IAIN to UIN: A Quarter Century of Knowledge Integration
Suwendi
Lecturer at the Graduate School of UIN Jakarta and Author of “Integrasi Ilmu Mazhab UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta”
The institutional transformation from IAIN to UIN was a strategic step aimed at producing graduates of Islamic Religious Higher Education (PTKI) who are both religious scholars with scientific competence and scientists with deep religious grounding. These dual competencies—expertise in religion and in modern sciences—were reconstructed through this transformation policy. This was among the core reasons behind the issuance of Government Regulation No. 46 of 2019 on Islamic Higher Education and the establishment of UINs across Indonesia.
This transformation policy can be understood as an appropriate response to the long-standing epistemological dichotomy between science and religion. Through this approach, science and religion are encouraged to engage in dialogue, synergy, and critical interaction, each grounded in its own ontological and epistemological framework.
Moreover, this institutional transformation serves as an alternative solution to bridge institutional gaps within curricula developed by various universities in Indonesia. Broadly speaking, there are three curricular orientations in Indonesian higher education. First, universities oriented toward producing graduates strong in general sciences but with limited religious competence, such as UI, ITB, UGM, and other institutions under the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Technology. Second, institutions focused primarily on religious expertise but with limited grounding in general sciences, such as Ma’had Aly and pastoral colleges. Third, institutions that integrate both domains—mastering religious knowledge and general sciences simultaneously. It is this third orientation that UINs aim to realize.
The Directorate General of Islamic Education issued Decree No. 2498 of 2019 on Guidelines for Knowledge Integration in PTKI, which serves as the foundation for how UINs develop their integration framework. The decree clearly states that the integration model adopted is not one of Islamization of knowledge as proposed by Ismail Raji Al-Faruqi or Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas. Rather, it promotes dialogical integration—mutual engagement, synergy, and critical exchange among disciplines—without subordinating one field to another.
In translating this policy, various UINs have adopted different metaphors to conceptualize knowledge integration. UIN Yogyakarta uses the spider web metaphor to emphasize integration-interconnection; UIN Malang employs the tree of knowledge; UIN Bandung adopts the wheel of knowledge, highlighting revelation as a guide to science; UIN Surabaya uses the twin towers; UIN Makassar introduces the house of civilization; and others follow similar symbolic models. Meanwhile, UIN Jakarta does not adopt a specific metaphor but emphasizes an open and dialogical form of knowledge integration.
This institutional transformation policy has now been in place for a quarter of a century. UIN Jakarta was the first to be established in 2002, followed by UIN Yogyakarta and UIN Malang in 2004. As of 2026, 40 UINs have been established across various provinces. As a public policy, this transformation requires evaluation, particularly to measure how the epistemological mandate of knowledge integration has been operationalized in academic policy and to assess its consistency, effectiveness, and sustainability.
This question arises because there is a tendency in some UINs for knowledge integration to be reduced to an administrative or symbolic agenda. Although integration has become an official slogan and is documented in various PTKI policy texts, the dichotomy between religious sciences and general sciences at the practical level has not been fully resolved. Research by the Ministry of Religious Affairs’ Research and Development Agency (2020), titled “Implementation of Knowledge Integration in PTKI,” found that while integration concepts exist in nine UINs, their implementation within the Tri Dharma of Higher Education remains limited. Similarly, Nurlena Rifai’s 2014 study, “Knowledge Integration in Curriculum Development at UINs Across Indonesia,” concluded that integration in curriculum planning and development in six UINs had not been carried out systematically or sustainably. Other studies reveal similar findings. This indicates structural issues and conceptual challenges in translating theory into practice.
Therefore, knowledge integration should not be understood merely as a philosophical-normative epistemological issue but also as a public policy framework that shapes the epistemic mindset of lecturers and students. Integration must go beyond symbolic expressions—such as curriculum nomenclature or institutional vision—and be articulated concretely in teaching and research practices. In this way, integration does not depend solely on individual lecturer initiatives but becomes embedded within an institutional academic system.
Knowledge integration in PTKI must strengthen a more productive paradigm. It ensures a shift from a dichotomous model to an epistemic dialogue between disciplines. Religious and general sciences stand on their respective epistemological foundations without subordination. Furthermore, this paradigm must be translated into concrete action—moving from curriculum-focused integration to the strengthening of an integrative research ecosystem. Equally important is the shift from a purely normative approach to problem-based integration, where knowledge integration begins with real societal issues. This direction requires changes in academic culture and knowledge production patterns within PTKI.
As a public policy, knowledge integration must be evaluated using clear and measurable parameters. First, its effectiveness in learning processes—how far pedagogical practices reflect dialogue between religious and general sciences. Second, its relevance to social and community issues, ensuring that integration contributes to addressing national and societal challenges. Third, consistency between policy design and academic practice. Fourth, adaptability in responding to changing times. With these indicators, policy evaluation becomes an epistemic instrument, not merely an administrative procedure.
In my view, positioning knowledge integration as both an epistemological issue and a public policy framework will generate strategic contributions. Academically, it bridges two traditions that have often developed separately: education policy studies and Islamic educational philosophy. Knowledge integration thus becomes not only a normative theme but also a measurable object of scholarly inquiry. Ultimately, it can function as both an evaluative model and an analytical framework for PTKI performance. May it be beneficial.
This article was published in Ministry of Religious Affairs on Monday, February 23, 2026.