Is Aceh Civilization Fiction?
An interesting article written by veteran Acehnese anthropologist Teuku Kemal Fasya. He wrote that the high discourse of civilization that was discussed ideally, in fact did not have an impact on society's morals. The opinion was then closed with two questions, Is Aceh civilization a fiction or fact? Where does Acehnologi get its footprint? (Serambi, 13/8/2018). These two troubling questions then bully Darussalam's reason, regarding why the knowledge that develops there, does not have a significant influence on the progress of society.
If we try to make a simplification, what is the boundary between fiction and nonfiction. It is generally understood that fiction is a living story, imagination, more often illogical, and certainly not scientific. What about civilization? How do we ensure that a civilization which is said to be narrated in a fierce manner by Denys Lombard, Anthony Reid and others is fiction or not? So we need to make sure, is the story logical? Are the writing and research carried out at that time follow the paths that can be accounted for scientifically?
If so, it means that the story is real in its day and becomes historical knowledge today. And both "reality" and "knowledge" cannot be blamed as fiction. Then, if it's not fiction, why does it feel so fictional when faced with the reality of Acehnese people today? Why does the glorious narrative of glory feel strange when faced with the low morale practiced by some politicians and the public?
How do we position historical knowledge, so that it is able to give systemic influence to progress and civilization? This is where the task of academics and intellectuals is actually to be able to prove the usefulness of their knowledge. This is where the true task of academics and intellectuals is to be able to concoct a reconstruction (or more radically called engineering) to become the foundation of development, progress and civilization. If this task is not able to be borne by academics, especially Darussalam academics, it is better for them to go home to their homes.
Moral strength
Knowledge in himself, according to Daoed Joesef in his lecture, had his own moral strength. In knowledge there is a value of objectivity, integrity and discipline. Clarity of thinking method forces a person to be objective, difficult to manipulate knowledge objectivity. Knowledge forces people to integrity, argues with reference honesty, and as much as possible avoids plagiarism.
Because knowledge cannot develop from plagiarism. And for academics, plagiarism is more dangerous than tripping over corruption cases. A professor who goes to jail for a corruption case is not necessarily stripped of his academic degree. Whereas if the professor does plagiarism, that day the professor's degree can be revoked. Finally, knowledge, forcing someone to discipline. And only disciplined people can gain knowledge.
What does it mean? This means that knowledge in itself is actually enough to form positive characters for academics and scientists, even when that knowledge has not yet been applied in society.
That means again, knowledge will not arise from the practice of lies, theft and indiscipline. And if we find someone who claims to be a scientist or academician but still likes to lie, like to steal and not even discipline, please call him "fiction scientist" or "fiction academician".
Knowledge for the surrounding world. The next question is how does knowledge influence the world around it? We are again complaining why historical knowledge has no impact on the progress of the Acehnese today?
I took a number of analogies, when Europe first tried to conquer the archipelago with cannons and weapons. In fact, they failed. Until, European invaders sent scientists (especially anthropologists) to study the cultural structure (including the history) of the archipelago. After mapping out, they finally gave recommendations, and one of these recommendations was what was called the divide et impera strategy or the politics of fighting.
Such tactics they don't get for granted. It took hundreds of thousands of golden fees and tens of years, involving hundreds of scientists to find the concept that is considered trivial today. This analogy then proves that European colonizers were able to conquer the archipelago and colonize it for decades, not through the muscular hands of the soldiers carrying weapons, but the soft and soft hands of scientists who stroked pens.
Social engineering
The second analogy, how did Hasan Tiro carry out social engineering through the reconstruction of ethical awareness by referring to scientific data (which was fact written by Europeans)? How then, as Daoed Joeseof said, the Indonesian nation was formed from the results of scientific studies? Can survive to this day until a nation with astounding diversity.
Finally, how developed countries then create think-tank institutions (a kind of scientific institution that provides recommendations to the government). For them, the development of think tanks is more important than military equipment. Developed countries base their progress on knowledge, with the belief that if they master knowledge, they also dominate the world.
That is the true task of a scientist or academician when they are confronted with historical data. How he keeps rising with a pen, studying the past, engineering a construction, fighting hegemony, and siding with the weak. That is the task of a scientist, that he must believe in his knowledge, stand on scientific principles, act scientifically, glorify science and put it at the center of the progress of civilization.
Do not just because some elites and society still underestimate knowledge, we as academics then underestimate it too. They underestimate knowledge because of their ignorance. And if we underestimate knowledge because of them, then we are more foolish than them.
Don't let us know about the knowledge of being political by the game, skepticism that makes us fall into the hole of pragmatism. Or just understand the knowledge as a cum, certification, research project funds, promotion and salary.
Because, if we think so, we are the same as them. In fact, does not God himself say, Qul yastawil ladziina ya'lamuuna walladziina laa ya'lamun (Say by you is the same among those who are knowledgeable and those who are not knowledgeable?)
This article has aired on serambinews.com with the title Is Aceh Civilization Fiction ?, http://aceh.tribunnews.com/2018/08/18/apakah- civilization-aceh-is-fiction? Page = all.
Ramli Cibro, Kepala Suku Group Diskusi KPS-Garis Miring dan Dosen Ilmu Agama Islam di Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Tarbiyah Hamzah Fansuri (STIT-HAFAS) Kota Subulussalam Aceh. Email: ramlicybro@gmail.com
Editor: hasyim
If we try to make a simplification, what is the boundary between fiction and nonfiction. It is generally understood that fiction is a living story, imagination, more often illogical, and certainly not scientific. What about civilization? How do we ensure that a civilization which is said to be narrated in a fierce manner by Denys Lombard, Anthony Reid and others is fiction or not? So we need to make sure, is the story logical? Are the writing and research carried out at that time follow the paths that can be accounted for scientifically?
If so, it means that the story is real in its day and becomes historical knowledge today. And both "reality" and "knowledge" cannot be blamed as fiction. Then, if it's not fiction, why does it feel so fictional when faced with the reality of Acehnese people today? Why does the glorious narrative of glory feel strange when faced with the low morale practiced by some politicians and the public?
How do we position historical knowledge, so that it is able to give systemic influence to progress and civilization? This is where the task of academics and intellectuals is actually to be able to prove the usefulness of their knowledge. This is where the true task of academics and intellectuals is to be able to concoct a reconstruction (or more radically called engineering) to become the foundation of development, progress and civilization. If this task is not able to be borne by academics, especially Darussalam academics, it is better for them to go home to their homes.
Moral strength
Knowledge in himself, according to Daoed Joesef in his lecture, had his own moral strength. In knowledge there is a value of objectivity, integrity and discipline. Clarity of thinking method forces a person to be objective, difficult to manipulate knowledge objectivity. Knowledge forces people to integrity, argues with reference honesty, and as much as possible avoids plagiarism.
Because knowledge cannot develop from plagiarism. And for academics, plagiarism is more dangerous than tripping over corruption cases. A professor who goes to jail for a corruption case is not necessarily stripped of his academic degree. Whereas if the professor does plagiarism, that day the professor's degree can be revoked. Finally, knowledge, forcing someone to discipline. And only disciplined people can gain knowledge.
What does it mean? This means that knowledge in itself is actually enough to form positive characters for academics and scientists, even when that knowledge has not yet been applied in society.
That means again, knowledge will not arise from the practice of lies, theft and indiscipline. And if we find someone who claims to be a scientist or academician but still likes to lie, like to steal and not even discipline, please call him "fiction scientist" or "fiction academician".
Knowledge for the surrounding world. The next question is how does knowledge influence the world around it? We are again complaining why historical knowledge has no impact on the progress of the Acehnese today?
I took a number of analogies, when Europe first tried to conquer the archipelago with cannons and weapons. In fact, they failed. Until, European invaders sent scientists (especially anthropologists) to study the cultural structure (including the history) of the archipelago. After mapping out, they finally gave recommendations, and one of these recommendations was what was called the divide et impera strategy or the politics of fighting.
Such tactics they don't get for granted. It took hundreds of thousands of golden fees and tens of years, involving hundreds of scientists to find the concept that is considered trivial today. This analogy then proves that European colonizers were able to conquer the archipelago and colonize it for decades, not through the muscular hands of the soldiers carrying weapons, but the soft and soft hands of scientists who stroked pens.
Social engineering
The second analogy, how did Hasan Tiro carry out social engineering through the reconstruction of ethical awareness by referring to scientific data (which was fact written by Europeans)? How then, as Daoed Joeseof said, the Indonesian nation was formed from the results of scientific studies? Can survive to this day until a nation with astounding diversity.
Finally, how developed countries then create think-tank institutions (a kind of scientific institution that provides recommendations to the government). For them, the development of think tanks is more important than military equipment. Developed countries base their progress on knowledge, with the belief that if they master knowledge, they also dominate the world.
That is the true task of a scientist or academician when they are confronted with historical data. How he keeps rising with a pen, studying the past, engineering a construction, fighting hegemony, and siding with the weak. That is the task of a scientist, that he must believe in his knowledge, stand on scientific principles, act scientifically, glorify science and put it at the center of the progress of civilization.
Do not just because some elites and society still underestimate knowledge, we as academics then underestimate it too. They underestimate knowledge because of their ignorance. And if we underestimate knowledge because of them, then we are more foolish than them.
Don't let us know about the knowledge of being political by the game, skepticism that makes us fall into the hole of pragmatism. Or just understand the knowledge as a cum, certification, research project funds, promotion and salary.
Because, if we think so, we are the same as them. In fact, does not God himself say, Qul yastawil ladziina ya'lamuuna walladziina laa ya'lamun (Say by you is the same among those who are knowledgeable and those who are not knowledgeable?)
This article has aired on serambinews.com with the title Is Aceh Civilization Fiction ?, http://aceh.tribunnews.com/2018/08/18/apakah- civilization-aceh-is-fiction? Page = all.
Ramli Cibro, Kepala Suku Group Diskusi KPS-Garis Miring dan Dosen Ilmu Agama Islam di Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Tarbiyah Hamzah Fansuri (STIT-HAFAS) Kota Subulussalam Aceh. Email: ramlicybro@gmail.com
Comments