In general, Muslim society in Jombang is divided into two groups in terms of orientation. The first one is the devout group, and the other is the less devout group or the abangan. These groupings express the existing social reality of the Jombang population. By the devout I mean those Jombang population who practise Islam in a more orthodox way, while the less devout are members of society who, due to their ignorance of Islam, tend to practise syncretic Islam (cf. Fox and Dirjosanjoto, 1989). The devout group is represented by NU (the traditionalist) and Muhammadiyah^[2] (the modernist).

I nonetheless recognise that such a grouping is not adequate. Not only does it not cover all various existing groups in Muslim society in Jombang, but it also lacks the specificity and detail of the variety of characteristics of each group. In addition, what is important to emphasise is that the characteristic commonly ascribed to NU and Muhammadiyah, as the orthodox Muslims, are not necessarily applicable to the current situation. The development of NU, as described by Bruinessen^[3], exhibits the same dynamics as that of a modern Islamic organisation. At least, the idea of adapting to the changing socio-political situation warrants the attention of its leaders. In addition, the general characteristics of these Islamic organisations are obscured by local characteristics.

Nevertheless, there are a general characteristics which differentiates the devout Muslims from the abangan. The same holds true with the characteristic of the traditionalist and the modernist. In the following discussion I will focus on the different characteristics of these two Islamic groups. The sociological bases underlying the existence of these two Islamic groups are different. The modernist group is generally more preoccupied with idealised efforts and is trying to change the social reality of Muslim society in regard to its religious practice. Current practice, in the modernist's perspective, is neither ideal nor religiously correct. There must be a socio-political movement to alter it. On the other hand, the traditionalist^[4] group has been trying to coordinate, nurture and even develop existing religious beliefs, practice and culture in general. This attitude is based on a religious formula: al-muhafaza bi'l-qadim al-salih wa'l-akhdhu bi'l-jadid al-aslah (lit. preserving the good existing order and adopting the new one which is better). The former is trying to develop toward an idealised situation, while the latter is working within the real social situation.

For the purpose of analysis of these differences in religious practice, I will try to focus on the doctrinal and social dimensions of these two Islamic groups. The doctrinal dimension which differentiates them derives from their difference in interpreting the precepts of the Qur'an. Their differences do not actually impinge on the basics of Islam, like theology, but rather they touch only on parts commonly called furu‘ (lit. branches). Although the differences between NU and Muhammadiyah occur only in the domain of furu‘ which touches only on aspects of the application of their interpretation of fiqh matters, such differences are expressed through their praxis of Islamic rituals in everyday life and influence the world view and social behaviour of their members. 

The different interpretation of the available doctrine by the modernists has provoked an unfavourable and latent situation of conflict with the traditionalists since the modernist has been trying to purify traditional practices of Islam such as those practised by NU society. This situation has been heightened by differences in political orientation^[5], and each group disparages the other due to its feeling of superiority in regard to its own culture and practice of religion. A member of Muhammadiyah considers his Islamic practice purer and better because he discards anything less Islamic. On the other hand, an NU member regards Muhammadiyah's practice of Islam as too rigid because of its tendency to be puritanical, and its avoidance, in many respects, of the existing socio-cultural environment. Since these differences occur in the more practical domain of daily religious life, they have been more salient. This situation marked a general tendency among Muslims in Java, especially during the 1950s and 1960s, although in Jombang it has been less pronounced.

There is one important Islamic concept which became the basis of their cultural and religious practice but was interpreted differently by both groups. This concept is related to the perception of religious practices which were not performed by the Prophet Muhammad and the earlier generation of his sahaba (companions). These practices are conceptualised in what is commonly called bid‘a (heretical practice). The interpretation of the concept of bid‘a at the grassroots level occurs in a rather haphazard manner (salah kaprah). Members of Muhammadiyah conceptualise what they call bid‘a in terms of black and white. Everything not practised by the Prophet Muhammad is deemed to be bid‘a by lay followers of the modernist stream. This understanding derives from the Islamic doctrine according to which “each heresy is going astray, and those going astray would go to hell” (“qullu bid‘a zolala, wa qullu zolala fi al-nar”). On the other hand, NU society, which grounds its perspective in a less black-white format, classifies bid‘a into two kinds, that is bid‘a hasana and bid‘a sayyi'a (bad and good bid‘a). This difference in interpretation derives from the different sources which they use or from the way they understand the norms which must be established in Islam.

The underlying difference in understanding the concept of bid‘a which marks the Muhammadiyah and NU practice of religion in Jombang is limited to what is called ‘ibada (Islamic ritual). However, this has occurred not only at the level of interpretation of Islamic precepts but also at the level of worldview. Based on their understanding of the concept of bid‘a and their adaptation to the existing order, the members of NU society have always grounded their understandings of Islamic social relations on the concept of ‘harmony’. On the other hand, Muhammadiyah society is inclined to attribute such social reality to what they call ‘diperintahkan’ (divinely ordered).

The characteristic of Muhammadiyah, which bases its standpoint on strictness as it is conceptualised by the Qur'an has made its lay members rigid in their understanding of socio-cultural development. Thus Muhammadiyah only does what is religiously ordered (written in the Qur'an and the hadith), while NU always tries to work on what is not definitely prohibited^[6] in its practice of Islam. Thus Muhammadiyah members are trying to discard any heretical Islamic practice which may be alive among Javanese since it is not religiously ordered or written. These practices include such activities as tahlil ^[7] and slametan, the latter of which is deemed to have Hinduistic elements. They strictly suggests that all bid‘a is ‘zolala’ (going astray). NU, on the other hand, does not always consider the bid‘a to be bad. In their opinion, it is only the bad bid‘a that can bring its doer to hell. Thus such ‘ibada as tahlil is of significance, since it is not only classified as good Islamic practice but can also accrue to what is religiously expected of all Muslims. Such practice could therefore be subsumed under what is commonly called sunna (recommended)^[8]. By performing such thing, a Muslim hopes to add to the other ‘ibada (observance required by the Islamic faith) to his religious obligations, which he might have carried out imperfectly.

Local socio-environmental factors, however, have affected Muhammadiyah and NU. But compared to Muhammadiyah, variation in NU practices of Islam may be lower. This is because NU tries to accommodate to the existing practices, while Muhammadiyah tries to transform them to the idealised. It is therefore not surprising that various local Muhammadiyah organisations might differ in their religious practice from the mainstream since the process of change in different regions does not happen in the same pattern or direction because of different local conditions.

Muhammadiyah in Jombang is indeed different from that in other regions in terms of its culture and a few of their Islamic practices. Although it is essentially anti-tradition, its practice of Islam is very much influenced by local culture so that its characteristics are culturally close to that of NU. Abdurrahman, for example, is a Muhammadiyah member living in the district of Ploso. He is a rich man who grew up in a very Muhammadiyah environment, but he is also the leader of a group performing regular tahlil in his district. When he was asked why he was involved in a tahlil activity, a religious practice commonly performed by NU society but deemed bid‘a by Muhammadiyah, he rejoindered that he did not discard all religious practices which do not sound Muhammadiyah, but rather he also performs practices such as tahlil, since it is religiously good.

Abdurrahman's practice of Islam constitutes a ‘culture representation’ which marks the difference between Muhammadiyah in Jombang from that in other cities. His practice is influenced by the existing culture of traditional Muslims in his surroundings, which strongly emphasises the need to carry out good Islamic practices classified as ‘ibada. The attitude of Abdurrahman in terms of his religious practice is affected by NU culture in Jombang^[9]. 

In brief, different interpretations of the existing doctrine which result in the emergence of ideological groupings is affected by local culture. There is no stereotype or model which absolutely delineates the special character of a group of Muslims, like NU, from another. As shown in the case of Abdurrahman, a religious practice which is commonly attributed to traditionalist Muslims can also be conducted by modernist followers. This situation occurs because the doctrinal interpretation of modernist members at the grassroots level varies. In addition, the Muhammadiyah practice of Islam in Jombang seems to be more accommodating to local culture. The members' efforts to purify society's practice of Islam is not as strict as in other areas. This is not only because Muhammadiyah members in Jombang have changed their methods of da‘wa but also because many of the elite originally come from an NU family background. Also, some of them were educated in NU pesantren. This is very important to illuminate the accommodating nature of Muhammadiyah in Jombang, since at the level where primary socialisation took place, some Muhammadiyah leaders were introduced to traditionalist cultural values which influenced their practice of Islam. 

Shiddiq Abbas, a prominent leader of Muhammadiyah in Jombang, for example, was educated in the Pesantren Bahrul Ulum, the oldest NU pesantren. Azhar, a leader of Muhammadiyah in Ngoro, is the son of an NU member who had family ties with the founder of NU, Kiai Hasyim Asy‘ari. These two Muhammadiyah leaders are familiar with the NU's tradition through their primary socialisation and religious education. Their joining Muhammadiyah was inspired by consciousness and an understanding of what it means to purify Islamic practice and what should be done by Muhammadiyah in accordance with its mission. To be a member of Muhammadiyah in their view is not merely to be different from being an NU member in terms of religious practice. This is why Shiddiq Abbas and Azhar differ from other Muhammadiyah leaders in Jombang and in other cities. They have more knowledge of the religious practice of the Jombang Muslim population in general. Their purification movements through Muhammadiyah do not start from a position of ignorance and indifference to the existing local culture, as others do who may be unfamiliar with the actual religious practices and thoughts of the traditionalists. These two leaders ground their actions on a tradition which they know well. It is this situation which gives rise to the general similarity in the religious practice of both Muhammadiyah and NU in Jombang.

Despite the efforts of Muhammadiyah leaders, such as Shiddiq Abbas and Azhar, some Muhammadiyah members tend to maintain a different religious interpretation or practice from NU members just for the sake of being different. Some Muhammadiyah members in Jombang, for example, argued about certain parts of prayer practices performed by their colleagues which they considered not to be Muhammadiyah style. They recommended that their colleagues change such practices. These recommended prayer practices, however, actually resemble those of NU members in another city in East Java.

However, it can be argued that in general the debate between modernist and traditionalist followers at the grassroots level has actually been trivial, with no religious significance. In the 1950s and 1960s, when social tension between the traditionalist and modernist Muslims was great, this tension in villages in Jombang and Java revolved around insignificant matters, such as two azan in Friday prayer or using a bedug ^[10] in a mosque, which were not essential parts of the religious ritual. The bedug for the lay modernist is indeed bid‘a, in the sense of being novel because it was not found during the Prophet's life. For the traditionalists, however, the use of bedug is not a primary part of the religious ritual. It is merely used to give a signal to Muslims that the time for prayer has come. It is therefore evident that much of the conflict derived from their tendency to underestimate and humiliate each other. Each group felt its standpoint and interpretation of Islam was the right one. 

From a few cases which I observed, my impression is that the different interpretation of both lay members of Muhammadiyah and NU does not derive from solid religious reasoning. On some occasions, they arose just from the intention to be different. The essence of the logic sustaining lay modernist arguments about bid‘a, for example, is actually blurred, as is shown when comparisons are made with their colleagues in other cities, since in many respects it is based on unfounded generalisations. So their concept of bid‘a can be misleading.

This point is important in order to illuminate the reasoning underlying the modernist understanding of Islam, and how such an understanding is interpreted by lay Muslims at the grassroots level. It is evident that there is inconsistency in the lay modernists’ arguments concerning the concept of bid‘a. Not only do their interpretations vary but, in some cases, they were paradoxical. The idea that a bedug is bid‘a is interesting when compared it with other modern innovations, such as loud speakers, which are used as tools in all Islamic ritual. Nakamura (1979:259– 263) found in his research in Yogyakarta that when Muhammadiyah members were going to mosque for the ‘idu'l-fitri prayer they were accompanied by a drum band, instead of a bedug.

These observations invite questions in regard to the essence or the underlying reasoning of what is classified as bid‘a and what is not. Why is the bedug classified as bid‘a, because it is an unsuitable religious tool for use in a mosque, while a drum band is judged as suitable to accompany Muslims reciting takbir (saying ‘Allahu Akbar’: Allah is the Great) along their way to the mosque? Is the bedug seen as bid‘a because it is a cultural product of the traditional Javanese? How does it differ from a loud speaker or a drum band? All are novel or modern additions which function just to complement a religious activity. These questions are the most frequently asked by the traditionalists.

Such questions seem to undermine the arguments used by people who acknowledge themselves as part of the modernist movement. Their generalisation about what is and what is not bid‘a derives from inconsistent principles, particularly at the level of lay Muslims. At the elite level, the arguments are grounded on a deeper understanding of Qur'anic precepts, so that it is unlikely that such salah kaprah (misunderstanding) could occur. Hence, the problem here relates to the uneven diffusion of information. The views of the elite of the modernist at the centre might not reach their fellow members at the grassroots level. The distance from the centre has resulted in distortion in regard to the formal interpretations made by the elites.

The possibility of misunderstanding by lay followers is great in the early stage of the development of Islamic organisation in Indonesia. With just a few qualified thinkers, this misunderstanding is very possible since the political situation which surrounded Muslims in Indonesia encouraged each group to defend its position. This is a side effect which appears when a competing situation exists between religious movements. Such a situation has pushed each group to be persistently different from the other. This misunderstanding^[11] nonetheless allows us to see how these religious groups perceive their worldly and religious situation.