Kuntowijoyo’s Prophetic Social Science: A New Paradigm in Social Science?

Dr. Muhammad Supraja, S.Sos., SH., M.Si.1 and Kukuh Siswoyo, S. Sos., MPP.2

Abstract

Social science is a branch of science which has a number of disciplines that relates
with the problems on human and society. The development of social science theories
has been started since the revolution of science which is marked by domination of
ratio and empirics in the west. The impact of the revolution of science develop
furthermore untill recent time which science put itself seperate from religious
intervension. But the impact of the development, science and social science
especially in a dilematic position in explaining the phenomenon of modern society
and could not give direction to the change itself. At the very beginning, social
science was reputed as value free but in fact it is value laden. Through the Profetic
Social Science, Kuntowijoyo’s intention is to reunite science and religion as the
sources of knowledge. In the Profetic Social Science, Kuntowijoyo tries to synthesis
social science theories and the knowledge from the divine revelation of the Koran
as the data, the document from God. This effort is called by scientification of Islam,
an objectification method of the Islamic verses. Through this effort, Kuntowijoyo is
idealizing that social science could perform the changes in society into what is
idealized in the Koran as the data, the document from God, which is based on three
principles which he adopted from the Koran namely “ta’muru bi al ma’ruf” or the
concept of liberation, “tanhauna ‘an al munkar” or the concept of humanization,
and “tu’minuna bi Allah” or the concept of transcendence.

Keywords: social science, science paradigm, scientification of Islam, Profetic

Social Science, objectification, liberation, humanization,
transcendency, Kuntowijoyo.

Brief History of Social Science

The scientific revolution is one of the central episodes of science history and an important
aspect of the intellectual and cultural history of the early modern period. It offers a portrait of
traditional knowledge at the height of its explanatory powers which was largely based on
common sense observations about how the world appeared and was guided by metaphysical

1
Muhammad Supraja is a lecture in Department of Sociology, Gadjah Mada University and the author of Menuju
Ilmu Sosial Profetik.
2
Kukuh Siswoyo is an alumnus of Department of Sociology , Gadjah Mada University, and School of Government
of Public Policy-Indonesia.
truths that harmonized well with the predominantly Christian outlook of early modern
Europeans.3

This period is a new intellectual movement in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries which was called the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason. The enlightenment can be
understood as a movement rejecting religion or as a movement developing the humanities as
separate from the natural sciences. The Enlightenment’s core tenet was that natural law could
be used to examine and understand all aspects of society. The Enlightenment’s leaders believed
that by using scientific methods, they could explain the laws of society and human nature and
create a better society and people. They were free from the restraints of religion and focused
instead on improving economic and social conditions. The movement consequently was
profoundly secular which inherently avoid the intervention of ‘religion’ to the scientific life.4
The most extreme form of opposition to Enlightenment ideas was French Catholic counter
revolutionary philosophy, which its view that God was the source of society and the reason
was seen as inferior to traditional religious beliefs.5 In this period of Enlightenment in the
th
middle of the 18 century, the revival of interest in social science emerged where the capitalism
had begun to outgrow its early state and gradually became the dominant socio-economic system
in western and northern Europe.

Auguste comte (1798-1853) who was the first to systematise and give a complete analysis of
the principles of the positive character of the social sciences in western tradition. Auguste
Comte used the term "science social" to describe the field, taken from the ideas of Charles
Fourier; Comte also referred to the field as social physics.6 The cornerstone of Comte’s
approach is the evolutionary theory or the law of the three stages with which groups, societies,
sciences, individuals and even minds go through the same three stages; the theological stage,
the metaphysical stage and the positive stage.7 Comte focused on the intellectual factors as the
source of social order and intellectual disorder was the cause of social disorder. The disorder
stemmed from earlier idea system, theological and metaphysical, that continuing to the

3
Burns, William E., 2011. The Scientific Revolution : An Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara California: ABC-CLIO,
Inc., p. xi.
4
Demals, Thierry, Enlightentment in Europe, London: Routledge Historical Resources History of Economic
Thought, p. 2. Accessed on 22 April 2018. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781138201521-HET8 -1
5
Ritzer, George, 1983. Modern Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 6.
6
Peck, H. T., Peabody, S. H., & Richardson, C. F. (1897). The International cyclopedia: A compendium of human
knowledge. New York: Dodd Mead & Company.
7
Ritzer, George, 1983. Modern Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 14-16.
positivistic (scientific) age. Only when positivism gained total control would social upheavals
cease. In any case, the arrival of positivism could bring order to the social world.8

The positivistic perspective of the classical theory of social science is followed by Herbert
Spencer with his law of evolution in society,9 Charles Darwin with his Social Darwinism,10
and Vilfredo Pareto with his athomistic, individualistic and mechanistic view in social
system.11 In its early period of development, the main problem in social science related on the
epistemology questions which asking what the nature and essential characteristics of scientific
knowledge adopted by the natural science are, how this knowledge is obtained, how it is
codified and presented, how it is subjected to scrutiny, and how it is warranted or validated.12
This problem was inherently being questions in the early period of modern society in the
Enlightenment era.

The early modern theory of social science in the late nineteenth century by Max Weber, Karl
Marx, and Emile Durkheim addressed the big questions such as the development of capitalism,
the rise of complex bureaucracies, class conflict, and how a moral order was possible in modern
urban societies.13 The second period of the development of social science in twentieth century
was marked on the development of macro level theory on society, such as Structural
Functionalism of Talcott Parson14 and Robert K. Merton,15 Neofunctionalism of Jeffrey C.
Alexander,16 Conflict Theory of Ralf Dahrendorf,17 Neo Marxian of Georg Lukacs18 and
Anthony Gramsci,19 and Systems Theory of Niklas Luhmann;20 and the development of micro
level theory on society as well such as Symbolic Interactionism of George Herbert Mead21 and
Erving Goffman,22 Ethnomethodology of Harold Garfinkle,23 Exchange Theory of George

8
Ibid,, p. 16.
9
Veeger, K.J., (1986) Realitas Sosial: Refleksi Filsafat Sosial atas Hubungan Individu-Masyarakat dalam
Cakrawala Sejarah Sosiologi. Jakarta: PT Gramedia, p. 37-38.
10
Ibid., p. 59-60.
11
Ibid., p. 74-76.
12
Machamer, P. (1998). Philosophy of science: An overview for educators. Science & Education, 7, 1-11
13
Hirschman, Charles, The Development of the Social Sciences Prior to Globalization and Some Thoughts on the
Future, Washington: University of Washington, Presented at the UCLA Conference on Southeast Asian Studies
in the 21st Century, April 14-15, 2000, Los Angeles, California, p. 2.
14
Ritzer, George, 1983. Modern Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 97-108.
15
Ibid., p. 108-114.
16
Ibid., p. 117-122.
17
Ibid., p. 123-126.
18
Ibid., p. 137-138.
19
Ibid., p. 139.
20
Ibid., p. 185-196.
21
Ibid., p. 205-220.
22
Ibid., p. 125-134.
23
Ibid., p. 245-251.
Homans24 and Peter M. Blau,25 Network Theory of Ronald Burt26 and Mark Granovetter,27 and
Rational Choice Theory of James S. Coleman.28

The third period of the development of social science in twentieth century has brought a new
thought in social science, the critical theory. This generation of social theory emerged to
respond many problems or pathology in modern society that could not be solved by the classical
and modern theory in social science. The first generation of the critical theory emerged from
Herbert Mercuse, with his ‘Critical Pedagogy’ and ‘Aesthetic Education’ in higher education,
and Eric Fromm who analyzed critically and explained on various diseases in modern society
and called modern society as a ‘sick society.’29

The Problems of Modern Society and Social Science

Francis Fukuyama in his work, the Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of
Social Order, explained that the transformation of society from agricultural society to industrial
society and then to infomation society has brought a large impact on social change of the human
history, the great disruption. It can be explained thorugh its causality, namely the poverty and
inequality, the increasing of the wealth which cause the first, the emerging of modern welfare
state, and a wide scope of cultural displacement including the disrepair of religion.30 According
to Fukuyama, modern capitalist society tend to demolishes rather than produces social capital
in society. The developed or industrial countries has disseminated the social capital without
any capability to rebuild it.31

In accordance with Eric Formm on his ‘sick society’ and Francis Fukuyama on the “great
disruption”, Jurgen Habermas proposed a theory of the pathology of modernity and called
modernity as an “unfinished project”. By this he meant that the rationality that has come to
characterize social-system in modern society is different form, and in conflict with, the
rationality that characterizes the life-world. Social system has grown increasingly complex,
differentiated, integrated, and characterized by instrumental reason. In this point, the second

24
Ibid., p. 274-281.
25
Ibid., p. 282-285.
26
Ibid., p. 293-294.
27
Ibid., p. 294-295.
28
Ibid., p. 296-303.
29
Supraja, Muhamamad, 2018. Menuju Ilmu Sosial Profetik, Yogyakarta: Elmatera Publishing, p. 2.
30
Fukuyama, Francis, 2005. The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order.
Translation: Masri Maris. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama, p. 78-94.
31
Ibid., p. 307-308.
generation of the critical theory emerged, Jurgen Habermas analyzed the problem of modernity
in modern society is on the domination of instrumental rationality (zweck rationaliteit) which
dominate almost all of the science. This argumentation is based on his argument on the
differentiation between ‘the instrumental ratio’ and ‘the critics ratio’.32

Jurgen Habermas is the leading defender of modernity and rationality in recent times. He saw
modernity as an ‘unfinished project’ which implying that there is far more to be done in the
modern world before thinking about the possibility of another kind of society, a postmodern
society which proposed by the postmodern theory. The final product of his critical social theory
is to reach a fully rational society in which both system and life-world were permitted to
rationalize in their own way, following their own logics. The rationalization of system and life-
world would lead to a society with material abundance and control over its environments as a
result of rational system and one of truth, goodness, and beauty steaming from a rational life-
world. The final result would be a fully rational society in which both system and life-world
rationality were allowed to express themselves fully without one destroying the other.33

This can be achieved by what he called with the importance of the learning process to produce
valid knowledge of a particular reality which he later named the claims of validity to understand
the truth of the outside world. It is a theoretical discourse and known as the principle of
truthfulness which these claims are theoretical. While conversations about the inner world are
aimed to achieve the rightness of norms or normative structures in which these claims are
practical in terms of moral consciousness.34

Habermas's community learning process takes place in two levels. First level, non-reflective
level. In this context society presupposes both theoretical and practical validity claims in
actions. While at the second level, the reflective level, where society learns through discourse
which disputes claims of validity (argumentation). Institutionalization of doubt in the science
encourages this reflective learning process.35

In his book Theory of Communicative Action, Habermas indirectly affirms the opinions of his
predecessors who developed the hypothesis that modern capitalist evolution in the welfare state
is a process of one-sided rationalization. In Habermas's view, the broader concept of
communicative rationality provides a feasible framework for observing the unity of the present

32
Ibid.
33
Ritzer, George, 1983. Modern Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 444-445.
34
Supraja, Muhamamad, 2018. Menuju Ilmu Sosial Profetik, Yogyakarta: Elmatera Publishing, p. 43.
35
Ibid., p. 43-44.
dimensions of rationalization of dimensions and then establishing the nature and potential
causative potential of the general crisis of the modern welfare state conception. It is the way
out proposed by Habermas to overcome the pathology in modern society which is called by the
theory of communication action.36

Jurgen Habermas, as a proponent of the second generation of the critical theory, hold the
principle that every science is value laden and it has its own interest which will determine its
outcome. Habermas categorized the science into three, namely (1) the empiric analytic science
which its interest is to control and dominate, (2) historic hermeneutic science which its interest
is to explore the intersubjectivity understanding, and (3) critical social science which its interest
is to emancipate and liberate.37

On the other parts, Alferd North Whitehead in 1956 published ‘Science and the Modern World’
which explored relation between science and religion that even thought the Enlightment has
seperated between science and religion but he still optimism on the role of religion, as he said
that:

...the conflict between science and religion is a slight matter which has been unduly
emphasized. A mere logical contradiction cannot in it self poit to more that tthe necessity
of some readjustments, possibly of a very minor character on both sides. Remember the
widely different aspects of events which are dealt with in science and in religion
respectively. Science is concerned wih the general conditions which are observed to
regulate physical phenomena; whereas religion is wholly wrappt up in the contemplation
of moral and aesthetic values. On the one side there os the law of gravitation, and on the
other the contemplation of the beuty of holiness. What one side sees, the other misses;
and vice versa.38

In the other part of his book, Whithehead said that

We should wait: but we should not wait passively or in despair. The clash is a sign that
there are wider truths and finer perspectives within which a reconciliation of a deeper
religion and a more subtle science will be found.39

Whitehead saw that there will be a melting point(s) between science and religion. He saw that
the clash, or what Fukuyama said as disruption, will find wider truths which was called by

36
Ibid., p. 44. See also Breaten, Jane. 1991. Habermas’s Critical Theory of Society. New York: State University
of New York Press,. 76.
37
Ibid.
38
Whitehead, Alferd North, 1956. Science and teh Modern World. United Sates of America: the New Amerian
Library, hal,, 191.
39
Ibid., p. 184.
Habermas as the principle of truthfulness, the theoretical claims that is the learning process to
produce valid knowledge of a particular reality.

Kuntowijoyo and the Prophetic Social Science

The problems of modern society and the relation between science and religion has its melting
point in Kuntowijoyo’s Prophetic Social Science. According to Kuntowijoyo that the Prophetic
Social Science is not only to explaine the social reality and transform it, but it has to give the
guidelines to what direction the transformation must be done and for what the purpose of it.
The Prophetic Social Science is not just the change for the change itself, but it change based
on the certain ethic and profetic ideals.40

His idea on the Profetic Social Science emerged as interaction of thought with Moeslim
Abdurrahman on the Transformative Theology. Kuntowijoyo formulated three fundamental
principles which become the pillars of the Prophetic Social Science, namely emancipation,
libaration and trancedence; a profetics aspiration which derived from the historic Islam
mission; (1) to do the good things, (2) restain the bad things and (3) believe in God (QS.3:110).
41

In this perspective, Kuntowijoyo tried to construct a relation building between science and
religion. The first, it is necessary for religion to have transformative capability in the middle of
two constellations, the modernization in one side and the stagnated modern social theory at the
other side. The second, Kuntowijoyo proposed a paradigmatic pespective where the Koran was
positioned as a framework to analyze human history activism. And the third, the study and the
research must be focused on historical tradition rather than normative tradition.42

According to Heru Nugroho, a Sociology Professor at Gadjah Mada University, that the
concepts of humanization and liberation in the Profetic Social Science accordance with the
Habermas’ critical social theory which its interest is to emancipate.43 Meanwhile, the other
concept, the trancedence, is a unique concept of the Prophetic Social Science which become

40
Kuntowijoyo, 1991, Paradigma Islam: Interpretasi untuk Aksi. Bandung: Mizan, p. 288.
41
Ibid., p. 288-289.
42
Hasan, Yusuf A., “Ilmu Sosial Profetik dan Sejumlah Agenda ke Depan: Refleksi atas Pemikiran Dr.
Kuntwijoyo,’ Jurnal Mukaddimah, No.6:IV, 1998, p. 23.
43
Nugroho, Heru, “Mencari Legitimasi Akademik Ilmu Sosial Profetik,” Kedaulatan Rakyat, 13 December 1997.
the main basic of the other two concepts. The transendency become the trancendent values as
an important part of the development of civilization.44

The Profetic Social Science proposed by Kuntowijoyo is in response to the postmodernism

which characterized by dedifferentiation that unclear seperate or unite the relation between
science and religion, and to response to the modernization which is characterized with the
differentiation that seperate religion and the other part of life, including science.45 Kuntowijoyo
arrived at the conclusion that the Profetic Social Science put the position of the divine
revelation as the values which give direction of the scientific activities and as the valid data to
reach on the theoretical conclusions. In this regards, Kuntowijoyo proposed an analytical
approach to the Koran which view the Koran as data, a documents from God.46 Kuntowijoyo
suggested two steps to ephistemological reconstruction that is a reorientation mode of thought
and mode of inquiry which elaborate that the source of science includes the divine revelation,
besides the ratio and the empiricistic experiment.47

The first step is to deconstruct ideological biases which inherently dominant in conventional
epistemology in social science which refused the divine revelation as the source of knowledge.
The second step is to elaborate the basic arguments which proved that there is no reason to
refuse the divine revelation as the source of knowledge. On this matter, Louay Safu in the
Foundation of Knowledge: A Comparative Study in Islamic and Western Methods of Inquiry
(1996) explained clearly that the problems in modern science which refuse religion as it is a
methaphysical activities an sich. In contrary, Safy proved that scientific activities always
assume the methaphysical knowledge which produce methaphysical postulates such as (1)
natural world is contructed by the law which permits the behaviour of the natural objects
operate in regularity, (2) the law that is used to construct the natural regularity is rationality
and therefore it can be understood by human ratio, and (3) the knowledge is an important value
of humanity that higher than that of the stupidity.48

On the methodology of the Profetic Social Science, Kuntowijoyo proposed the concept of
‘methodological objectification.’49 To make difference with theology which focuses on the

44
Kuntowijoyo, 1991, Paradigma Islam: Interpretasi untuk Aksi. Bandung: Mizan, p. 288.
45
Kuntowijoyo, 2001, “Ilmu Sosial Profetik: Etika Pengembangan Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial”, Al-Jami’ah: Journal of
Islamic Studies, IAIN Sunan Kalijaga, No. 61/1988, p. 68.
46
Kuntowijoyo, 1991, Paradigma Islam: Interpretasi untuk Aksi. Bandung: Mizan, p. 322-336.
47
Ibid., p. 289.
48
Safi, Louay, (2001) Ancaman Metodologi Alternatif: Sebuah Perbandingan Metode Penilitian Islam dan Barat.,
translation: Imam Khoiri, Yogyakarta: Tiara Wacana, p. 204-205.
49
Kuntowijoyo, 1997, Identitas Politik Umat Islam, Bandung: Mizan, p. 66-67.
textual-normative approach, Kuntowijoyo proposed scientific approach in the Profetic Social
Science or the objectification on the transcendental normative values, which consist of seven
methodological principles, namely (1) from abstract to concret, (2) from subjective to
objective, (3) from individual interpretation to socio-structural interpretation, (4) from non
historic to historic explanation, (5) from general formulation to specific and empiric
formulation, (6) from closed to open, and (7) from normative to factual or normative to
theoretic.50

Objectification translates internal value to the objective categories. In this concept,

Kuntowijoyo was influenced by Peter L. Berger’s conception of objectification. In ‘the Sacred
Canopy, Berger proposed a fundamental process of dialectics of human and society
phenomena, they are externalization, objectification and internalization.51 Kuntowijoyo took a
difference dialectics which formulate the objectifitcation that started from the internatizalition,
not from the externalization.52 On the conception of objectification of Islam, Kuntowijowo
proposed the reconstruction of religious thought in three ways, they are (1) from from abstract
to concret, (2) from ideology to science, and (3) from subjective to objective.53

Between Islamization of Science and the Profetic Social Science

The perspective that propose the urgency of social science to have religious foundation is not
a new perspective in islamic discourse. Isma’il Raji’ al Faruqi asserted that the social science
need to have islamic foundation on the Tauhid principle. Some argumentation of this
perspective are as follows (1) the rejection of positivism which produces the false
objectivication, (2) scepticism on the capability of social science theory and methodology
which is emerged in the western society in explaining the social reality in non-western world,
especially in muslim world with its unique knowledge and symbols, (3) the urgency of social
science to have foundation and alignment on the values in order to avoid the instrumentality
effect of science, and (4) the urgency to create alternative methodology which more appropriate
with the basic Islamic values.54

50
Kuntowijoyo,”Islam sebagai Teori perubahan Sosial,” in Masyuhur Amin (ed.) 1989. Teologi Pembangunan:
Paradigma Baru Pemikiran Islam. Yogyakarta: LKPSM NU DIY, p. 17-185.
51
Berger, Peter L., (1991) Langit Suci: Agama sebagai Realitas Sosial. Translation Hartono. Jakarta: LP3ES,
p.4.
52
Kuntowijoyo, Op. Cit.
53
Ibid., p. 15-26.
54
Al Faruqi, Ismail R., Editorial Introduction in Bagader, Abubaker A.., (1985) Islamisasi ilmu Sosial.
Translation: Muchtar Efendi Harap, Eddi S. Hariyadhi, and Lukam Hakiem. Yogayakarta: PLP2M, p . 1-3.
In this regards, Kuntowijoyo argued that it is unrealistic and ahistoric explanation if it tries to
develop social science without through the interaction process with the western social science
which is still dominant until current time. In construction the Profetic Social Science,
Kuntowijoyo adopted the westen social theories and methodology in order to enrich the process
of the theory building. It can be avoided to make a theory synthesis even the twisting to the
theories which adopted by Kuntowijoyo.55 Kuntowijoyo in his Profetic Social Science rejected
the dichotomy between Islamic social science and western social science. The purpose of the
Profetic Social Science is to formulate an objective social science through the objectification
of transcendental values into the social theories.56 The Profetic Social Science rejected the free-
value principle in social science. On the problem of value free in social science can be traced
in the works of David J. Grary which stated that a value free sociology is a doctrin of hiprocricy
and irresponsibility,57 and Gunar Myrdal which stated that the act of expressing of the values
explicitly is important in deciding the theoretical framework for research.58 In the Profetic
Social Science, Kuntowijoyo explicitly stated that it needs value foundation in order social
science can performs its transformation duties.

The Philosophical Convergence of the Profetic Social Science

The Prophetic Social Science emerges as an alternative way in the middle of the constellation
in social science which tend to positivistic and desisted from the effort to explain the reality.
In this regard, Heru Nugroho, a Sociology professor from Gadjah Mada University argued
that:59

In the essence, the idea of the Prophetic Social Science can be viewed as the result of
critical reflection in accordance with the practices of social science that tend to
ignore. Positivism spirit which emphasize the analytical-empiric science that has to
be free-value is precisely often used as the way of justification by the power.

Muhammad Supraja has another explanation on the emerging of Kuntowijoyo’s Prophetic

Social Science that it can be traced from another branch of critical theory which can be found

55
Rahardjo, M. Dawam, “Ilmu Sejarah Profetik dan Analisis Transformasi Masyarakat,” in introduction of
Kuntowijoyo, Paradigma., p. 17.
56
Subhan, Arief, (1994) “Dr. Kuntowijoyo: al Qur’an sebagai Paradigma,” Jurnal Ulumuul Quran, No. 4, Volume
V, p. 99-100.
57
Gray, David J., “value Free Sociology: A Doctrion of Hipcricy and Irresponsibility”, in Medley, Morrid L., and
Conyers, James E. (eds), 1968. Sociology of the Seventies, New York: Joh Wiley, p. 14.
58
Myrdal, Gunar, 1981. Objektifitas Penellitian Sosial. Translation: Victor I. Tanja, Jakarta: LP3ES, p. 52-53.
59
Nugroho, Heru, “Mencari Legitimasi Akademik Ilmu Sosial Profetik,” Kedaulatan Rakyat, 13 December 1997.
in the Phenomenology of Alferd Schutz. The Phenomenology of Alferd Schutz focuses on the
analysis of subject, action, conciousness, everyday life-word, and intersubjectivity.60 The
phenomenology of Alferd Schutz basically has anthroposentric, materialistic, and secularistic
characteristics which separated from the religion and its pessimism on the role of religion as
the source of knowledge that can be source of inspiration and transformation. It is the same as
Herbert Mercuse with his One Dimensional Man and Erich Fromm which lied their foundation
in Satre’s philosophy of existensialism in the effort to fight the decline of modern capitalist
society that has been dehumanized and alienated the human conciousness from its human
history.61

According to Muhammad Supraja, Kuntowijoyo has made a philosophical convergence

between the Phenomenology of Alferd Schutz and the philosophy of Whitehead, which is
called by Muhammad Supraja as the Prophetic Phenomenology Sociology that is a
phenomenology sociology with aims to transform the individuals and society to a better
condition. In this regards, Kuntowijoyo did not intend to rise the philosophical discourse or to
reject the western social theories but he want to give an alternative social science, the Prophetic
social science which consists of three foundations; liberalization, humanization, and
transendency.62

The Prophetic Social Science: A New Paradigm in Social Science?

Based on Thomas Kuhn’s work on The Structure of Scientific Revolution (1962), George Ritzer
has reached his thesis that social science is a multiparadigm science in his Sociology: A
Multiple Paradigm Science.63 According to Kuhn the development of science is revolutionary
progress and his view is contradictive with scientist’s general assumption which assumed that
the development of science is an accumulative progress. Kuhn’s model on the development of
science can be figured as follows64

Paradigm I Normal Science Anomalies Crisis Revolution Paradigm II

60
Supraja, Muhamamad, 2018. Menuju Ilmu Sosial Profetik, Yogyakarta: Elmatera Publishing, p. 13.
61
Ibid., p. 8-13.
62
Ibid., p. 17.
63
Ritzer, George, 1983. Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. Translation: Drs. Alimandan. Jakarta: PT Raja
Grafindo Persada, p. 3-4.
64
Kuhn, Thomas, (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chocago Press, p. .....
Normal science is a period of science accumulation in which the scientist works and develops
a dominant paradigm. But when the dominant paradigm uncapable to give appropriate
explanation on a problem or subject matter faced by the scientist, and it become the anomaly
of the dominant paradigm. It causes a crisis in science and its validity will call into question.
When the anomaly reaches its peak, a revolution might be happened or emerged as a wayout
and solution of the previous paradigm. The new paradigm will become the new dominant
paradigm and replace the previous paradigm which tend to decrease its influences between the
scientists.

Paradigm is the key terminology in science development model which introduced by Kuhn.
Ritzer defined more clearly on the paradigm as a fundamental point of view of the scientists
on what would be the subject matter that must be learnt in a branch of discipline. The paradigm
will help to formulate what mus be learnt, what problems have to be solved, how to solved the
problems, and what rules have to be followed to interpretate the gathered informations in order
to solve or answer the problem or question. In this point of view, it might be more than one
paradigm can emerge in a discipline.

The concept of paradigm is used by Ritzer to classify various theories in social science
affirmation above. Those theories is classified into three paradigms, namely social fact
paradigm, social defenition paradigm, and social behaviour paradigm. Ritzer tried to combine
the various paradigm into one paradigm rather than applying one paradigm separately to the
others, that is social reality paradigm.65 The social reality paradigm uses interrelation between
two basic social continuum, macroscopic-microscopic continuum and objektif-subjektif
continuum. The two basic social continuum in social reality paradigm is viewed as a wide range
social unity, which experiences the continous changing, and can be explained into four levels
of social reality, namely macro-objective unity, macro-subjective structure, micro-objective
phenomena, and micro-subjective facts . The four levels of social reality can be figured in
following scheme:66

65
Ritzer, George, 1983. Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. Translation: Drs. Alimandan. Jakarta: PT Raja
Grafindo Persada, p. 131.
66
Ibid., p. 132.
 macroscopic

II. Macro-objective I. Macro-subjective

Example: law norms, bureaucracy, Example: culture, norms and values.
technology, and language

Objective Subjective

IV. Micro-objective III. Micro-subjective

Example: behaviour pattern, social Example: various social processes of
action, and social interaction. reality formation.

microscopic

From this point of view, Ritzer explained that the problems facing by modern society is lying
on how social science explained the social reality of modern society. Any attempts that uses a
single paradigm will be failled to capture the entire phenomenon of society. It has to
impelement a multi-paradigm expalanation on the problem in order to find a comprehensive
explanation.

As Kuntowijoyo stated that the Prophetic Social Science is an alternative social science.
Through Ritzer’s conception on the pradigm of science, it raised the question on the posibility
of Kuntowijoyo’s Prophetic Social Science to become a new paradigm in social science. In this
regards, Kuntowijoyo tried to reunite the relation between religion and science which has been
seperated since the Enlightenment era. The progress of science in the Enlightenment era can
be figured as follows:67

Religion Anthroposentrism Differentiation Science

While the Prophetic Social Science, according to Kuntowijoyo proposed an integralistic

science which introduce another kind of progress of science that can be figured as follows:68

Religion Teoanthroposentrism Dedifferetiation Integralistic Science

67
Ibid., p. 64.
68
Ibid., p. 65.
In the enlightenment era, the knowledge derives from human or anthroposentrism that
seperating from religion as the source of moral and normative principles. In contrary in the
teoanthroposentrism, God is the source of knowledge. In the enlightenment era, the progress
of knowledege which derive from human produces differentiation of knowledge and at the final
result become science. Meanwhile in teoanthroposentrism, the progress of knowledge which
derive from the God’s divine revelation produces dedifferentiation of knowledge and at the
final result become the integralistic science.

The term of profetic in science has been adopted by several scientist in various contexts and
disciplines. Eric From, a proponent of Frankfurt School, used this terms to differentiate the
concept of peace in Christian tradition and Mesianistic conception on liberation. According to
Fromm, this concept is old enough which emerged in Judeo-Christian tradition.69 Robert W.
Friederichs used this concept to differentiate the concept of priest, which he meant by it that
propose to change and not to maintan the status-quo, to take a risk and not to have certainty,
and its perception standard is subjective and not objective.70 Ali Shariati, an Iranian Sociolog
also used this concept which he meant as a bright thought, or in Arabic as al rausyan al fikr.71
Kuntowijoyo used the term of profetic that consist of three elements; libaration, humanization
and transcendece which he adopted from the Koran that said “Kamu adalah umat terbaik yang
dilahirkan untuk manusia, menyuruh kepada yang baik dan mencegah dari yang munkar dan
beriman kepada Allah (QS. 3:110).” According to Kuntowijoyo, that in this verse what is meant
by the actor is the “ummah”, the action is “to do the good things”, ”restain the bad things” and
“believe in God.” Meanwhile the concept of humanization is revealed in the “to do the good
things”, the concept of liberation is revealed in “restain the bad things” and the concept of
trancedence is revealed in “believe in God.”72 The three elements of the Prophetic Social
Science must be translated through the process of religious values objectification which
electicly and critically choose the appropriate theories of social science to be used and
implemented.

69
Fromm, Erich, 1963. The Dogma of Christ., Canada: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston of Canada. In Supraja,
Muhamamad, 2018. Menuju Ilmu Sosial Profetik, Yogyakarta: Elmatera Publishing, p. 83-84.
70
Friederich, Robert, 1970. A Sociology of Sociology, New York: MacMillan Publishing,p. 93-99. In Supraja,
Muhamamad, Op. Cit., p. 84.
71
Syariati, Ali, 1988. Membangun Masa Depan Islam, Bandung: Mizan. In Supraja, Muhamamad, Op. Cit., p.
84-85.
72
Op. Cit., p. 85-86.
Kuntowijoyo diferentiate the reunite of religion and science with religion fundamentalism and
religion totalitarianism.73 To avoide the trap of secularization and domination in
fundamentalism and totalitarianism, Kuntowijoyo propose the concept of objectification as a
different concept of objective. The objectification is an interpretation of internal values into
objective categorization. It need a process of institutionalization of obejectification to become
a mode of thought.74

The Problem of the Concept of Objectification in the Prophetic Social Science

The concept of objectification proposed by Kuntowijoyo is the key concept in the Profetic
Social Science which has different meaning with the same concept which proposed by Peter L.
Berger and Thomas Luckman in The Social Construction of Reality A Tretise on Sociology of
Knowledge that the concept of the objectivicatian is on of his dialectical scheme social reality,
contains the externalization-objectivication-internalization process in every day human life. By
the objectivication, Berger and Luckman meant as human activities and institutions that have
been objectified,75 or in other world that is the process of social interaction in intersubjectivity
world through the institutionalization process.76

As mentioned above that Kuntowijoyo’s concept of the objectification is to formulate an

objective social science through the objectification of transcendental values into the social
theories.77 In this regards, the process of the formulation is the activities of interpretation of
internal values in the objective categories,78 or the process of concretization of the internal
beliefs.79 What is Kuntowijoyo meant with the concept of objectification is somethinglike a
kind of methodological conception, as one that is mentioned above on the convergence point
between the methodology of phenomenology which proposed by Alfred Schutz and
Whitehead’s philosophical argumentation on the relation between science and religion. There
might be the other methodological approaches that can be used to formulate an objective social

73
Ibid., p. 65-66. As Kuntowijoyo explained in Kuntowijoyo. 2005. Islam sebagai Ilmu. Jakarta: Teraju, p. 57-
58.
74
Ibid., p. 66-67.
75
Berger, Peter L., Luckman, Thomas, 1990 . Tafsir Sosial atas Kenyataan: Sebuah risalah tentang Sosiologi
Pengetahuan , Jakarta: LP3ES. Translation: Hasan Basari, p. 87.
76
Parerea, Frans M., Menyingkap Misteri Manusia sbagai Homo Faber in Translation Introduction, Berger, Peter
L., Luckman, Thomas, 1990 . Tafsir Sosial atas Kenyataan: Sebuah risalah tentang Sosiologi Pengetahuan ,
Jakarta: LP3ES. Translation: Hasan Basari, p. xx.
77
Subhan, Arief, (1994) “Dr. Kuntowijoyo: al_qur’an sebagai Paradigma,” Jurnal Ulumuul Quran, No. 4, Volume
V, p. 99-100.
78
Kuntowijoyo. 2005. Islam sebagai Ilmu. Jakarta: Teraju, p. 25.
79
Kuntowijoyo. 2002. Selamat Tinggal Mitos, Selamat Datang Realitas. Bandung: Mizan, p. 213.
science through the objectification of transcendental values into the social theories as
Kuntowijoyo is intended that come to close with, and will open up the discourse of, the
methodological approaches in Islamic Studies.

What was proposed by Fazlur Rahman’s alternative interpretation methodology might be

relevant with Kuntowijoyo’s concept of objectification. Fazlur Rahman, a proponent of neo-
modernism in Islamic studies which the effort is to reconstruct the Islamic thingking, proposed
an interpretation process that is like the penduluum which contains double movements, from
the current situation to the time when the Koran was descented and then move to the current
time. The first movement, from the current time to the time of the Qur'an is revealed. there are
two steps to take. First, one must understand the meaning of a statement by examining the
historical situation or peroblema in which the Qur'anic statement is the answer. As for the
second step is to generalize the specific answers and declare them as statements that have
general moral-social goals that can be "filtered" from specific verses in a rational socio-
historical and logical background.80

Meanwhile in the Islamic studies, the discourse of the methodological approach in interpreting
the Koran has been well-known two methodological approaches; namely first, verse by verse
or hadith interpretation which is called by tafsir bi al ma’tsur, and the second, ratio
interpretation or the interpretation which based on the science and called by tafsir bi al ra’yi.
M. Quraish Shihab, an expert in the Koran interpretation study, stated that there is a concept
of modernization in Islam which can be found in the term of tajdid, an effort to adjust religious
beliefs to the contemporary life through the interpretation of religious verses in accordance
with the development of science and society. In this regards, Shihab proposed three principles
that can be used as guidance in perform the tajdid in the interpretation of the Koran.81

1. The interpretation of the Koran that based on the explanation of the other verses, hadith
and the Prophet friends’s opinion, which is called tafsir bi al ma’tsur. It is devided into
two categories. First, the topics that cannot be explored by human ratio such as
metaphysics and the religious prays; and the second, the topics that can be explored by
human ratio, such society problems annd issues.

80
Kasim, Ifdhal, Neo-Modernism Islam: Upaya-Upaya Pembaharuan Fazlur Rahman. HIMMAH No. 2 (STT
NO. 4/XXI), November –December 1988., Yogyakarta: Student Magazine of Indonesian Islamic University, p.
23.
81
Kasim, Ifdhal, Neo-Modernism Islam: Upaya-Upaya Pembaharuan Fazlur Rahman. HIMMAH No. 2 (STT
NO. 4/XXI), November –December 1988., Yogyakarta: Student Magazine of Indonesian Islamic University, p.
23. Shihab, M. Quraish, Tafsir dan Modernisasi, Ulumul Qur’an No. 2 Vol. II.1991/1411 H., Jakarta: Lembaga
Studi Agama dan Filsafat, p. 35-38.
 2. The differentiation between the Qath’iy and the Zhanny
Qathiy are verses that have a clear meaning in the Koran as the verses relating to the
issue of the Shari'a. While zhanny is a verse that is not related to the issue of Shari'a,
then this is the field of study of scholars and thinkers. This is the underlying distinction
between shari'a and fiqh in Islam. In this case, M. Quraish Shihab refers to the opinion
of Ahmad Abdul al Majid in “Muwajahat Ma’a ‘Anashir al-Jumud fi al Fikr al-Islamiy
al-Mu’ashir,” where the Shari'a is a lasting thing and is established on the basis of the
qath'iy nashes (clear postulates) both in terms of the wurud (authenticity of the source)
and in terms of dilalah (the meaning); while fiqh is the interpretation of the nash
(postulate). According to Shihab, the principle that naturally holds in doing the
interpretation (takwil) is to hold on to the good old and to the new that better. Al
muhafadzah ‘ala al-qadim al-shalih wa al-akhz bi al-jadid alashlah.
3. The Utilization of Takwil and Metaphor
According to Shihab that the Islamic scholars acknowledged the need for ta'wil in its
various forms, although there are still differences of opinion in the conditions that must
be guided in making the interpretation (takwil), one of which is a matter of grammatical
rules and not based on mere speculation of reason. In this regard, Shihab refers to the
opinion of Abu Ishaq al-Syathibi that there are two basic conditions for every
interpretation (takwil); the meaning chosen in accordance with the nature of truth
recognized by those who have authority in their field and the chosen meaning has been
known in classical Arabic.

The Relevancy of the Prophetic Social Science in Indonesia

As an Indonesian intellectual, Kuntowijoyo graduated his doctoral program in history science

from Colombia University, USA. He teached in Department of History, Gadjah Mada
University and well-known as historian. But in his intellectual career, his interest in science
became wider to the field of sociology and religious studies, including literature which then he
published several novels. He was also a member one of socio religius organization,
Muhammadiyah, and a member of an Indonesian muslim intellectual organization, ICMI.

Kuntowijoyo’s intellectual development and career cannot be seperated from the development
of social science and political constellation since the New Order era in Indonesia. The Prophetic
Social Science is a genuine thought of Kuntowijoyo which emerged from his criticism of the
development of social science in Indonesia that become the basis of the building foundation of
Indonesia national development strategy in New Order era. As a member of Muhammadiyah,
Kuntowijoyo was an associate in intellectual discourse with M. Amin Rais, a professor from
Gadjah Mada University. M. Amin Rais has the same criticism with Kuntowijoyo in the
development of social science in Indonesia, which stated that:

Not only in the field of technological and economic science we depend on the more
advanced world, but also our social sciences are still the recipients and consumers.
To create your own theories that are more relevant to our society, it may take some
time. Therefore, we must be really critical in using the theories that come from outside.
Or to borrow Dr. Ali Shariati from Iran, as scholars of the Third World as well as the
Eastern World (read: The Communist world). Sometimes we become confused when
we take the stance of theories in the social sciences that are somewhat 'iconoclastic'
or destructive. For example we can mention that in looking at development issues in
the Third World, the prescriptions or prescriptions proposed by liberal theories and
neo-Marxist theories are contradictory and impossible to reconcile ...... We must
realize that theories has been developed in the social sciences can propose very
different recipes, whereas the phenomena are seen the same. If we are not critical, not
selective and not progressive in choosing the theories in the diverse social sciences
we will be seized with confusion because the origin of taking the theory clearly will
not help solve the social problems we face .... Before we are able to create our own
theories and paradigms that are more relevant to our needs, the best attitude is open
and open-minded and open-minded attitude and seek the path and take what is best
and most suitable from the various theories offered in the treasury the social
sciences.82

The statement of M. Amin Rais is in accordance with Arif Budiman, a professor of Sociology
in East Asia Studies at Autralian National University, which argued that83

Tanpa adanya “peta bumi” ilmu-ilmu sosial, kita juga jadi tidak dapat berdialog
dengan perdebatan ilmu-ilmu sosial dunia, karena kita tidak dapat mengetahui kita
berada dalam posisi mana. Kita jadinya hanya mengiyakan, atau tidak menyetujui
tanpa jelas dimana persamaan atau perbedaan kita yang sungguh-sungguh dan
mendalam. Ahli-ahli ilmu sosial kita hanya dikenal di dunia melalui sumbangan data
saja, tidak dalam teori. Kita belum ikut serta dalam pertukaran pendapat tentang
teori, seperti halnya ahli-ahli ilmu sosial dari beberapa negara di Amerika Latin,
Afrika dan Asia.

In this regards, Soedjatmoko, the former Rector of UN University, stated that

Without the "earth map" of the social sciences, we too can not dialogue with the
debates of the world's social sciences, because we can not know where we are. We
will either simply agree, or disapprove without any clear where our equations or

82
Rais, M. Amin. “Krisis Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial, Sebuah Pengantar,” in Rais, M. Amien, 1984. Krisis Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial
dalam Pembangunan di Dunia Ketiga., Yogyakarta: PLP2M, p. 27-30.
83
Budiman, Arief. “Ilmu Sosial Indonesia,” in Rais, M. Amien, 1984. Krisis Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial dalam
Pembangunan di Dunia Ketiga., Yogyakarta: PLP2M, p. 162.
 differences are genuine and profound. Our social scientists are only known in the
world through data contributions alone, not in theory. We have not participated in the
exchange of ideas on the theory, as do social scientists from several countries in Latin
America, Africa and Asia..84

Moeljarto Tjokrowinoto adopted Andre Gunder Frank which said that

The infertility of the social sciences in Indonesia is likely to be due to empirical

inaccuracies, theoretical neglect, and the inadequate wisdom of the social sciences in
Indonesia. Pure adoption of concepts, constructs, theories and social science
methodologies from foreign countries to Indonesia will lead to the negative symptoms
as found above. The problem of the diffusion of the social sciences, as the diffusion
problem of socio-technological innovation is often troubled by the social sciences as
well as socio-technological innovations, brings the fiber of total culture within the
social sciences where it came from.85

In line with the above arguments, Ignas Kleden stated that

“.... without making systematic criticism of the theories that are now confusing in the
practice of the social sciences here, and by simply taking-over, introducing and applying
various foreign theories in Indonesia, it is difficult to imagine a preparation to direction
of theory creation. Because some critical experience for the creation of a theory may
only be gained by the deliberate activity of systematic critique of theory, and such
experiences may also never be obtained if one is only busy with the operationalization of
foreign theories in the field. .. critics who will test, whether the underlying ideological
understanding of the structure or mentality is a fairly tested ideology. Practically this
means that seeing, whether a social science theory, before being passed down to the field
of research, contains certain contradictions in its construction or the contents are quite
consistent. Epistemology is nothing but a logical analysis of an ideology of knowledge
....... reveals and simultaneously reveals the ideological aspects of a theory, which shows
the interests of which parties are consciously or unconsciously justified and defended by
a theory of social science.”86

The argumentation of Hidajat Nataatmadja might be a justification for Kuntowijoyo’s

Prophetic Social Science idea, which argued that

If in religion there is a dogma, then in science we can get a law or axiom; if in religion
there is Titus, then in science we will get the methodology; and if in religion there is a
myth, then in science there is an ideology. Such an analogy suggests that religion and
science are essentially not separate things. It is precisely that now religion and science

84
Soedjatmoko, “Etika dalam Perumusan Strategi Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial,” in Rais, M. Amien, 1984. Krisis
Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial dalam Pembangunan di Dunia Ketiga., Yogyakarta: PLP2M, p. 121.
85
Moeljarto, Tjokrowinoto, “Krisis Kepercayaan dalam terhadap Peran Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial di Indonesia,” in Rais,
M. Amien, 1984. Krisis Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial dalam Pembangunan di Dunia Ketiga., Yogyakarta: PLP2M, p. 185.
86
Kleden, Ignas, “Kritik Teori sebagai Masalah Ilmu Sosial,” in Rais, M. Amien, 1984. Krisis Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial
dalam Pembangunan di Dunia Ketiga., Yogyakarta: PLP2M, p. 140-151.
 are separated into two are a reflection of the misconceptions that have been pioneered
since the renaissans.87

Conclusion
The idea of the Prophetic Social Science which was initiated by Kuntowijoyo cannot be
seperated by the influences of the spreading of Ismail al Faruqi’s idea on the islamization of
science in Indonesia. In this regards, Kuntowijoyo proposed another term which is called by
the scientification of Islam. In the Islamization of Science, al Faruqi proposed the way of
thinking from “context” to “text.” Meanwhile in the Scientification of Islam, Kuntowijoyo
proposed the way of thinking from “text” to “context.”88 In this way, what was purposed by
Kuntowijoyo in the Prophetic Social Science on the Scientification of Islam has been conducted
sporadically by many scholars in Indonesia especially in Islamic higher education, research
and think thank institutions, in order to find a relative new way to overcome the old one.
In conclusion, it can be concluded that even though the institutionalization of the Prophetic
Social Science has not been systematically well-organized, therefore it is necessary to conduct
the efforts of documenting the results of the sporadic studies in the Islamic scientific
community as an attempt to consolidate the Prophetic Social Science both methodologically
and epistemologically. It is necessary as well to further socialize and disseminate the Prophetic
Social Science as an alternative paradigm of social sciences.

Referrences

Al Faruqi, Ismail R., Editorial Introduction in Bagader, Abubaker A.., (1985) Islamisasi ilmu
Sosial. Translation: Muchtar Efendi Harap, Eddi S. Hariyadhi, and Lukam Hakiem.
Yogayakarta: PLP2M.
Berger, Peter L., Luckman, Thomas, 1990 . Tafsir Sosial atas Kenyataan: Sebuah Risalah
tentang Sosiologi Pengetahuan , Jakarta: LP3ES. Translation: Hasan Basari.
Berger, Peter L., (1991) Langit Suci: Agama sebagai Realitas Sosial. Translation Hartono.
Jakarta: LP3ES.
Breaten, Jane. 1991. Habermas’s Critical Theory of Society. New York: State University of
New York Press.
Burns, William E., 2011. The Scientific Revolution : An Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara
California: ABC-CLIO.

87
Nataatmadja, Hidajat, “Krisis Global Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial dan Penyembuhannya,” in Rais, M. Amien,
1984. Krisis Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial dalam Pembangunan di Dunia Ketiga., Yogyakarta: PLP2M, p. 130.
88
Supraja, Muhamamad, 2018. Menuju Ilmu Sosial Profetik, Yogyakarta: Elmatera Publishing, p. 108-109.
Demals, Thierry, Enlightentment in Europe, London: Routledge Historical Resources History
of Economic Thought, p. 2. Accessed on 22 April 2018. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781138201521-HET8 -1
Friederich, Robert, 1970. A Sociology of Sociology, New York: MacMillan Publishing.
Fromm, Erich, 1963. The Dogma of Christ., Canada: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston of Canada.
Fukuyama, Francis, 2005. The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of
Social Order. Translation: Masri Maris. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Hasan, Yusuf A., “Ilmu Sosial Profetik dan Sejumlah Agenda ke Depan: Refleksi atas
Pemikiran Dr. Kuntwijoyo,’ Jurnal Mukaddimah, No.6:IV, 1998.
Hirschman, Charles, The Development of the Social Sciences Prior to Globalization and Some
Thoughts on the Future, Washington: University of Washington, Presented at the UCLA
Conference on Southeast Asian Studies in the 21st Century, April 14-15, 2000, Los
Angeles, California.
Kasim, Ifdhal, Neo-Modernism Islam: Upaya-Upaya Pembaharuan Fazlur Rahman. HIMMAH
No. 2 (STT NO. 4/XXI), November –December 1988., Yogyakarta: Student Magazine
of Indonesian Islamic University.
Kuhn, Thomas, (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chocago
Press.
Kuntowijoyo, 1991, Paradigma Islam: Interpretasi untuk Aksi. Bandung: Mizan.
Kuntowijoyo, 1997, Identitas Politik Umat Islam, Bandung.
Kuntowijoyo, 2001, “Ilmu Sosial Profetik: Etika Pengembangan Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial”, Al-
Jami’ah: Journal of Islamic Studies, IAIN Sunan Kalijaga, No. 61/1988.
Kuntowijoyo, 1984. “Islam sebagai Suatu Ide,” Prima Ekstra.
Kuntowijoyo. 2002. Selamat Tinggal Mitos, Selamat Datang Realitas. Bandung: Mizan.
Kuntowijoyo. 2005. Islam sebagai Ilmu. Jakarta: Teraju.
Machamer, P. (1998). Philosophy of science: An overview for educators. Science & Education,
7, p. 1-11.
Masyuhur Amin (ed.) 1989. Teologi Pembangunan: Paradigma Baru Pemikiran Islam.
Yogyakarta: LKPSM NU DIY.
Medley, Morrid L., and Conyers, James E. (eds), 1968. Sociology of the Seventies, New York:
Joh Wiley.
Myrdal, Gunar, 1981. Objektifitas Penellitian Sosial. Translation: Victor I. Tanja, Jakarta:
LP3ES.
Nugroho, Heru, 2018. “Mencari Legitimasi Akademik Ilmu Sosial Profetik, Kedaulatan
Rakyat, 13 Desember 1997.
Peck, H. T., Peabody, S. H., & Richardson, C. F. (1897). The International Encyclopedia: A
Compendium of Human Knowledge. New York: Dodd Mead & Company.
Rahardjo, M. Dawam, “Ilmu Sejarah Profetik dan Analisis Transformasi Masyarakat,”
Paradigma.
Rais, M. Amien, 1984. Krisis Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial dalam Pembangunan di Dunia Ketiga.,
Yogyakarta: PLP2M.
Ritzer, George, 1983. Sosiologi: Ilmu Pengetahuan Berparadigma Ganda. Translation: Drs.
Alimandan. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.
Ritzer, George, 1983. Modern Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Safi, Louay, (2001) Ancaman Metodologi Alternatif: Sebuah Perbandingan Metode Penilitian
Islam dan Barat., translation: Imam Khoiri, Yogyakarta: Tiara Wacana.
Shihab, M. Quraish, Tafsir dan Modernisasi, Ulumul Qur’an No. 2 Vol. II.1991/1411 H.,
Jakarta: Lembaga Studi Agama dan Filsafat.
Subhan, Arief, (1994) “Dr. Kuntowijoyo: al_qur’an sebagai Paradigma,” Jurnal Ulumuul
Quran, No. 4, Volume V, p. 99-100.
Sudarajat, Ajat, Miftahuddin, Djumarwan (2014) Kuntowijoyo dan Pemikirannya: Dari
Sejarawan hingga Cendikiawan, Yogyakarta: Fakultas Imu Sosial Universitas Negeri
Yogyakarta.
Supraja, Muhamamad, 2018. Menuju Ilmu Sosial Profetik, Yogyakarta: Elmatera Publishing.
Syariati, Ali, 1988. Membangun Masa Depan Islam, Bandung: Mizan..
Veeger, K.J., (1986) Realitas Sosial: Refleksi Filsafat Sosial atas Hubungan Individu-
Masyarakat dalam Cakrawala Sejarah Sosiologi. Jakarta: PT Gramedia.
Wikipedia, Kuntowijoyo. https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuntowijoyo
Whitehead, Alferd North, 1956. Science and teh Modern World. United Sates of America: the
New Amerian Library.