Human suffering has never respected national borders. An earthquake can flatten a city within seconds. War can force millions from their homes. Prolonged conflict can leave children growing up in refugee camps. Such disasters ultimately raise a fundamental question: How can people help one another?
The answer is rarely as simple as good intentions. Humanitarian crises often collide with geographic, political, and bureaucratic barriers. However, Aid must enter a country. Volunteers need authorization. Conflict zones may be difficult to reach. Local governments have their own regulations and interests. Even when assistance is available, ensuring that it reaches those who need it can be difficult.
Governments remain essential in such situations. Yet they are not the only actors involved. The contemporary humanitarian landscape has increasingly highlighted the role of non-state actors, including nongovernmental organizations, international agencies, communities, and faith-based organizations. It is within this space that religious organizations have found new forms of service.
Religion, in this context, does not end with beliefs practiced in places of worship. It can also become a source of social energy, moving people across borders. Solidarity is no longer limited to those who live in the same neighborhood, share the same nationality, or practice the same faith. When human suffering is understood as a shared concern, humanity becomes a language capable of crossing those boundaries.
Muhammadiyah offers a notable example. For more than a century, the organization has been known for its work in education, health care, social services, and community empowerment. In recent decades, however, its activities have increasingly extended beyond Indonesia’s domestic concerns. Muhammadiyah has become involved in international issues ranging from peace and conflict resolution to displacement and cross-border humanitarian assistance.
From a Local Movement to a Global Responsibility
To understand this expansion, it is useful to look at Hilman Latief and Haedar Nashir’s 2020 study, “Local Dynamics and Global Engagements of the Muhammadiyah: A Case Study of the Muhammadiyah’s International Activities” (2020). The study argues that Muhammadiyah’s international engagement did not emerge suddenly. Instead, it grew from changes in religious thought, organizational orientation, and institutional development.
Latief and Nashir view this international engagement as part of Muhammadiyah’s effort to reinterpret its religious outlook in response to the needs of a changing world. They describe it as “a reflection of this Islamic modernist movement in reframing and materialising its religious views to be contextual with the needs of a global society” (Latief and Nashir, 2020: 293).
In other words, Muhammadiyah’s presence on the global stage represents an effort to translate its religious outlook into action that addresses global challenges.
This is where the concept of Islam Berkemajuan, or Progressive Islam, takes practical form. Islam is not understood as a teaching that speaks only to its own community. Instead, it is expected to engage with broader questions of human welfare. Muhammadiyah’s Second Century Statement, as discussed by Latief and Nashir, presents Islam as a force for civilizational progress and universal benefit. It also embraces an Islamic cosmopolitanism that encourages dialogue, cooperation, alliances, and coexistence among civilizations.
Therefore, Muhammadiyah’s internationalization should not be understood simply as an effort to expand the organization’s name abroad. Something more fundamental is taking place. Muhammadiyah is broadening the scope of its responsibility. Poverty, war, disasters, displacement, and human suffering elsewhere are no longer regarded as matters entirely beyond the movement’s reach.
That transformation has also gained institutional support. The establishment of Lazismu, the Council for Community Empowerment, and the Muhammadiyah Disaster Management Center, or MDMC, has strengthened the organization’s capacity for philanthropy, empowerment, and disaster response. MDMC itself emerged from Muhammadiyah’s growing awareness of the importance of disaster-risk reduction and emergency response. Meanwhile, Muhammadiyah-Aisyiyah hospitals and Muhammadiyah-Aisyiyah universities have provided additional strength through professional medical workers, nurses, and volunteers.
Hilman Latief and Haedar Nashir argue that the development of MDMC, the Council for Community Empowerment, Lazismu, Muhammadiyah-’Aisyiyah universities, and Muhammadiyah-‘Aisyiyah hospitals, along with other institutions, has produced “a shift in the character of the movement” (Latief and Nashir, 2020: 298). Humanitarian action, in other words, has helped shape a new face of Muhammadiyah.
Humanitarian Work as Diplomacy
Cross-border humanitarian work is not merely collecting aid and sending it to a disaster zone. This is where the concept of humanitarian diplomacy becomes important.
A study by Rahmawati Husein, Bachtiar Dwi Kurniawan, and Nawang Kurniawati, titled “Humanitarian Diplomacy in Action: Examining Muhammadiyah as a Model for Faith-Based Organizational Engagement” (2024) uses the humanitarian diplomacy framework developed by Larry Minear and Hazel Smith in 2007 to examine Muhammadiyah’s role.
The framework broadens the traditional meaning of diplomacy. States, ambassadors, and foreign ministers are not the only ones responsible for diplomatic work. Non-state actors and nongovernmental organizations can also perform diplomatic functions when they seek to deliver aid, gain access to affected communities, advocate for humanitarian interests, and ensure that assistance programs operate properly.
Minear and Smith identify four main activities of humanitarian diplomacy. The first is arranging the presence of humanitarian actors. The second is negotiating access to people who need protection and assistance. The third is advocacy. The fourth is monitoring assistance programs. These four dimensions help explain how Muhammadiyah operates in crisis-affected regions.
The first dimension is presence. In humanitarian work, simply being present is rarely straightforward. Presence, initially, requires networks, information, coordination, resources, and partners. An organization cannot simply enter a conflict zone or disaster area. It must understand who is already working there, assess security conditions, identify the appropriate authorities, and determine the most urgent needs. Such efforts require “establishing a foothold within the affected area” (Husein, Kurniawan, and Kurniawati, 2024: 3).
Muhammadiyah has therefore built much of its international presence through partnerships. It has worked with the Indonesian government, United Nations agencies, international humanitarian organizations, national alliances, and local partners. In some cases, Muhammadiyah has joined Indonesian humanitarian missions. In others, it has worked through alliances or established direct partnerships with organizations in affected countries.
These networks have enabled Muhammadiyah to respond to crises in Palestine (2009, 2014, 2021, 2023), southern Thailand (2008), Nepal (2015), Myanmar (2017), Bangladesh (2017), Turkey (2023), and Sudan (2023). Its assistance has taken many forms, including health services, logistical aid, school construction, scholarships, sanitation facilities, training, and economic empowerment. In some cases, it has also supported peace-building and reconciliation. Humanitarian work, therefore, does not necessarily end with emergency relief. It can continue into recovery and reconstruction.
The response to Rohingya refugees in 2017 illustrates this approach. Through Muhammadiyah Aid and its partnership with the Indonesia Humanitarian Alliance, Muhammadiyah sent a team to Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. Medical volunteers were recruited from Muhammadiyah’s network of hospitals and universities. They worked in rotations so humanitarian services could continue. The experience demonstrated one of Muhammadiyah’s key strengths: its ability to connect organizational resources developed domestically over decades with humanitarian needs abroad.
The second dimension is negotiating access. This is one of the least visible aspects of humanitarian work. When aid finally reaches victims, the public sees supplies, medical workers, and volunteers. What is often less visible is the lengthy process that made their arrival possible. Husein and her colleagues describe practical negotiation as building agreements that can guarantee “the safety, access, and assistance of civilians during conflicts” (Husein, Kurniawan, and Kurniawati, 2024: 3).
Humanitarian actors must communicate with governments, embassies, international agencies, local authorities and, community partners. During the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar in 2017, Muhammadiyah gained access through its participation in humanitarian alliances, with facilitation from Indonesia’s Foreign Ministry and the Myanmar government. In Nepal’s 2015 earthquake response, coordination with Indonesian humanitarian teams was crucial to entering and operating in affected areas. During the 2023 earthquake in Turkey, Muhammadiyah’s medical teams gained access through communication and permits involving the Turkish government and Indonesian representatives.
This is where the term diplomacy becomes relevant. Muhammadiyah is not a state. It has no embassy and does not possess the political authority of a government. Yet as a humanitarian organization, it must build trust, communicate with stakeholders, make its case, and open pathways for assistance to reach those in need.
The third role is advocacy. Humanitarian work is not only about what can be delivered. It is also about what needs to be said. Armed conflict, displacement, and violence against civilians often require broader attention than relief shipments alone. The ultimate goal is “the protection of civilians” (Husein, Kurniawan, and Kurniawati, 2024: 3).
Within humanitarian diplomacy, advocacy strengthens the protection of affected communities and their rights. Muhammadiyah has played this role in several international crises. Its work has included advocating for the protection and rights of Rohingya refugees in Myanmar, participating in the International Contact Group peace process for the Mindanao conflict in the southern Philippines from 2012 to 2014, and consistently calling for an end to violence and respect for humanitarian rights in Palestine. Public attention, both domestic and international, can therefore accompany material assistance rather than stand apart from it.
The fourth role is monitoring aid programs. Good humanitarian work does not end when assistance is handed over. Aid must match actual needs, be delivered in coordination with other actors, and remain accountable. Husein, Kurniawan, and Kurniawati identify monitoring and evaluation as part of Muhammadiyah’s accountability to affected communities, donors, governments, and fellow humanitarian organizations.
Muhammadiyah uses different evaluation mechanisms for independent and partnership-based responses. For programs conducted directly by internal teams, from its operations in Thailand in 2007 through its response to the 2023 Turkey earthquake, monitoring relies on regular field reports and final reports prepared through a hierarchy by the person in charge in affected areas. According to the researchers, this mechanism helps ensure that logistical and medical interventions remain aligned with established plans.
For programs implemented with local partners, Muhammadiyah uses more extensive clarification and evaluation mechanisms. The response to Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar offers an example. Beyond reviewing progress reports, Muhammadiyah held an in-person evaluation workshop at the Muhammadiyah building in Menteng, Jakarta, with its local partner, We Are The Dreamer. The meeting was then used to comprehensively review implementation and verify the transparency of aid funds.
Together, these mechanisms show that Humanitarian Muhammadiyah is more than the symbolic delivery of assistance. Relief is only the beginning of a professional responsibility that requires measurable evaluation to ensure sustainability, tangible impact, and accountable governance at the international level.
Bringing Local Roots to the Global Stage
These four roles reveal something important. Humanitarian Muhammadiyah is a complex but carefully connected ecosystem. Philanthropic networks raise resources. Disaster-management institutions prepare volunteers and operational capacity. Hospitals and universities provide professionals. International networks and partners open doors. Meanwhile, communication with governments and other institutions makes humanitarian work possible in places that may be politically and geographically distant from Indonesia.
This is where Muhammadiyah’s distinctive strength becomes visible. As a movement rooted in civil society, Muhammadiyah draws on social resources developed over decades and, in some cases, more than a century. Schools, universities, hospitals, philanthropic networks, autonomous organizations, and community networks can all become resources when humanitarian crises emerge.
The path, however, has not been without challenges. As a nongovernmental organization, Muhammadiyah does not possess the legal structures or resources of a state. Access to conflict zones often depends on relationships with governments and local partners. Fundraising presents another challenge. Humanitarian responses require rapid financing, while resources must often come through donations, zakat, charitable giving or other sources. Visa requirements, bureaucracy, finding local partners, building trust, and developing standardized monitoring systems are among the other challenges identified in the research.
That is precisely why Humanitarian Muhammadiyah is an evolving process. Muhammadiyah has demonstrated its ability to enter the global humanitarian arena. Its experiences in different countries have provided opportunities to build capacity, expand networks, and improve professional standards.
The two studies underpinning this discussion ultimately meet at a common point. Latief and Nashir explain the transformation of Muhammadiyah’s horizons, from local dynamics toward global engagement. Husein, Kurniawan, and Kurniawati, meanwhile, show how that engagement operates in practice through humanitarian diplomacy. The first helps explain why Muhammadiyah moved into the global arena. The second helps explain how it operates there.
Taken together, they present Humanitarian Muhammadiyah as a logical continuation of the organization’s long history. A movement that once focused on building schools, hospitals, and social services now carries that organizational experience into a wider arena. When suffering occurs beyond Indonesia’s borders, the social networks built at home can be mobilized to respond.
That is where Muhammadiyah’s humanitarian mission finds its deeper meaning. Muhammadiyah is not abandoning its local roots by moving into international affairs. Instead, it is bringing those local experiences to the global stage. Schools produce human resources. Universities generate knowledge and professional expertise. Hospitals provide medical capacity. Philanthropic institutions mobilize public solidarity. Religious scholars provide spiritual motivation.
As an Islamic organization, Muhammadiyah connects these elements into a collective force capable of responding to human suffering beyond borders.
References:
Hilman Latief and Haedar Nashir, “Local Dynamics and Global Engagements of the Islamic Modernist Movement in Contemporary Indonesia: The Case of Muhammadiyah (2000-2020),” Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 39, no. 2 (2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/186810342091051.
Larry Minear and Hazel Smith, “Introduction,” in Humanitarian Diplomacy: Practitioners and Their Craft, edited by Larry Minear and Hazel Smith (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2007).
Rahmawati Husein, Bachtiar Dwi Kurniawan and Nawang Kurniawati, “Humanitarian Diplomacy in Action: Examining Muhammadiyah as a Model for Faith-Based Organizational Engagement,” Jurnal Hubungan Internasional 13, no. 1 (2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18196/jhi.v13i1.19673.
