Indonesian Ulama between state moderation and doctrinal limits
The Indonesian Ulama Council (Majelis Ulama Indonesia or MUI), an umbrella group for most of the nation’s Muslims, sustains its authority not by choosing between doctrinal exclusivism and state-sponsored moderation, but by navigating between them, argue Erni Budiwanti (National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta) and Levi Geir Eidhamar (University of Agder, Norway) in an interpretive synthesis published online in Religions (September 15). The council promotes the tolerance expected by a democratic state while retaining the orthodox boundaries that preserve its credibility among conservative constituencies. The analysis draws on a metaphor common in Indonesian preaching. “Buffet-style Islam” (Islam prasmanan) refers to Muslims who embrace appealing teachings and disregard the rest. By contrast, “complete-package Islam” (paket lengkap) presents Islam as an indivisible system governed by recognized religious authority. The authors place these concepts at opposite ends of a continuum with many intermediate positions, rather than treating them as distinct camps.
The article focuses on the competing demands facing the MUI. After 1998, it gained autonomy but also had to assert its authority among the multiplying voices of post-Suharto Indonesia. Its conservative base, concerned about a “supermarket of faith,” sought firm boundaries. The council provided them in 2005 by issuing a fatwa that prohibited secularism, pluralism and liberalism (“SiPiLiS”) and it later reaffirmed that the Ahmadiyya movement was heretical. State priorities later changed, making religious moderation a central policy theme. By the late 2010s, the MUI was collaborating with the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) on campaigns promoting moderation, deradicalization and coexistence. Yet it did not revoke the SiPiLiS fatwa. Instead, it adopted Sunni concepts such as the middle path (tawasuth), tolerance (tasamuh), and balance (i’tidal). The authors interpret this as a strategic appropriation rather than theological change, enabling the MUI to position itself between violent extremism and relativism. They contrast this stance with those of Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, two major Indonesian movements that offer genuine theological accommodation of diversity. The MUI manages diversity without endorsing pluralism as a principle. The conclusion extends the case beyond Indonesia: moderation and orthodoxy need not be opposing projects. Moderation can govern diversity without dismantling exclusivist boundaries. The authors suggest that this dynamic helps explain how religious authorities in other democracies preserve doctrinal coherence as individual choice expands.