Just to enliven the Festive Season, perhaps we could have a discussion on the correct definition of the enemy, for in my view this whole 'conservative Islamist' thing is a bit of an insult to conservatives  - the better way to describe the nutters is surely 'radical,' because the real, traditional, Indonesian Muslims are the kind whose Islamic beliefs are blended in with older, more civilised ways, and who never found it demeaning to wish us a Merry Christmas as we would wish them a Selamat Idul Fitri; they are thus the real 'conservatives,' in that they cleave to a more gracious Muslim attitude which older expats than I can still recall as being predominant.

Even tv programmes appear to confirm this - look at the ghastly cinetrons currently being shown, in which jilbabs denote 'good' and miniskirts 'bad.'

There is even one where the heroine has one of those defeminising casbah outfits, with just a space for her eyes to peer out self-righteously at the yummy villainess. Chadors were never part of Indonesia's heritage, but rather an import from the Arabian peninsula - a radical innovation to be sure! (I have also heard - though I don't know - that in certain parts of the Gulf the Arabs themselves were not in the past addicted to draping their womenfolk in Darth Vader gear, and old colonial hands from Malaya tell me that local ladies there used to display interesting swathes of their beauty despite being undoubtedly Muslims)
Even tonight as I type this up, Sunday 14/12, the dreadful woman in Ta'aruf  (no offence to the actress, I'm referring to the character she plays) has just rebuffed an offer of help from a friendly shop assistant because as a Muslim she  may not be touched!

What kind of imbecilic example is this to offer to the many impressionable young ladies who no doubt are watching? I have been here for quite some years and only once have I encountered such bizarre behaviour. Do the TPI bosses think it's a fine idea to elevate chadur-loonies to role models, to put primitivism on a pedestal? 

(NB; I am no big 'soap fan' - if you share a home with one, you get to see them regardless!)
 
Compare the mediaeval mentality of today's cinetrons with the carefree comedies featuring Dono and Hendro, ancient re-runs that are obviously not meant to be taken seriously, but equally obviously were meant to reflect a recognisable reality in their backdrops, in which women in public places like concert audiences, or walking down the streets, are dressed like real women, nary a headscarf to be seen.

That was surely how it was, so those who have changed or seek to change those good old ways are surely the antithesis of conservatism.
   
'Radical' is surely an epithet most suited to idiotic clowns like that Muslim Lawyers'Team twit who showed up on TVOne dressed like a Surrey drama club's idea of Lawrence of Arabia, or that tubby clown at the funeral of Dorce's Dreamboat, tricked out in what he no doubt imagined to be a fetching version of Taliban gear.

They are 'radical' in that they seek to tear up by the roots the tolerant, easy-going Javanese brand of Islam.

The genuine disapproval among ordinary Muslim citizens at the thuggery of the FPI at Monas mirrored the conservatism of working men and women in the West, who instinctively dislike assaults on the values they take for granted. (Admittedly this may be changing, if surveys like that which showed large numbers of Muslim teachers guilty of inculcating crass primitive bigotry are accurate, but whether Islamist cretinism takes root among their young charges remains to be seen)   

That all this has altered for the worse tends to bolster my case - in some parts of the Muslim world at least, conservativism is to be treasured, radicalism deplored.

I've seen women wearing headscarves during daytimes, then they changed wearing miniskirts at night.

Disturbing.

Ross said:

I assume you don't really mean the PCP in Canada, which became a tiny rump after Harper got his CPC launched? Harper and Cameron use the word 'conservative' but hardly exemplify it.

Yes bit out of date on the Canada one, it was just such a nice example….

Ross said:

Real conservatism values what good things we have inherited, for British Empire people the Crown, Flag, the values of Christendom, for Americans the Stars and Stripes and the Founding Fathers' wisdom (not what the goons on the Supreme Court twist that to mean) and strives to keep them. This is not  stcik-in-the-mud, like the Old Order Amish, who cling to things that can be usefully replaced (though having met some and experienced their behaviour, perhaps we can lelarn a lot from those Germanic North Americans!)

You're talking about how things were and should be, I'm thinking about how things are and will be, so we are at a little disconnect. There is no future for the things you mention, some of them are dead and gone already, conservatism is just irrelevant, especially political conservatism, - politicians and political parties, - because in modern democracies the real centres of power are the media, the universities, schools, public service, and particularly in America the judiciary - the executive is relatively powerless against these so political activism through political parties is a waste of time, I'd recommend going fishing, or ballroom dancing, or learning gamelan, but if political activism is what gets you going then do that.

Regarding Jilbabs, Chadors, sacks, bags, etc….

I've always vaguely known that these were not common in the past… e.g. in Malaysia apparently Anwar Ibrahim in his student rabble rousing days was instrumental in promoting female head covering on campuses.

My question is, does anyone have sources and references for Indonesia? It would be nice to be able to plot jilbab prevalence at (say) UI over the last 30 years.

One problem with history is that it's like the frog being boiled slowly. It creeps up on you. Continuous incremental change can make for a huge difference over several decades - and also makes it that much harder to fight possibly undesirable trends.

Seems hyperobvious when I read it back to myself, but no one's said it, so:

It's important to note that many parts of Indonesia different from many others.  Muslim tradition in Aceh, West and North Sumatra, e.g., is not syncretic like on Java.  

One can talk of “Arabization” (as in Saudi), but I think this isn't that strong of a trend (exactly how many Indonesian women veil their faces?).  However, the more orthodox “Sumatran” style of Islam appears to be pushing out its syncretic cousins on the most populated island…

Places like Sumatra and, to a lesser extent, West Java, have been more orthodox for centuries.  Not Salafi or anything, but certainly a lot more orthodox than heterodox Java (Central and East).  I see Javanese Muslims moving slowly towards a more conservative, Sumatran style Islam.  I don't see Salafism or Muslim Brotherhood style Islamism gaining huge traction.  A minority, yes.  But not more.