away from Islam Nusantara’s self-definition as a local religion. After all, its distinguishing trait is not unique to this local form of Islam. In the remainder of this article, I will engage with Schäfer’s suggestion and in the process, I hope to offer a preliminary answer to the questions regarding Islam Nusantara’s authenticity as an Islam and to its self-definition as a local religion.

The discussion on Islam Nusantara’s tolerance is a delicate one. After all, the claim to some unique model of tolerance suggests that this local form of Islam differentiates itself from other local Islams precisely on that basis. This seems to imply that these other Islams, both local and translocal variants, are not as tolerant. Indeed, as mentioned above, quite a few scholars have pitted Islam Nusantara against Arabian Islam. One of the issues here is that the term Arabian Islam lacks clear reference. Does it only refer to movements such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Salafi-Wahhabi sects? Or does it actually mean to pick out all forms of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula? In short, the dichotomy between an Arabian Islam with a penchant for intolerance and extremism and an Indonesian Islam that is essentially peaceful and inclusive is inherently problematic. Similarly, if the uniqueness of Islam Nusantara is its tolerance originating from being a particular blend of Islam with local beliefs and customs, then what does such a claim imply with regard to the tolerance of Islam in general? If other forms of Islam do not feature this unique Indonesian blend, can they still lay claims to tolerance? Clearly, this line of reasoning leads one into an array of conceptual and moral quandaries. One way to deal with these issues is to consider how Islam Nusantara’s tolerance is tied to its status as an authentic Islam. This matter can be formulated as follows. Where does the tolerance of Islam Nusantara, the basis upon which this local Islam is set apart from other forms of Islams originate from? Either the tolerance that makes Islam Nusantara unique is tied to its locality, in which case it finds its origin in the cultures of Nusantara, or the tolerance that defines Islam Nusantara is actually rooted in Islam. The first option undermines its status as an authentic Islam. After all, the defining characteristic of Islam Nusantara would not be of Islamic origin. In the second case, the authenticity of Islam Nusantara would be beyond reproach. However, its unique feature would no longer be so unique–it would in fact be potentially inherent to all forms of Islam. Consequently, it would no longer buttress Islam Nusantara’s status as a unique local form of Islam.

In the following paragraphs, I briefly investigate three different meanings of tolerance in the context of the debate on Islam Nusantara. I distinguish between a Southeast Asian tolerance defined as an indifference to religious differences; toleration, being the liberal-secular understanding of tolerance; and tasamuh, which is tolerance as an Islamic value. I will subsequently move to assess which of these three is the tolerance Islam Nusantara stands for. The answer to this question sheds light on its status as authentic and as a local Islam.

6. “Tolerance” in a Southeast Asian Context: Indifference to Religious Difference

The region we know today as Southeast Asia has for centuries been home to an immense social, religious, and cultural variety. Looking at its history, we can discern the unfolding of migration patterns, the expansion and recession of trade routes, the rise and fall of kingdoms and empires. These currents brought different cultural and social groups into contact with each other. However, even though this huge variety must have come with societal problems and conflicts, we see little to no testimony of religious conflict. In fact, at the dawn of the colonial era, Western observers were struck with the religious tolerance they encountered (Andaya and Ishii 1993, p. 545). For these Europeans, for whom the experience of the Religious Wars was still fresh in their memory, Southeast Asia appeared to be devoid of religious intolerance. More so, they noticed a striking indifference towards religious differences. This indifference can be gauged from observations such as the one by the Scottish sea captain Alexander Hamilton upon his visit to Pegu, a port city in what is currently called Myanmar: “They hold all religions to be good that teach Men to be good, and that the Deities are pleased with Variety of Worship…” (Hamilton [1727] 1739, vol. II, p. 55). In other words, the inhabitants of Pegu display an indifference towards which deity or god one worships, or to which religion one belongs, as long as it teaches its practitioners to be good. The history of Southeast Asia knows of many examples of such indifference to religious differences. For example, absolutist Burmese kings such as Anawrahta (r. 1044–1077) and Bodawpaya (r. 1782–1819) were, on the one hand, staunch Buddhists, while, on the other hand, patronised Brahmin priests at court (Cady [1958] 1960, pp. 5, 8, 9). The Burmese King Mindon (r. 1853–1878), again a devout Buddhist, built churches and a Christian missionary school, made donations for the construction of mosques, and even built a hostel in Mecca for Burmese hajjis (Yegar 1972, pp. 1–17, 26–27). Both in pre-Islamic and Islamic Java, we see similar patterns. The fourteenth-century Majapahit court, the last pre-Muslim empire in Java, had quarters for Brahmanic, Buddhist, and Shivaist ritualists (MacLaine Pont 1925). The Mataram Sultanate, which existed from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century and was the first Islamic kingdom in Java, mixed Islamic and Hindu-Javanese elements both in its political system and in its cultural practices (Ricklefs 2006, p. 36). Examples such as these, I propose, are indicative of an indifference to religious difference. Perhaps this is indeed the tolerance Schäfer refers to, because it was also to be found in the Islamicate society of nineteenth-century Java: in a conversation on the Bible and the Qur’an with Baron Van Hoëvell, the Sultan of Sumenep, Panembahan Notokosumo says the following: “Oh, my dear sir, I understand both as two different paths which will bring us, if we but travel them respectfully and properly, to the same destination” (Van Hoëvell 1849, p. 91 in Laffan 2011, pp. 105–6). Phenomena such as these, often associated with religious syncretism, are only possible if the practitioners are indifferent to religious differences.8 With regard to Java and arguably with Indonesia at large, the source of this indifference to religious differences is not to be located in Islam, but rather in local culture. In the words of Clifford Geertz: “This syncretism, this easy tolerance of religious and ideological diversity is, as I have repeatedly stressed, a fundamental characteristic of Javanese culture…” (Geertz [1960] 1964, p. 379). In short, tolerance in the context of Islam Nusantara could refer to this indifference to religious differences. However, the source of this kind of societal harmony appears not to be Islamic, but rather something that is present in the different cultures across Southeast Asia. Moreover, its association with syncretism would seriously undermine Islam Nusantara’s status as authentic Islam.

The two other candidates for the kind of tolerance Islam Nusantara promotes are toleration and tasamuh. They share the property of not being indifferent to religious differences. However, while toleration is associated with liberal secularism, tasamuh is very much a religious value. I will briefly discuss both consecutively.

7. Liberal Secular Toleration

Toleration is a central value in contemporary political thought across the globe. Many constitutions of Southeast Asian states subscribe to the idea that religion is a private affair and that everyone has the freedom to choose and practice one’s religion. This does not take away from the fact that toleration, as a political principle, first came to prominence in the West during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when it became a cornerstone of liberal secularism (Cohen 2004; Pike 2007). This principle involves the relegation of religion to the private sphere, while keeping the public sphere neutral. In contemporary political philosophy, toleration is regarded as the chief mechanism by which to achieve harmonious pluralism in societies. In its strictest sense, though, toleration is to be defined as bearing the unbearable, which means that it involves enduring a practice or belief one actually judges negatively. For example, one might find a certain religion to be false or a certain religious practice to be reprehensible, but still one endorses the right of its adherents to practice it. Thus, tolerance involves the dual principle of rejection and forbearance.9 Therefore, toleration as a mechanism to establish societal harmony is not rooted in indifference to religious differences. Moreover, the liberal secular idea of tolerance is of Western intellectual descent and as such is foreign to the Southeast Asian region. Since it only arrived there during the colonial period, it is unlikely that this is the tolerance Schäfer refers to, the tolerance that has characterised Southeast Asian Islamicate societies for such a long period of time. After all, it was only imported into Indonesia during the colonial period, while the presence of Islam Nusantara precedes the arrival of Western colonial powers. For these reasons, if this were the tolerance Islam Nusantara stands for, then surely it would undercut its claims to being a local, specifically Indonesian, form of Islam.

8. The Islamic Value of Tasamuh: Religious Differences Matter

The last notion of tolerance to be discussed, that of tasamuh, is fully embedded in Islamic theology and means as much as leniency, forbearance, and indulgence (Ghani and Awang 2020, p. 16). Since Islam is a religion of mercy (deen al-rahman), it urges its adherents to be tolerant and forgiving towards others. This implies an attitude of respect, of allowing other people to carry out everything with regard to their religious affairs as long as these do not interfere with the interests of others (Mukaromah 2022, p. 47). From an Islamic theological perspective, it can be argued that tolerance is a basic principle or a religious moral duty. After all, the Qur’an states that “there is no compulsion in religion.” (Al–Baqarah 2:256 in Muthaliff et al. 2016, p. 52). After all, since God could have created all humans as believers, but in fact did not, one should not try to force the true belief on people. Instead, accepting the message of the Prophet should be done on the basis of logic (Nafisi 2018, p. 5). Moreover, Islam prohibits all forms of aggression and violence against others, except in the case of self-defence. In short, this form of tolerance is a matter of belief and theology.

Nevertheless, tasamuh or Islamic tolerance does not imply that all religions are considered the same. After all, Islam is held to be superior to other religions and, in fact, should be propagated (Muthaliff et al. 2016, pp. 53, 60; cf. Ghani and Awang 2020, p. 17). In the end, the Qur’an calls upon all people to have “faith in its Lord and Creator and [urges them] to submit to His Will” (Muthaliff et al. 2016, p. 60). Therefore, this Islamic tolerance is not indifferent towards religious differences. In the end, Islam is regarded as the one true faith. Furthermore, there are limits to the tolerance that is tasamuh. First, Muslims should not tolerate when Islam or Muslims are not being tolerated. Second, Islamic religious rites combined with other religious rites, or the worship of Allah combined with those of other gods cannot be tolerated either (Ghani and Awang 2020, p. 19). In short, tasamuh does not imply indifference to religious differences. After all, being indifferent towards wrong beliefs and misbehaviours is taken to be a confirmation of them in some sense (Nafisi 2018, p. 2). If this is the tolerance Islam Nusantara stands for, then it surely safeguards its status as an authentic Islam, as tasamuh is securely rooted in Islamic theology. However, this also undercuts Islam Nusantara’s claims to uniqueness. After all, its distinguishing trait would then not derive from its local specificity but rather from Islamic theology, which it in principle shares with Islam in general and potentially with other local interpretations of Islam.

9. The Tolerance of Islam Nusantara

Tying the question of Islam Nusantara’s tolerance to the question of its authenticity as an Islam provides a new angle on both matters. The kind of tolerance Islam Nusantara stands for says something about its authenticity as a local form of Islam. In the above sections, I have offered three possible ways to conceptualise the tolerance of Islam Nusantara. A brief perusal of the relevant literature suffices to determine which of the three forms that is.

For example, Abdurrohman Kasdi (2018) and Mujamil Qomar (2019), relying on the work of scholars such as Lukman Hakim Saifuddin, Abd A’la, and Ahmad Baso, argue that Islam Nusantara’s high degree of local specificity, as instanced in the many practices which are not found in other Muslim countries, is an expression of its tolerance. This tolerance, which they refer to as tasamuh, in turn relies on the Qawaid Fiqhiyyah, the legal maxims of Islamic jurisprudence. These, they argue, acknowledge the dialectics between Islam and local culture. In particular, the maxim al-’adah muhakkamah is relevant in this regard. It holds, depending on the formulation, that custom can be the basis of judgement. Differently put, custom can be made into law, or custom can be enacted syari’ah. It means that elements of local culture can be used as a source of law, on the condition that these do not run counter to the principles of Islam. In ushul fiqh, the sources and method of Islamic jurisprudence, ‘urf, being local customs and habits, and adat, being traditions, can become the basis of judgement, or enacted syari’ah. (Kasdi 2018, pp. 303–4). The observation that Islam Nusantara’s distinguishing trait is in fact tasamuh, and that it is founded on Islamic jurisprudence, is relevant for two reasons. On the one hand, it settles the issue of its authenticity as an Islam. At this point, it should be clear that the distinguishing trait of Islam Nusantara is derived from Islam and not from the cultural practices or beliefs it might have assimilated. The tolerance Islam Nusantara stands for is an Islamic tolerance, namely tasamuh. The principles that have encouraged this tolerance to come to prominence are deeply embedded in the ushul fiqh of the Shafi’i school. This means that, if we are to measure it by the tolerance it propagates, Islam Nusantara is indeed an authentic form of Islam. This also means that there are limits to Islam Nusantara’s local specificity and tolerance, and these limits are defined from within Islamic jurisprudence. Islam Nusantara is only tolerant towards those practices and beliefs that do not run counter to the central principles of Islam. On the other hand, it also tells us something about how local Islam Nusantara is. In its jurisprudence, Islam Nusantara follows the fiqh tradition of the Shafi’i school of law. In addition, in Southeast Asia, this school of law is being practised in many parts of the Middle East, the Levant, and Yemen. In other words, there are local Arabian and Middle Eastern interpretations of Islam that practice ushul fiqh from the same school of law as Islam Nusantara. In fact, the principle of tasamuh is not the prerogative of Islam Nusantara alone, as can be gauged from, for example, Akram Abdul Cader’s publication on Islamic forms of intercultural mediation (Cader 2022). Therefore, if measured by its distinguishing trait of tolerance, Islam Nusantara is not as local as NU would have us believe. After all, it is not promoting the kind of tolerance typical for the Southeast Asian regions which could set it apart from other local Islams. Rather, Islam Nusantara shares its distinguishing characteristic with other local Islams around the world. From the perspective of tasamuh and the ushul fiqh behind it, Islam Nusantara derives its tolerance from being Islam rather than from being a local form of Islam, in the sense of blending Islam with local beliefs and practices.

10. Conclusions

Since Islam Nusantara draws its notion of tolerance from Islamic theology, it is hard to argue that in this specific respect it should be called a local Islam in the sense of limited to one ethnicity, unorthodox, a mixture, and non-travelling. After all, its central characteristic and its claim to uniqueness appear to have very little to do with the local form it has taken, if this local form is seen as being the result of blending Islam with local customs and beliefs. Quite to the contrary, its notion of tolerance, tasamuh, is comfortably embedded in an Islamic theology that is not exclusive to the Indonesian experience. Differently put, if tolerance is what sets Islam Nusantara apart from Islam in general or other local forms of Islam, and if tasamuh is the kind of tolerance Islam Nusantara stands for, then it is difficult to see what is particularly Nusantara about it. This appears to dovetail with Schäfer’s position that the acceptance and inclusiveness Islam Nusantara prides itself on is not particular to the Indonesian Archipelago. Moreover, it is not the particular kind of tolerance–the indifference to religious differences–that appears to be indigenous to the broader Southeast Asian region. If Islam Nusantara insists on its dual claims to being a local Islam and being tolerant because of being a local Islam, then it would actually make more sense to lay claims to the Southeast Asian kind of tolerance. However, such an insistence would make it vulnerable to charges of inauthenticity. In that sense, this analysis has come full circle: Islam Nusantara is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If it wishes to hold on to its claim to a unique access to tolerance which it has obtained by blending Islam with local customs, it runs the danger of being a less authentic form of Islam. If it insists on being an authentic form of Islam by founding its tolerance in Islamic theology, then its claims to local uniqueness lose some of their credibility.