Photo from kaderhijaumu.id
Muhammadiyah has a tradition of progressive thinking within its own ranks.
One example is the Young Muhammadiyah Intellectual Network (JIMM), a group of young activists within Muhammadiyah who made headlines in the 2000s with their call for intellectual renewal and reform of Muhammadiyah, opposing conservatives in the organisation’s leadership.
This tradition is not new. Since its establishment in 1912, there have been progressive leaders and intellectuals who have sought to challenge the religious orthodoxy, embrace social justice, and compete with more conservative and state-aligned factions within the group.
Now, the latest debate within Muhammadiyah over its decision to accept a mining concession from the Prabowo Subianto government has led to the ascent of new progressive elements within the organisation.
Unlike JIMM activists, these new progressives advocate social and environmental justice and are heavily critical of Muhammadiyah’s venture into mining.
The ‘green’ environmentalists
One prominent progressive group within Muhammadiyah, ‘Muhammadiyah Green Cadres’ (KHM, Kader Hijau Muhammadiyah), advocates an Islamic vision of environmental justice.
Its Manifesto mentions the rising number of agrarian conflicts and environmental destruction caused by mining industries, and calls on Muhammadiyah to ‘ This group laid the foundation for a new environmentalism within Muhammadiyah, particularly through its involvement in environmental advocacy across the country.
It was therefore not surprising that members of the group have been very critical of Muhammadiyah’s decision to engage in mining activities.
David Efendi, a leading KHM activist who now serves as secretary of Muhammadiyah’s Public Policy Department (Lembaga Hikmah dan Kebijakan Publik/LHKP), argues that coal mining has resulted in ‘human casualties and the destruction of their future’. His argument echoes the call of veteran Muhammadiyah leader Busyro Muqoddas, who has urged Muhammadiyah to carefully reconsider its mining venture in light of its negative environmental, social, and even legal implications.
Another KHM activist, Parid Ridwanuddin, also from LHKP, considers coal mining to be ‘regression’ (kemunduran), in contrast to Muhammadiyah’s ideology of progress (berkemajuan). This is because coal mining only brings benefits for a handful of people, creating environmental destruction and making Muhammadiyah part of the oligarchy.
Hening Parlan, the Deputy Chair of Aisyiyah Disaster Management Agency and an active member of the KHM network, has also questioned Muhammadiyah’s decision to accept the mining concession. She asked whether Muhammadiyah’s leaders had ever visited a mining site, seen a mining pit, or spoken to parents whose children had fallen into one before accepting the mining concession from the government. For Hening, these dangers have made it difficult for Muhammadiyah to claim its mining activities would benefit the people.
Young Tarjih progressives
The mining controversy also led to the rise of young Muhammadiyah scholars who have actively engaged in a theological debate about coal mining.
In 2024, veteran liberal Liberal Islam Network (JIL, jaringan Islam Liberal) activist and Nahdlatul UIama leader Ulil Abshar Abdalla defended NU’s mining concession in an article published by Kompas daily. In the article, he accused those opposed to coal mining of being driven by ideological sentiments rather than a sound Islamic legal thinking (fiqh).
Niki Alma Febriana Fauzi, a lecturer at Ahmad Dahlan University in Yogyakarta and a member of the Majelis Tarjih, Muhammadiyah’s peak religious body, has challenged Ulil’s argument. He has criticised him for failing to consider that fiqh is underpinned by a broader ethical foundation and moral compass, involving an obligation to protect not only humanity and religion but also nature.
He contends that fiqh is not simply a matter of what is good or bad for societies (maslahat and mafsadat). Drawing on Muhammadiyah’s approach to fiqh as developed by the Majelis Tarjih, he argues that the question of coal mining should be connected to the broader ethical and ideological considerations that serve the purpose of Islamic Law.
Coal mining, he says, can be challenged on scientific grounds. Scientific evidence has shown the negative environmental effects of the mining industry. Thus, Muhammadiyah should have rejected the government’s offer of a mining concession. Like Hening, Niki Alma advocates a just energy transition from dirty fossil fuels toward a more environmentally friendly energy source.
This type of debate has also occurred internally between these young Muhammadiyah intellectuals and Muhammadiyah Chairman Haedar Nashir. Writing in the printed edition of Suara Muhammadiyah, the organisation’s mouthpiece, Haedar argued that the opponents of mining concessions held an a priori consideration of mining as a harmful activity. This thinking, he said, led to subjective beliefs that prevented them from rationally considering the benefits of mining.
Alda Yudha, a young Muhammadiyah scholar currently studying in Germany, rejected Haedar’s argument, saying that it failed to account for the sheer volume of evidence showing the negative social and environmental impacts of mining. Alda cited that various segments within Muhammadiyah has recommended rejection or at least raised concerns over mining concessions, including from Majelis Tarjih, Department of Law and Human Rights, and even from Muhammadiyah branches across Indonesia who were adversely affected by mining practices.
What Muhammadiyah should do is to review the debate over the impacts of mining concession and to consider ‘what Muhammadiyah can and cannot do’. Alda said. Returning the mining concession to the government for social, environmental, and political considerations, he added, would be perfectly in line with Muhammadiyah’s role of giving religious guidance.
Shifting progressivism?
The debate over mining concessions shows new contours of Muhammadiyah’s new progressives. These intellectuals challenge Muhammadiyah’s increasing alignment with the ruling elites and question the integrity of their normative commitments to social and environmental justice.
Their intellectual orientation is more environmentally and socially progressive than that of the old JIMM intellectuals from the 2000s, who have been more focused on campaigning for a renewal of Islamic thought and countering rising Islamic conservatism, despite their claim that social justice is a critical element of their progressivism.
It is ironic that JIMM members, once considered the standard-bearers of Muhammadiyah’s progressive tradition, have been largely silent in the mining debate. Compared to KHM activists or younger Tarjih intellectuals, JIMM activists have clearly been less critical of Muhammadiyah’s decision to engage in mining activities, which may indicate their conservative stance on this critical issue.
The rise of green and environmentally conscious intellectuals has made JIMM’s call for religious liberalisation increasingly outdated, especially as some of its leading members have now entered the higher ranks of Muhammadiyah
With Muhammadiyah now occupying a strategic position within the government, these new progressive intellectuals may shape the organisation’s future. Opposition to Muhammadiyah’s close relations with Prabowo’s administration will come from younger intellectuals, who hold critical views of his authoritarian regime.
Their new dynamism could well determine the face – and fate – of Muhammadiyah in the coming decades.
