The role of the ulama among tradition and modernity

Ulama and movement of the pace of world change is a topic that is so complex when discussed, and discussed. Often the debate over the topic leads to perceptions that tend to discredit the ulama as a conservative group. Because the scholars who are defensive in dealing with modernization, are often labeled old -fashioned on the basis of assumptions, that he rejects the pace of complete change.

In fact, on the other hand there are and maybe many scholars are more inclusive to modernization by devoting some of their progressive thoughts, to rearrange religious texts, to remain in harmony with space and time, at this time and here.

Apart from the existence of scholars with progressive thinking, conservative scholars are often considered as a stumbling block that often hampering the movement of global change, in other words they are unable to adjust to changes and the needs of real times. Because, modernization is often assumed as a factor that makes “degradation of religion into the personal domain”. Of course this results in the decline in the role of religion in the public domain (Abdalla, 2022).

As a consequence of this assumption, religion is widely deemed unable to reach modern ideals, especially this has been conveyed by the father of world sociology, Max Weber stated that Islamic law has no reasons and systematization, and is not sufficiently developed (Fauzi, 2025).

Before talking too far to discuss the ulama in the view of Western scholars and those who always echo modernization, it seems important for us to express the view of Muhammad Qasim Timian, one of the scholars who examined the study of the role of ulama with a more careful study. As a place quoted by Ulil Abshar Abdalla in Scholars and Social Change: Fighting or making peace with “New Times”? (2022), according to time, “Ulama are not as those who always fight and reject modernity, but they are the bodyguards of change.”

Thus, it is illustrated to us that the scholars who are conservative, in fact are not that school, which are always considered by them “not adjusting the needs of the times”, but they can accept changes that are urged by modernity, with the condition that these changes do not come out of the control line of religious teachings.

In our tradition, here is often expressed by Adagium “Al-Muhafadzatu ‘Alal Qodimis Shoolih, Wal Akhdu Bil So Ashlah Maintain good traditions, and take better new things. This is proof that our scholars are not completely anti-modernization, it’s just more careful in maintaining traditions that have been proven to be good.

Contextualization to reach a religious ideal

As proof that the scholars not only express the adagium as embedded above, they do not always take from Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), but they also agree on other ways of dealing with dilemma problems, and have never been formulated by previous Muslim scholars. The first way we know as fiqh Coolie (taking the opinion of the previous ulama textually), the second, popularly called fiqh Manhaji (Exploring answers through the methodology of previous scholars). That is, they are no longer focused on formalis-textualis, but rather openly-rationalist.

Furthermore, the scholars, to reach a religious ideals, always try to use a more inclusive and progressive approach to a science, especially in the dynamic legal context. Such as the approach method conveyed by KH Husein Muhammad in Understand the ideals of religious texts (2024), he presented several approaches that Muslims need to take.

First, Rational Approach. According to him, the previous Muslim scholars made this approach as something that could not be liable, even into something that was very decisive. As a result, according to him, to understand the texts of diversity must always be accompanied by the spirit of rationality.

Second, Empirical Approach. This approach is to enter a reality is an entity that cannot be denied, as Fakhruddin Ar-Razi said prominent Islamic scholar, that the truth of the text must be empirical evidence.

Third, Analyzing the source of religious authority with three analytical knives, namely the context of language (linguistics), Social history and cultural approach. This approach gives birth to a logical consequence that a scientific decision cannot be born in a vacuum. So it is necessary to reinterpret in different tempus and locus, to make it always relevant.

Fourth, Muslims must be open to scientific products from other circles. Because according to him the exclusive attitude is not in harmony with the character of knowledge that is open to anyone and anywhere.

With the ideas related to the scientific approach submitted above, it can be said to be in harmony with what Muhammad Qosim said, that the scholars did not always fight for the presence of the pace of social change, but they occupied as bodyguards of change who were always careful in maintaining tradition, and continued to strive to harmonize religious teachings with the needs of modern times.

As quoted by Gus Ulil (2022) from Jeffrey Stout, a professor of religious study expert from Princeton University: “There is no category that requires more careful treatment today than tradition and modernity”, There is no category that requires more careful handling lately than tradition and modernity.

Between tradition and modernity must always be accompanied by caution, because in reality what has become the tradition of generation to generation, has been proven effective in maintaining social solidarity. While new changes that are sparkling, effectiveness and efficacy are not necessarily proven. It is precisely this caution as the consistency of the scholars to carry out their role as bodyguards of modernity. That’s all.

Also read: The last time, follow scholars who have high specialization

---

Author: Muhammad Asyrofudin

Editor: Muh. Sutan