Book Review. Resurrecting Kuntowijoyo's Idea on Prophetic Transformative (Sosial) Sciences

Understanding Kuntowijoyo's idea about prophetic (social) sciences was the underpinning for Ahimsa-Putra to produce his lastest work. The fundamental structure of science offered by Kuntowijoyo, according to Ahimsa-Putra, still leaves some problems, both from paradigm aspect and some concepts used in an attempt to apply prophetic social sciences. That is, the idea is not yet ready to be applied into social sciences.This problem arises neither because Kuntowijoyo is not communicative, nor as an indication of the unproductiveness of contemporary scholars to respond to the idea.

knowledge. Even, most of the readers are not aware of the development of western philosophy that tends to negate God. "... The science that we have inherited from western society and outlook on life is a science that has lost spirituality ..." (p. 6).The readers are hegemonized by Western epistemology that tends to negate God in knowledge and science. The absence of God in scholarly style of Western 1 A lecturer at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Faculty of Social Sciences, State University of Semarang epistemology always deals with the idealist and materialist that are consequential of the failure of the epistemology in the practice in understanding transcendental event that bocomes a part of the reality in human life. That failure is exactly what is trying to be answered by Kuntowijoyo in his work on the prophetic transformative (social) sciences. The formation of Kuntowijoyo's idea to bring the divinity into knowledge issuch an exotic and brave work in presenting the [new] face of social sciences which is based on the spiritual experience of the human as a servant of God. This book is a [new] space in the discourse to form a paradigm in social sciences which tries to make God present in philosophizing.
After Kuntowijoyo's death, his predicate as one of the initiators of prophetic paradigm is increasingly receding along with the embodiments of his ideas regarding the knowledge construction and design that are built from Islamicwisdom and system. Due to the experience and expertise of Indonesian anthropologist, named Heddy Shri Ahimsa-Putra, and the request of Kuntowijoyo's friends, the idea Kuntowijoyo was 'sought to be realized'. Through captivating works produced by Ahimsa-Putra, then, Kuntowijoyo's idea of the prophetic transformative is extensively discussed and refined to lead prophetic as one of paradigms in the social sciences. To actualize the transformative prophetic, Ahimsa-Putra starts from his views on paradigm. According to him, the basic ofknowledge origin is the birth of a transformation in the paradigm.

From Kuntowijoyo's Prophetic Social Sciences Prophetic to Ahimsa-Putra's Prophetic Paradigm: Promoting and Enhancing The Construction of Prophetic Social Sciences as a Paradigm
The presence of this book is the synergy between Kuntowijoyo's work and some improvement done by Ahimsa-Putra. The consequence is that this book will not only discuss the idea of Ahimsa-Putra but also unreavel Kuntowijoyo's idea 2 . In order to be able to revive Kuntowijoyo's idea, then Ahimsa-Putra attempted to find a [vague] design in Kuntowijoyo's idea through his writings. According Ahimsa-Putra, Kuntowijoyo's idea teaches readers, present and future scholars, to elaborate Islam teachings into a form of social science paradigm. In Kuntowijoyo's idea an actor is invited to be able to understand a social phenomenon, also move forward to transform the phenomenon based on the ideals of ethics and prophetic. The book asserts that to actualize the prophetic social science as a paradigm in the social sciences; it is not just to convey the basic of prophetic knowledge, but also should be capable of finding its model and structure.
According to Ahimsa-Putra, models and structures in the prophetic paradigm offered by Kuntowijoyo remains unclear, even virtually non-existent. Finally, Ahimsa-Putra through the idea which has been delivered in several scholarly meetings on critical analysis of paradigm also contribute to actualizing Kuntowijoyo's ideal.
Based on the above ideas, Ahimsa-Putra through his expertise to dissect and simultaneously enhance Kuntowijo's idea. Agreeing with Kuntowijoyo's ideals, Ahimsa-Putra conveys various weaknesses and possibilitiesof the propheticsocial science realization in the practice of thinking and analysis. Incidentally, both Kuntowijoyo and Ahimsa-Putra use the same framework of structuralism to find a model and structure that goes beyond age to explain various phenomena. Moreover, Ahimsa-Putra explains the three key elements which form the basis of (probably) the origin of prophetic paradigm that includes principle, epistemology, paradigm ethic, paradigmmodel as well as various implications of prophetic paradigm. However, before describing the epistemological basis to the implications of the prophetic paradigm, Ahimsa-Putra clarifies the fundamental structure on paradigm contained in the (paradigm) prophetic through 9 elements of paradigm. Ahimsa-Putra, through this narrative, explicitly admits that only three out of the nine elements of the paradigm discussed in details, they are the element in the paradigm which are usually not explicitly shown in paradigm and social science research, such as the basic assumption, ethics/values, and models.
The 9 elements of the paradigm employed by Ahimsa-Putra are not established from any particular response to the notion concerning the inception of prophetic paradigm. It is due to the fact that before he wrote the book on prophetic paradigm, Ahimsa-Putra had already been criticizing ideas/scholars on the use of the word paradigm which he has deemed not yet well established 3 . This fact has raised assumptions as though he intentionally promoted the elements of paradigm. Furthermore, what is done by Ahimsa-Putra on the notion concerning the inception of prophetic paradigm is very helpful for readers and scholars to understand prophetic paradigm through the clear schema provided by his creative hand on the basis of epistemology and various basic assumptions about the prophetic paradigm, although some problems still exist. Some of these problems are illustrated through this anxiety, "how does the recognition of highly personal experience become a basis of knowledge in prophetic paradigm? How is it to differentiate true real-life experience and imagination/human illusion?" Some of these questions are not discussed in this book.
Unlike Kuntowijoyo, Ahimsa-Putra "is not as optimistic" as Kuntowijoyo, but his ideas are beyond anything imagined by Kuntowijoyo. According to Ahimsa-Putra, not only will the prophetic paradigm be able to establish a new, faithful society that advocates goodness and forbids evil (p. 190)", but also be able to bring transformation within the individuals or communities, both in the social and cultural sphere. A strong relationship between scholars and The Creator is the foundation of prophetic paradigm. Its practices of knowledge are regarded as a form of devotion to God through noble means. Such ways should be practiced by scholars. Even the Western rationality has it ingrained that a scholar must perform honesty (be objective) in their quest to discover knowledge. Furthermore, the prophetic paradigm emphasizes noble means (honesty/objectivity) not only in their scientific quest, but also the scholars' everyday life.
Such is the nature of the relationship between man and his Creator, as a form of human's (scholars') servitude to their Lord.

Anxiety in Deciphering the Paradigm prior to (Prophetic) Paradigm and Realizing the Transformative (Social) Science as the Paradigm in Social Science: Is It Possible?
If I may say, what had been initiated by Kuntowijoyo and then refined by Ahimsa-Putra is an idea brought into existence following the disappointment over the Western paradigm which nullifies the existence of God. In addition, the notion that Western paradigm has always been deemed capable to bring society into a wellestablished, advanced, and modern era has not yet been proven true. In reality, excluding God from the paradigm altogether leads to various new problems, including injustice and dehumanization. The origin of the idea to implement the prophetic knowledge into prophetic paradigm is a response to the occurring social reality, therefore the offered (paradigm) model is different from the previous paradigms. If the scholars who follow the pre-prophetic paradigms are those (who do not necessarily believe in God), then the scholars who operate according to the prophetic paradigm are those who are religious. How so? This is because faith in God is such a required condition for scholars to be able to recognize religious teachings and it works as a foundation to sharpen their sensitivity over social realities. Both can form relation, or even transformation, between religious teachings and phenomena or trends within social reality.
Preceded by the anxiety presented above, an idea emerged which aimed to find a model of religious teaching that will be the framework for sciences. Ahimsa-Putra has provided systematic explanations on various models and base assumptions underlying the prophetic paradigm. He had attempted in various occasions to formulate a logical framework using Levi-Strauss' structural logic. However, Ahimsa-Putra has once been careless, which then leads him to be perceived as having agreed with Kuntowijoyo's view on Western studies as a part of the modern period and the Islamic studiesas a part of the postmodern period (p. 13).In addition, on another occasion he states that Kuntowijoyo hasadhered to a certain thought which is considered to be a universal structure in Islam (p. 18). Based on the statement above, there is a different understanding of the concept of post-modern and universal structure (the paradigm of structuralism). This book does not give any explanation whether the concepts above are divided according to the time period or the way of thinking. With lack of further confirmation from Ahimsa-Putra, the writings have the potential to confuse readers.
Apart from the shortcomings above, not only Ahimsa-Putra does strengthen a design that allows the recognition of the prophetic mindset as one of paradigms in the social sciences, but also he has provided an illustration on the implementation of a basic knowlegde about the possibility of prophetic paradigm emergence. The implementation is applied via some models that become the main foundation in Islam, i.e. Rukun Iman (the pillars of faith), Rukun Islam(the pillars of Islam), and Ihsan. All these things are used by Ahimsa-Putra as a model to explain the validity of structuralism system, which is about transformation. According to him, in all those three structures, there are structureswhich are related to each other, thus forming a system of relations. Unfortunately, the model illustrated by Ahimsa-Putra is not based on the findings in the tempatan community. That is, it is not based on the results of research based on the experience of community. In my opinion, illustrations submitted by Ahimsa-Putra is the result of an afterthought to make sense, arrange, justify, and generalize models arranged in the main model in the teachings of Islam through Iman, Islam and Ihsan. Consequently, readers find it difficult to implement the prophetic paradigm. Some possibilities include an emergence of questions like, how is the shape of ethnography formed from the prophetic paradigm? Is it possible that the value of dietyis present explicitly in the body of ethnography? Or is it merely the retrieval of data, analysis, and results of ethnography which can reflect the devotion and recognition of God? What are the chances of prophetic paradigm if it ismade operational to observe the multi-cultural society, especially people who have different teachings or religions? Should its implementation be limited to a society that follows certain teachings in accordance with applied prophetic paradigm? Or can prophetic paradigm be applied to people who are at the opposite way to prophetic paradigm (Islam), but a scholar can find the model and structure of Islam in society opposite to the aforementioned paradigm as a framework to acknowledge the existence of a God? The discussion in this book does not describe an answer from some of the questions above. As a result, scholars will find it difficult to apply the prophetic paradigm. Especially, it is when Ahimsa-Putra also confirms that the prophetic paradigm can also appear in the disciplines of Prophetic Anthropology, Prophetic Sociology, Prophetic Medicine, and several other prophetic disciplines.
This book takes the reader and scholars to jointly participate enhancing the prophetic formula as a new paradigm in the social sciences. Prophetic paradigm written by Ahimsa-Putra, a sort of supplement as well as a contemplation to move people's work ethic that had once been dead, because of an empirical rationality and world affair. This paper is very open in order to attain Kuntowijoyo' ideals. Will the prophetic paradigm be recognized as the paradigm and productive in the representation in the form of ethnography? The possibility of an actualization is in the previous paradigm which depends on the response of readers and scholars on the publication of the book paradigma profetik Islam: Epistemologi, Etos, dan Model. Scholars' awareness in revisiting Kuntowijoyo's and Ahimsa-Putra's ideas is the key to prophetic paradigm' existence in the social sciences.