Saturday, November 26, 2011

My Name is Abdurrahman Wahid

R. William Liddle

There is a missing ingredient in media descriptions of Indonesia’s new president, Abdurrahman Wahid, familiarly called Gus Dur. We know that he is a Muslim cleric, the head since 1984 of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), Indonesia’s and perhaps the world’s largest organization of traditional Muslim religious scholars and teachers. His near-blindness and physical frailness, the result of diabetes and two recent strokes, were painfully apparent to television viewers world-wide who watched the sessions of the People’s Consultative Assembly when he was elected and sworn in as Indonesia’s fourth president. As a political tactician, he is reported to be both adept and mercurial. Adept, in the way he carved out and defended his position as the leading protagonist of democracy in the most repressive days of the Suharto government. Mercurial, even erratic, for his emotional outbursts, his tendency to believe the most outrageous conspiracy theories, and
his strategic zigzags that have occasionally comforted his enemies and confounded his friends.

We are also beginning to understand that this is a most unusual Muslim cleric. He
is a religious pluralist who believes that religion is a matter of personal choice, and has
consistently acted on that belief for decades. During the Suharto years he publicly
defended the rights of non-Muslim minorities as well as Muslim organizations considered
heretical by his co-religionists and by the state. He is a European-style social democrat
committed both to representative democracy and to the use of state policy to reduce
inequalities of opportunity and of condition. Perhaps most surprising to secularized
Indonesians, he has been an active member of the modern Jakarta intellectual elite,
engaging the issues of the day through his writings and organizational activities. For
several years in the 1980s he scandalized more conservative Muslims by serving as a
juror at the national film festival, the equivalent of Hollywood’s Academy Awards.
What is missing from this picture is a deeper understanding of the kind of
leadership Gus Dur, health permitting, will give his country. I first met him in the mid-
1970s, shortly after his return from study in the Middle East, when he was just beginning
to establish himself in the group of Jakarta political intellectuals centered around Tempo,
then as now Indonesia’s leading weekly newsmagazine, and LP3ES (Institute for
Economic and Social Research, Education, and Information), an applied social science
research institution staffed by bright young urban Western-educated socialists and
modernist Muslims.

Gus Dur was not exactly a stranger to Jakarta life. His father was an NU leader
and independent Indonesia’s first minister of religion, and the family had lived in the
capital for some time. But his years as a student in rural Islamic boarding schools, his
higher education in Baghdad and Cairo, and his NU affiliation made him suspect in the
eyes of Jakarta intellectuals. To both the secular socialists and the modernist Muslims, he
represented the backwardness of a village Islam still chained to the teachings of medieval
jurists and mired in the irrationality of both sufi and indigenous Indonesian mystical
beliefs and practices. In the 1950s, the time of Indonesia’s first democratic experiment,
national-level NU politicians—including Gus Dur’s father—were mocked as hayseeds
and either isolated from national office or confined to the ministry of religion.

As a young boy, Gus Dur directly observed the mistreatment of his NU elders, and
shared their resentment. Many years later, in interviews with me and others, he often
complained about the continuing arrogance of NU’s enemies, especially the Muslim
modernists. NU had been founded in 1926 by traditional rural-based Muslim teachers
and scholars concerned to stem the advances made by the urban, more Western-educated
modernists, who preached direct interpretation of the Qur’an by contemporary believers.
NU’s teachers and scholars wanted to preserve the classical Sunni tradition of
interpretation within jurisprudential schools, which for centuries had formed the basis of
Islamic education in Indonesia. For a brief period in the late 1940s and early 1950s the
modernists and traditionalists joined forces in a single political party, but in 1953 NU
leaders split to form their own party. Since that time the two camps have remained
separate and hostile, though forces for rapprochement have also been at work, especially
in recent years.

Gus Dur’s understanding of leadership is rooted in his NU background. In a
casual conversation some years ago, I asked him what he liked to read. He answered that
his favorite contemporary novel was Chaim Potok’s My Name is Asher Lev. When I
asked him why, he replied simply that it was a mirror.

The eponymous hero of My Name is Asher Lev is a young observant Jew growing
up in Brooklyn in the 1940s and 1950s. His family life is steeped in religious tradition.
Both of his parents are the descendants of several generations of rabbis and scholars. His
father travels throughout the country and Europe helping to rescue Jews behind the Iron
Curtain and establishing yeshivas “at the request of the Rebbe” who is the leader of their
Hasidic sect. His father’s great-great grandfather, who appears to Asher in disturbing
dreams as his “mythic ancestor,” transformed a despotic Russian nobleman’s estates into
a source of immense wealth. He then spent the rest of his life travelling “to do good
deeds and bring the Master of the Universe into the world,” that is, to restore the balance
he had upset by enabling the nobleman to brutalize his serfs. Asher’s grandfather, for
whom he is named, travelled throughout the Soviet Union as an emissary of the father of
the present Rebbe. He was murdered by a drunken peasant while on his way home from
the Rebbe’s synagogue on the night before Easter. Asher’s mother, the descendant of
“one of the saintliest of Hasidic leaders,” is devastated at the beginning of the novel by
the accidental death of her only brother, but recovers by dedicating her life to completing
his work for the sect.

From an early age Asher understands that he has a unique gift. He is an artist
destined for greatness. The demands of art—portrayed by Potok as an autonomous world
of meaning with its own values and standards—soon cause conflict with his parents,
particularly his father, for whom becoming an artist is foolishness, “not for Torah,”
perhaps even temptation from the sitra achra, the Other Side. The wise Rebbe, with a
broader vision than Asher’s father, intervenes, introducing Asher to Jacob Kahn, a great
artist who revolutionized sculpture as Picasso revolutionized painting. The Rebbe says,
“I pray to the Master of the Universe that the world will one day also hear of you as a
Jew…. Jacob Kahn will make of you an artist. But only you will make of yourself a
Jew.” Kahn becomes his teacher and patron, eventually arranging a series of one-man
shows at which he is acclaimed by the critics as a major new artist.

The conflict with his parents, however, intensifies. He is driven by the need to
express his anguish and torment in his art. “For the unspeakable mystery that brings good
fathers and sons into the world and lets a mother watch them tear at each other’s throats.”
He paints a metaphoric crucifixion scene (he chooses Christian symbolism because
Judaism, he says, offers nothing comparable), his mother with her arms extended above
the window of the family living room, her face split into two segments, his father and he
standing below with an attache case and a palette respectively, demanding the impossible,
that she choose between them.

His parents are deeply shocked by the painting. Even the Rebbe abandons him
this time. “’Asher Lev,’” the Rebbe said softly. ‘You have crossed a boundary. I cannot
help you. You are alone now. I give you my blessings.” At the end of the novel he
leaves Brooklyn for Paris, but he is still “Asher Lev, Hasid. Asher Lev, painter.” He
hears his mythic ancestor: “Come with me, my precious Asher. You and I will walk
together now through the centuries, each of us for our separate deeds that unbalanced the
world.” He will be a great painter, but in doing so he will also continue to hurt the people
he loves. There is no way out of the dilemma.

What is the connection between My Name is Asher Lev and Abdurrahman Wahid?
At the simplest level, his appreciation for the world of Asher Lev reflects his empathic
ability to enter the consciousness of others, remarkable in his case since there is little love
for Jews among most Indonesian Muslims. He read in the novel the Hebrew greeting and
response “Sholom aleichim, aleichim sholom” and saw, he told me, the familiar Arabic
“Salam alaikum, alaikum salam,” used by Indonesian Muslims as a mark of their Islamic
identity, differentiating them from others. To Gus Dur, however, the similarity of the
phrases signified not only the common origins of the two religions but more deeply the
universality of the human religious experience. His love for the novel also helps to
explain his long fascination with Jews and Israel, a country that he has visited several
times as a private citizen and with which he now proposes as president to establish
economic relations.

More deeply, however, the novel is a mirror to Gus Dur for two reasons. First, the
Hasidic yeshiva-centered world described by Potok looks remarkably like the pesantren
or Islamic boarding school-centered world of traditional Indonesian Islam. To be a
student in these schools is to be a member of a moral community possessing shared
values and beliefs that differentiate initiates from outsiders. It is an intense experience
that creates strong lifelong bonds among the students and between them and their
teachers. At the center of both is a respected, even charismatic, leader, the Rebbe or the
Kiai, who is to be obeyed without question. The yeshiva and the pesantren are also
central institutions of the communities they serve, Hasidic Jews and traditional
Indonesian Muslims. The Rebbe and the Kiai are consulted as a matter of course when
serious family or community problems arise, and their advice is rarely rejected.

Second, as strong, even charismatic, leaders the Rebbe and the Kiai have the
principal responsibility for shaping their communities’ futures. In order to respond to the
challenges of their time and place, they must have a broader social and cultural horizon
than their members. They must be bridges to other worlds, non-observant Jewish and
Gentile America in the case of the Hasidic yeshiva, modern Indonesian and global society
and culture in the case of the Muslim pesantren. In this respect the Rebbe in My Name is
Asher Lev affirmed for Gus Dur his own conception of the ideal NU Kiai, a leader who is
firmly rooted in the tradition of classical Sunni Islam and for that very reason is capable
of flexibly interpreting or even reshaping that tradition to meet the challenges of the
modern world. It is the Rebbe, not Asher’s equally pious but intellectually and morally
conventional father, who believes that it is possible to be both an observant Jew and a
great twentieth-century artist. By giving him Jacob Kahn as a teacher (in itself a gesture
natural to the yeshiva tradition), the Rebbe makes Asher’s success outside the Jewish
world possible.

For Gus Dur there is a very personal element in all this. In some respects, he is
both the Rebbe and Asher Lev. His grandfather was the founder of NU, his father a
prominent NU leader, and it was expected that Gus Dur would eventually step into their
shoes. As a boy and young man, however, he was a maverick with a sharp mind,
uncomfortable with conventional Islamic beliefs and practices and eager to expand his
horizons. After his study in Baghdad and Cairo (where he earned no degrees) he spent
time at several European universities before returning home in the mid-1970s. He then
began his career as a Jakarta-based social activist, which included writing over the next
several years a series of remarkable columns in Tempo magazine. Each of these columns
told a story about a wise Rebbe-like Kiai who solves a contemporary social problem that
conventional approaches, based on modern technology or organization alone, could not
overcome.

In these columns it is easy to see the Gus Dur who has always had a chip on his
shoulder, who disdains the modernist Muslims too eager to discard Islamic and
Indonesian history and culture in favor of an unmediated application of the Qur’an to
contemporary life. But his larger purpose was a positive one, and not restricted to the
Muslim community: to demonstrate that traditional roles, values and practices like those
of the Kiai are both necessary to the transition to a modern society and an inescapable
part of the specifically Indonesian modernity that he hoped to build. He was also
implicitly offering himself, though for many years without much hope of success, as a
kind of Kiai-President, a blend of traditional and modern roles.

The concept of a Kiai-President has its strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps its
greatest strength is its familiarity and therefore instant legitimacy to tens of millions of
Indonesians from most regions and ethnic backgrounds. This characteristic will certainly
help the reformers, Gus Dur among them, who are attempting to replace former President
Suharto’s army-backed authoritarian New Order with a more democratic system. Its most
glaring weakness is its lack of rules and procedures through which leaders can be held
accountable to their constituencies. The Kiai achieves his position through a combination
of birth, education, and a gradual acceptance of his knowledge and teaching ability by
other Kiai, potential students and their parents, and the larger traditional Muslim
community. There is no regular procedure by which he is chosen or, perhaps more
importantly, by which he can be removed.

For the most part, therefore, the institutions which hold the president accountable
will have to be borrowed from other traditions, notably that of the West and democratic
East Asia. This process was begun by President B. J. Habibie, the successor to Suharto,
whose government quickly bowed to popular pressure for a free press and democratic
elections. It is continuing under Gus Dur, the first democratically elected president in
Indonesian history. The People’s Consultative Assembly that elected him is now
preparing constitutional amendments and regulations that will constrain future presidents
and insure a greater role for Parliament and an independent judiciary. The new president
has also responded quickly to regional demands to create a de facto federal system, in
which provinces will elect their own legislatures and governors.

Despite its lack of a concept of institutional accountability, traditional Islam may
yet make a significant contribution to Indonesian democratization through Gus Dur the
Kiai-President. Both the Rebbe in My Name is Asher Lev and the many Kiai whose
stories were written down by Gus Dur were distinguished for their combination of deep
roots and an open, flexible, and inclusive approach to outsiders and to the future. In the
end, Asher Lev went too far, crossed a boundary where the Rebbe could not go, leaving
Asher with only his mythic ancestor to accompany him. On his past record, there is a
good chance that Gus Dur will draw the boundaries in a way that will keep the major
players—ethnic and regional as well as religious—inside the nation while moving
steadily toward democratization of the state.

R. William Liddle, Professor of Political Science, The Ohio State University.

Retrieved from: http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/rwliddle/papers/ABDURRAHMAN%20WAHIDII.pdf

Monday, November 7, 2011

Jihad ala NU

Majalah Historia, Senin, 07 November 2011 - 22:24:09 WIB

Resolusi Jihad membuat NU yang “moderat dan kompromistis” menjadi revolusioner.

DALAM pertempuran sengit di Surabaya pada 10 November 1945 –kemudian diperingati sebagai Hari Pahlawan– banyak pejuang tersulut semangatnya oleh seruan Bung Tomo melalui corong radio. Bung Tomo tentu sadar betul bagaimana menggelorakan semangat juang, termasuk umat Islam. Tak heran jika dia tak melupakan seruan takbir.

“Dan kita yakin saudara-sudara, pada akhirnya pastilah kemenangan akan jatuh ke tangan kita. Sebab, Allah selalu berada di pihak yang benar. Percayalah saudara-saudara, Tuhan akan melindungi kita sekalian. Allahu Akbar...! Allahu Akbar...! Allahu Akbar...! Merdeka!”

Bung Tomo mungkin tak pernah menjadi santri, “Tetapi diketahui meminta nasihat kepada Kiai Hasyim Asy’ari,” tulis Martin van Bruinessen dalam NU: Tradisi, Relasi-relasi Kuasa, Pencarian Wacana Baru.

Namun, bagi warga nahdliyin, ada seruan lain yang lebih hebat dan membangkitkan semangat juang mereka, yakni Resolusi Jihad –monumennya diresmikan pada 23 Oktober 2011 di Surabaya untuk mengenang peran ulama dalam memperjuangkan kemerdekaan.

“Deklarasi ini,” tulis van Bruinessen, “yang kemudian terkenal sebagai Resolusi Jihad, tidak mendapat perhatian yang selayaknya dari para sejarawan. Resolusi itu menunjukkan bahwa NU mampu menampilkan diri sebagai kekuatan radikal yang tak disangka-sangka.”

NU tergerak menyatakan Resolusi Jihad setelah melihat sejumlah daerah jatuh ke tangan Inggris. Akhir September 1945, atas nama Netherlands Indies Civil Administration (NICA), Inggris menduduki Jakarta. Pertengahan Oktober, pasukan Jepang merebut kembali beberapa kota di Jawa dan menyerahkannya kepada Inggris. Beberapa hari sebelum Resolusi Jihad, Bandung dan Semarang diduduki Inggris setelah melalui pertempuran hebat. Demikian juga Surabaya; kedatangan pasukan Inggris pada 25 Oktober disambut dengan gelisah. Sementara itu pemerintah Republik Indonesia yang baru saja memproklamasikan kemerdekaannya, masih menahan diri untuk melakukan perlawanan dan mengharapkan adanya penyelesaian secara diplomatik.

“Resolusi Jihad merupakan pengakuan terhadap legitimasi pemerintah Republik Indonesia sekaligus kritik tidak langsung terhadap sikap pasifnya,” tulis Van Bruinessen. Agaknya, NU menginginkan seruan jihad langsung diperintahkan oleh pemerintah Republik Indonesia. Namun, karena pasif, NU melalui Resolusi Jihad-nya “memohon dengan sangat kepada pemerintah Republik Indonesia supaya menentukan sikap dan tindakan yang nyata serta sepadan... supaya memerintahkan melanjutkan perjuangan bersifat ‘Sabilillah’ untuk tegaknya negara Republik Indonesia merdeka dan agama Islam.”

“Resolusi jihad itu,” tulis Zuhairi Misrawi dalam Hadratussyaikh Hasyim Asy’ari, “memberi rangsangan motivasi yang amat kuat kepada para pemuda Islam untuk berjihad membela negara.”

Pada 21 dan 22 Oktober 1945, delegasi Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) se-Jawa dan Madura berkumpul di Surabaya. Pertemuan yang dipimpin langsung oleh pendiri NU, Kiai Hasyim Asy’ari, menyatakan perjuangan kemerdekaan sebagai jihad atau Perang Suci dan menentang kembalinya Belanda adalah kewajiban setiap Muslim (fardhu ‘ain). Pertemuan itu menghasilkan Resolusi Jihad, yang menyatakan bahwa, “pihak Belanda (NICA) dan Jepang telah banyak menjalankan kejahatan dan kekejaman, dengan maksud melanggar kedaulatan negara dan agama, serta ingin kembali menjajah. Di beberapa tempat telah terjadi pertempuran yang sebagian besar dilakukan oleh umat Islam yang merasa wajib menurut hukum agamanya. Karenanya umat Islam dan alim ulama di seluruh Jawa-Madura memiliki hasrat yang besar untuk mempertahankan dan menegakkan agama dan kedaulatan negara Republik Indonesia.”

Menurut Van Bruinessen, pasukan-pasukan nonreguler yang bernama Sabilillah –nama ini merujuk kepada Perang Suci– rupanya dibentuk sebagai respons langsung atas resolusi ini. Komandan tertinggi Sabilillah adalah pemimpin NU, Kiai Masykur dari Malang, yang kelak menjadi politisi terkenal dan menjabat sebagai menteri agama.

Resolusi Jihad juga dilontarkan dalam Muktamar Umat Islam Indonesia di Yogyakarta pada 7-8 November 1945, yang diselenggarakan oleh Masyumi, di mana NU menjadi anggotanya –sayangnya, muktamar ini lebih dikenal hanya sebagai deklarasi pembentukan Partai Masyumi. Seperti diberitakan Warta Indonesia, 17 November 1945, resolusi tersebut menyatakan, “tiap bentuk penjajahan adalah kezaliman yang melanggar perikemanusiaan dan diharamkan oleh Islam. Untuk membasmi tindakan imperialisme, setiap Muslim wajib berjuang dengan jiwa raga bagi kemerdekaan negara dan agamanya. Untuk itu, harus memperkuat umat Islam untuk berjihad fisabilillah.”

Muktamar menghasilkan Program Perjuangan, yang antara lain terealisasi dalam pembentukan pasukan nonreguler Sabilillah. Berbeda dengan pasukan Hizbullah sebagai “gabungan keinginan Jepang dan ulama” –dibentuk pada Februari 1945 dan dipimpin Kiai Zainul Arifin–, Sabilillah tak memiliki asal-usul resmi pada masa Jepang, tak memiliki latihan militer formal, dan tak terorganisasi.

“Nampaknya,” tulis Benedict Anderson dalam Revolusi Pemuda, “ia tidak pernah menjadi suatu organisasi terpadu, tetapi merupakan nama umum bagi sejumlah besar gerombolan bersenjata yang dipimpin oleh para kiai desa, yang bermunculan selama zaman pengambil-alihan dari Jepang.”

Pada 10 November 1945, dua minggu setelah kedatangan pasukan Inggris di Surabaya, sebuah pemberontakan massal pecah. Banyak pengikut NU terlibat dalam pertempuran di Jembatan Merah, Wonokromo, Waru, Buduran, dan daerah-daerah lain di Surabaya. Pemakaian jimat dan ilmu kanuragan, tanpa senjata, kerap mewarnai kisah perjuangan mereka.

Sikap radikal NU selama revolusi seakan bertentangan dengan reputasi NU sebagai organisasi moderat dan kompromistis. Anggaran dasar formal (Statuen) NU, yang kali pertama dibuat pada Muktamar III pada 1928, sesuai dengan undang-undang perhimpunan Belanda. Yang melatarbelakanginya: keinginan mendapatkan pengakuan pemerintah Belanda. Atas dasar anggaran dasar ini, NU diberi status berbadan hukum (rechtspersoonlijkheid) pada Februari 1930.

“Sepanjang dasawarsa akhir pemerintahan Belanda, NU selalu memberikan kesetiaannya kepada pemerintah Hindia Belanda,” tulis Van Bruinessen. “Sikap ini sejalan dengan pandangan Sunni tradisional bahwa sebuah pemerintahan yang memperbolehkan umat Islam menjalankan kewajiban-kewajiban agamanya lebih baik daripada fitnah (chaos) akibat pemberontakan.”

Meski demikian, bukan berarti NU tak bisa berani sama Belanda. Menurut Fathurin Zen dalam NU Politik: Analisis Wacana Media, pertentangan antara kaum Islam tradisionalis dan Islam modernis dapat mengendur saat keduanya sama-sama menghadapi perlakuan tak adil dari penjajah Belanda atau menghadapi masalah-masalah lain yang sangat serius. Misalnya pada 1931, NU memprotes Belanda ketika masalah kewarisan dihapus dari kewenangan Pengadilan Agama dan diserahkan kepada Pengadilan Negeri (landraad), menentang keleluasaan mengkritik agama Islam, dan menolak penguasa untuk mengawasi pengetahuan keagamaan para pegawai yang ditugaskan di berbagai kantor yang mengurusi umat Islam.

Apa yang menyebabkan NU berubah drastis, dari sikap moderat dan kompromistis menjadi militan? Menurut Van Bruinessen, selain tindakan Jepang yang melibatkan umat Islam dalam kegiatan politik, yang membuat NU mengubah tradisi politik Sunni-nya adalah proklamasi kemerdekaan Indonesia 17 Agustus 1945. NU mengakui para pemimpin Republik sebagai pemimpin yang sah –Muslim lagi. Karena itu, ketika Belanda ingin kembali berkuasa di Indonesia, NU menganggapnya sebagai tentara kafir yang berusaha menjatuhkan pemerintah Muslim Indonesia yang sah. “Apabila tanah Muslim berada dalam serbuan orang kafir, sebagaimana disepakati ulama,” tulis Van Bruinessen, “Perang Suci menjadi kewajiban agama.”

Semangat membela agama dan tanah air yang dipicu oleh Resolusi Jihad kemudian diperkuat lagi dengan pidato Kiai Hasyim Asy’ari, pada pembukaan Muktamar NU ke-16 dan, yang pertama setelah perang, pada 26-29 Maret 1946 di Purwokerto, “... sesungguhnya pendirian umat adalah bulat untuk mempertahankan kemerdekaan dan membela kedaulatannya dengan segala kekuatan dan kesanggupan yang ada pada mereka, tidak akan surut seujung rambut pun.” [HENDRI F. ISNAENI]

Retrieved from: http://www.majalah-historia.com/berita-537-jihad-ala-nu.html
----------------------------

Detik.com, Minggu, 23/10/2011 14:05 WIB

Inilah Resolusi Jihad NU yang Dikeluarkan di Surabaya

Rois Jajeli - detikSurabaya

Surabaya - Para ulama juga mempunyai peran serta memperjuangkan kemerdekaan RI untuk berjuang melawan penjajah. Inilah resolusi jihad yang dikeluarkan pendiri Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) KH M Hasyim Asy'ari yang dikeluarkan 22 Oktober 1945 atau sebelum pertempuran sengit 10 November.

Resoeloesi Djihad fi-Sabilillah

Bismillahrirrochmanir Rochim

Resoeloesi :

Rapat besar wakil-wakil daerah (Consoel2) Perhimpoenan Nahdlatoel Oelama seloeroeh Djawa-Madoera pada tanggal 21-22 October 1945 di Soerabaja.

Mendengar :

bahwa di tiap-tiap Daerah di seloeroeh Djawa-Madoera ternjata betapa besarnja hasrat Oemmat Islam dan 'Alim Oelama di tempatnja masing-masing oentoek mempertahankan dan menegakkan AGAMA, KEDAOELATAN NEGARA REPOEBLIK INDONESIA MERDEKA.

Menimbang :
a. bahwa oentoek mempertahankan dan menegakkan Negara Repoeblik Indonesia menurut hoekoem Agama Islam, termasoek sebagai satoe kewadjiban bagi tiap2 orang Islam.
b. bahwa di Indonesia ini warga negaranja adalah sebagian besar terdiri dari Oemmat Islam.

Mengingat :
a. bahwa oleh fihak Belanda (NICA) dan Djepang jang datang dan berada disini telah banjak sekali didjalankan kedjahatan dan kekedjaman jang menganggoe ketentraman oemoem.
b. bahwa semoea jang dilakoekan oleh mereka itu dengan maksoed melanggar kedaoelatan Negara Repoeblik Indonesia dan Agama, dan ingin kembali mendjadjah disini maka beberapa tempat telah terdjadi pertempoeran jang mengorbankan beberapa banjak djiwa manoesia.
c. bahwa pertempoeran2 itu sebagian besar telah dilakoekan oleh Oemmat Islam jang merasa wadjib menoeroet hoekoem Agamanja oentoek mempertahankan Kemerdekaan Negara dan Agamanja.
d. bahwa didalam menghadapai sekalian kedjadian2 itoe perloe mendapat perintah dan toentoenan jang njata dari Pemerintah Repoeblik Indonesia jang sesoeai dengan kedjadian terseboet.

Memoetoeskan :
1. memohon dengan sangat kepada Pemerintah Repoeblik Indonesia soepaja menentoekan soeatoe sikap dan tindakan jang njata serta sepadan terhadap oesaha2 jang akan membahajakan Kemerdekaan dan Agama dan Negara Indonesia teroetama terhadap fihak Belanda dan khaki tangannja.
2. Seoapaja memerintahkan melandjoetkan perdjoeangan bersifat "sabilillah" oentoek tegaknja Negara Repoeblik Indonesia Merdeka dan Agama Islam.

Soerabaja, 22 October 1945

HB NAHDLATOEL OELAMA

(fat/fat)

Retrieved from: http://us.surabaya.detik.com/read/2011/10/23/140549/1750373/466/inilah-resolusi-jihad-nu-yang-dikeluarkan-di-surabaya