The ‘Mahasiswa’: An Intellectual Vision Reviewed

By Muhammad Edham
Elsewhere it has been argued that “if we err in our sight of what our learning experience
actually is, we will be condemned into the naivety that can only end in self-destructiveness”. This
argument is made against the paradigm which envision university as the well-kept garden of
knowledge and virtue, without due recognition of its grueling reality as an iron cage that
endorses human commoditization. Such vision of university, that sets up the premise for
intellectualism, is noble in intention, for it is a response to the calling of Syed Hussein Alatas, the
great sociologist who believed in the reformation of society lead by functioning intellectuals.
However, the subtle blind spot it suffers as a partial vision is deserving of critical attention, and
this is the aim of this essay; to dismantle such vision of intellectualism in students, so that we can
later paint a better picture.
In 2017, the intellectual division of the then IIUM student representative council have
produced a mini magazine that compiled the writings of different student’s discussion group
leaders in the university, organized under the project of IIQRA. The project aimed to cultivate
intellectual discourses in the university in greater scale and the magazine, entitled Zine, is the
cumulative contribution from these discourses. The editor described the mission of the writing as
“sharing information and knowledge as well as educating and encouraging…university students
to read and think critically”. The ultimate purpose underlying this mission, cited the editor, was
to dispense with Bebalism in the community, a sociological phenomenon described by Alatas
antithetical to intellectualism. Out of the six writings therein, only “Jihad Sa-orang
Mahasiswa” will be reviewed in-depth here, for brevity’s sake in demonstrating the dangers of
uncritical vision.
“Jihad Sa-orang Mahasiswa”, or the Jihad of the Undergraduate Student was written
by Hilman Fikri Azman, then a third year IRK student from the department of Usuluddin and
Comparative Religion and the co-founder of School of Islamic Thought. Inspired by Ayatullah
Khomeini’s “The Greatest Jihad”, the article is written in a sermon-like manner, a calling for
university student to realize the true weight of their responsibility, its meaning and how to
undertake them. Hilman began with a passing definition of university student as ‘Talib al-Ilm’,
who “carry a great burden on their head. Their quest to acquire knowledge never ends. And with
the supply of knowledge that they have accumulated for years, they will find fit amid society to
impart enlightenment therein”. Hilman drew for such a responsibility, the infamous Platonic
cave analogy, effecting the idea that indeed students are in line with the intellectuals to perform
the duty of bringing the society out of the dark ignorance cave into the enlightening ray of day.
The idea that students are those who acquire knowledge is both true and obvious.
Malaysian Educational Blueprint 2015-2025 in this regard affirmed that, “every graduate will
have the relevant disciplinary knowledge and skills (ilmu)…”. The blueprint also seems to
concur with Hilman in that a graduate ought to make contribution to the betterment of society
through their enlightened individuality. But this societal betterment is not by way enlightenment,
contrary to his intellectual vision. The apparent image that the blueprint portray of a graduate is
that of a holistic individual, excellent in material, spiritual and social character. But this
ambivalent picture breaks when one considers the heavier emphasis put on the material quality.
In justifying the holistic definition of student, the blueprint speaks of the need for an individual
who can create broader economic opportunities that can benefit everyone, i.e., the job creators.
And one of the ways proposed to shape such character in students is through “creating
opportunities for students and academic staff to acquire entrepreneurial skills and pursue their
own enterprises”. Therefore, university student, is not those who pursue the path of knowledge
to enlighten the society, but instead those whose pursuit of knowledge can contribute into the
development of economically beneficial character.
Hilman then set forth with intention of learning. He maintained that as student, one must
be clear and reflective towards the purpose of learning, admonishing against nihilism. Though its
meaning is not explicitly stated, Hilman seems to operationalize nihilism in learning as “…
studying merely to fulfil the credit hours, to merely pass from one semester to the next, or to
merely memorize the technical terms in law, physical sciences and fiqh. Acquiring knowledge is
neither for competition nor merely for occupation”. Then, the antidote proposed is maintaining
the sincerity of heart in godliness, a shorthand for the purity of intention. Without such purity
and godliness, students will risk the incapacity to benefit from knowledge and worse, what one
has learned will incur damage instead. He said, “indeed, the evil committed by a knowledgeable
person is far more dangerous to humanity than other kind of evils”.
As beautiful as the passages written on the question were, they make for both pleasant
and frustrating read at the same time. Hilman’s description of nihilism in the state of learning is
apt, and the ethical severity of the learned person’s action is indeed important to address. But he
missed to see how the nihilism that he described constitute the experience ingrained in the social
structure of education itself. Nihilism does not exist in vacuum but were formed as a
consequence of the materialistic rationalization in the educational institution. Student’s life in the
university is regulated and ordered through formal rules, tasks, itineraries, disciplines, all of
which embody the operationalization of educational vision addressed above. In other words, it is
not the sheer whim of university student to be nihilistic. On the contrary, nihilism is the natural
outcome, and a beneficial one, to the social condition arranged by the university according to its
economic vision.
Recognition of the materialistic aspect of university put into question the practicality of
maintaining godly, and pure intention of learning. If students are compelled towards meaningless
apathy, then their intention to cross against the tidal current will be affected to a significant
degree. First, an intention requires natural actualization and natural actualization necessitate an
enabling setting. If the setting is in converse condition, which is limiting, actualization will also
be limited, and this inhibition will induce strain. As such, students who harbor intellectual
intention against the materialistic, and nihilistic condition of their education will find themselves
limited, helpless and estranged. This is especially problematic if the condition of the setting
remains for a long duration in which the student still insist to maintain such will. This situation
create struggle and as such, would contain serious emotional costs, making it unsustainable in the
long run. Hilman may be accurate to paint this circumstance as the Jihad in the literal sense, but
is this not also a mask to the injurious condition of the student’s spirit?
This leads to the second point; the layers of ideology, lacing the rationalized social order
of the university to temper with the student’s intention. The national educational blueprint spoke
of “global citizens with a strong Malaysian identity, ready and willing to contribute to the
harmony and betterment of the family, society, nation, and global community” justifying the
entire scheme of education that shaped the entire institution to this day. Here one can see that not
only intellectual intention has to resist the struggle of limiting, rationalized social order, but it
also must contend with existing ideas that reinforce the said order. This is what led to the
ambivalence of vision in students who assume apparent harmony between the intellectual and
materialistic purpose of the university. In addition, Hilman’s very writing can be guilty of
paradoxically worsening the condition that he meant to resolve for his neglect of the sociological
aspect in education therein. The uncritical reader will unsuspectingly and naively believe that a
university student can be beacon of light for the entire society if he or she just wills it with godly
intention but without critically changing the problematic aspects of the educational system. As a
result, the educational setting will continue being problematic for every student who aspire the
intellectual definition of university graduate like Hilman proposed.
Learning is a great struggle i.e., a jihad, Hilman asserted, as it cost time, energy, and
money. Thus, “it is not an act that can be performed in casual manner”. Perhaps it is instructive
at this point to draw a distinction between learning in the intellectual sense and actual learning in
the university. University learning is not less of toil, for students are obligated to learn various
subjects in class and must complete many forms of assessments ranging from written assignment
to examination which require revisions. In a subject alone, they are expected to gain a set of
different outcomes, as outlined by the Malaysian Qualification Framework, “knowledge and
understanding, cognitive skills, functional work skills, personal and entrepreneurial skills, ethics
and professionalism”. Also consider the fact that this learning happens within the regulated,
social order of the university discussed above. This particular mode of learning alone can
exhaust a soul but expecting them to engage in both will definitely risk damaging their
wellbeing. Therefore, the university student whose learning temperament is not intellectual
cannot be taken as the casual learner who does not take their education seriously. It is just that in
the light of existing mode of education, intellectual learning is not highly and practically valued.
Hilman’s vision of university students affirmed the moral importance of knowledge and
the moral imperative of functional intellectuals. His adaptation of the Platonic enlightenment and
its creative application within the Quranic principle of Min al-Zulumat ila al-Nur, as well as
moral disposition of Adab in the process of learning are worth considering. But that does not
take away the fact that this vision suffers the danger of underestimating human structure and
overestimating human agency. Should Hilman pondered further other visions than his own,
especially that of the university, he would have been able to understand that the struggle of a
Mahasiswa is way heavier and graver. He would have seen that an intellectual aspiring student
must struggle against their entire world, recognizing the true extent of the Jihad they must
undertake. On the platonic influence in this vision, suffice it would be what Merlin Coverley had
to say, “the major flaw in Plato’s blueprint for the ideal society is his inability to account for the
vagaries of human nature”. It is not that human nature cannot be understood, but one’s
understanding of them can be easily diminished into obscurity by sheer preoccupation with one’s
own zealous vision.