Mainstream Islam and Ahmadiyah in Indonesia

Mainstream Islam and Ahmadiyah in Indonesia

Muhamad Ali, Manoa, Hawaii

Tolerance is not always easy for many Muslims because they
tend to reinforce differences and boundaries, rather than
commonalities.

They have tended to set theological boundaries according to
their interpretation of religious texts to maintain their claim
of ultimate truth. Muslim groups, as other religious and non-
religious peoples, have long disregarded historical and
sociological (thus contextual) understanding of the belief
systems, including Ahmadiyyah.

The Ahmadiyyah was founded in British India, not in a
historical vacuum. As other millenarian movements, the Ahmadiyyah
emerged out of social problems facing the Indian Muslim community
at that time. They wanted to reform the Muslim community and to
attract others by promoting compatibility of religion and
modernity, entrepreneurship and self-sufficiency.

Historically in Indonesia, the early leaders of Muhammadiyah
(established in 1912) and of the Ahmadiyyah (which arrived in
Indonesia in the early 1920s) in Java used to coexist and even
were about to collaborate in the educational and social fields,
but then came the rupture and hostility between the two since the
late 1920s onwards.

As Herman Beck argued in his scholarly article Rupture
between the Muhammadiyah and the Ahmadiyyah, the initial cordial
relationship and mutual tolerance soon shifted into the rupture
and disagreement, which was then reinforced by the 1984 national
fatwa by the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), which stated that
the teachings of Ahmadiyyah were deviant.

As Herman Beck suggested, the Muhammadiyah in particular and
the Lahore Branch of the Ahmadiyyah initially had cordial
relations.

Even after the 1929 rupture, the Muhammadiyah adopted a rather
tolerant attitude toward the Lahore branch of the Ahmadiyyah.

The Muhammadiyah and the Ahmadiyyah felt they shared some
similarities: Both wanted to prove that Islam could be compatible
with modernity; both introduced modern concepts of education;
both shared the defensive comprehension of jihad, and both wanted
to check Christian missionary activities at that time. The son of
K.H. Ahmad Dahlan, the founder of the Muhammadiyah, even became
an Ahmadi, while Ahmad Dahlan himself did not demonstrate an
aggressive attitude towards Christians. It was only later that
Muhammadiyah leaders started having stricter attitudes against
the Ahmadiyyah.

Long established in Indonesia, the Ahmadiyyah remains marginal
in the country as it is elsewhere in the world. Scholars try to
explain why this has been the case. One of the factors was the
cooperative attitude of both the Lahore and the Qadiyan
Ahmadiyyah towards the Dutch colonial government.

The politics of non-cooperation with the colonial government
that the Islamic parties such as Partai Sarekat Islam pursued did
not accord with the Ahmadiyyah's policy not to get involved in
politics, as Herman Berk argued. Thus, they tended to be quietist
and therefore exclusive from the perspective of the others (such
as their refusal to perform prayers behind a non-Ahmadi imam,
their inter-marriage, and their social and economic activities).

As a result of the exclusive tendency of the Ahmadis,
mainstream Muslims have tended to ignore the positive sides of
the Ahmadiyyah as a movement: That the Ahmadiyyah helped to
develop Islam in the Western world because they wanted to combine
Islam, reason and modernity and that their activities are carried
out peacefully.

Based on the previous fatwas, the Muhammadiyah (and the
Nahdlatul Ulama), Ministry of Religion, the MUI and some other
Islamic organizations have expressed an intention to marginalize
and outlaw Ahmadiyyah in Indonesia. This shows the Muhammadiyah
and these institutions do not believe in freedom of religion as
signified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They hold
that there should be limits to tolerance, limits which they and
only they decide. Here they tend to become "aggressive" towards
religious organizations, which they regard as deviant, heretical
or heterodox.

The fact that Muhammadiyah (and others) have shown antipathy
of Ahmadiyyah, also shows their lack of interest in resuming
theological dialogs on such matters as the notion of prophethood
and Messiah, of the Jesus Christ, of the Koranic interpretation
and of the concept of jihad. For them, that there is no prophet
(and even a reformer) after the Prophet Muhammad should be
believed without any qualifications whatsoever and it is thus
final.

More importantly is a serious legal-political matter: Whether
or not the government has the authority to ban a religious
denomination regarded by a majority to be deviant. The government
actually does not have a constitutional basis to intervene into
theological disputes. If non-governmental organizations such as
the Muhammadiyah and others have to put pressure on the
government to ban the Ahmadiyyah in Indonesia, then this would
become a pretext for other organizations to put similar pressure
against a religious denomination they regard as wrong or deviant.

It is a test of tolerance in Indonesia. The basic principle of
tolerance is this: If you do not want to be harmed by others, do
not harm them. If you deserve to ban others, then you deserve to
be banned as well on a similar basis.

The government (the Ministry of Religion, Ministry of Justice,
Ministry of Home Affairs) should consider equally the perspective
from all parties, rather than listening only to the predominant
voices and neglecting what the minority have to say about the
issues. If social order and public stability are the criteria in
which a decision will be made, many variables and a holistic view
should be taken into consideration.

For example, is it true that an organization harms society?
If, for example, it is true that in a time and in a particular
place one organization has incited hatred or harmed the
neighborhood, this cannot be generalized in the organization's
behavior in other times and places.

The government needs to make it clear that there are
fundamental differences between theological interpretations and
public disorder. The government should not just demonstrate
objectivity and neutrality. The primary task of the government is
to ensure respect and tolerance, rather than to take sides and
further incite hostility among groups within civil society.

Therefore, the best possible and rational solution in the
matter of the Indonesian Ahmadiyyah Movement is to pursue more
serious and genuine dialogs between different religious
organizations, facilitated by the government if necessary.

The various religious groups should resume sincere
discussions and talks on different theological and ethical
matters so that it becomes clear what the similarities and
differences are. Theological disputes should be discussed in a
theological, rather than political, manner. Tolerance is crucial
from mainstream Islam and the government if we are to make
Indonesia a better place for diversity and peace.

The writer is a lecturer at the State Islamic University in
Jakarta. He is conducting his fieldwork in Indonesia, Malaysia
and the Netherlands for a PhD in History at the University of
Hawaii at Manoa under the East-West Center Fellowship. He can be
reached at muhali74@hotmail.com.