MUI's edict not everything, can be obeyed or ignored

Last week's attack on the compound of Ahmadiyah, a religious community in Parung, Bogor, West Java, by the Indonesian Muslim Solidarity group has drawn criticism from many. The Jakarta Post's Sri Wahyuni talked to sociologist Abdul Munir Mulkan of the State Islamic University (UIN) Yogyakarta about the attack and other related issues. The following is the excerpt of the interview.

Question: What would you say about the attack?

Answer: It reflects a communication deadlock between parties, which is actually not a new phenomenon here and is not always related to religion. The regional elections, for example, incited violence in Surabaya. There seems to be no room for efforts toward mutual understanding, whatever the differences there are between us.

What I've heard from the statements made by Ahmadiyah followers, is that they do not belong to Ahmadiyah Lahore, much less Ahmadiyah Qodian whose devotees believe that their religious leader and founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet. Even if they do belong to Ahmadiyah Lahore, they do not believe that Mirza is a prophet.

What we need, therefore, is clarification, before we judge something. I'm not defending Ahmadiyah, or the attackers, but why didn't we clarify these things in the first place?

What do you think is the root of the communication deadlock?

I think it has something to do with the prevailing opinion among the Muslim community that Islam is one, that Islam is the last religion, and that Islam is a perfect religion. I myself also believe that. Within the Muslim community, such a view is often understood to mean that there should not be difference of opinion regarding it. There should be only one opinion about Islam. This, I think, is the problem.

Even during the Prophet's era, differences of opinion prevailed. The difference being that as the Prophet was still alive, people could directly ask for clarification from the Prophet himself. But, after that, the history of Islam was also full differences of opinion, wars were waged against one another.

Do you think dialog can help solve the problem?

It needs awareness that the one Islam is accepted and understood by different devotees. God Himself has said that if He wanted it to be so, all human beings would have one understanding. But, according to my understanding, God allows the differences to prevail, even the question of whether to follow the religion or not. Differences are there to reveal the best one. Of course each group will claim itself to be the best, but only history will tell.

When this is the case, dialog is possible. No one will force others to share the same opinion. And history will go on, and not stop, as everyone will try his best to make others agree with what he believes. If they fail, they will understand that there are indeed differences between them.

If there are no differences, history will die. The Koran will no longer be important. The Koran is there for us to judge. So, let's use it to judge. Even big ulema in the past judged one another. It's part of the efforts to find the right ones, a better one. So, it will never last. I do believe everyone has goodwill, which is serving God. So, why should we destroy one another?

What about the edict issued by the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) that considered Ahmadiyah teaching as deviant?

I myself have not read the text of the edict. But, as far as what I have followed from the mass media, the edict was addressed to the Ahmadiyah Qodian. Therefore, if the Ahmadiyah followers here say that they are neither of Ahmadiyah Lahore or Qodian, I think both MUI and Ahmadiyah need to explain this to the public, especially if there are documents indicating that what they are teaching is against Islamic teachings.

If what Ahmadiyah has stated (that their teaching is not against that of Islam) here is true, and the documents say otherwise, then there may be two possibilities. The religious group has changed, or they may be a different Ahmadiyah that is neither Lahore nor Qodian. That's why a clarification is urgently needed.

In this case, Ahmadiyah itself should open itself and communicate what they believe, what they think about the accusation.

To some degree, Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) are quite different. Yet, they are not destroying one another. It's because they are open to one another. This does not require Muhammadiyah to change into NU or vice versa. No. But, they can accept each other. They understand they are different; so let's respect one another.

So, do you think MUI should renew its edict regarding Ahmadiyah?

I would rather say it needs clarification. Both MUI and Ahmadiyah need to make the matter clear so that misunderstanding can be avoided. I'm just afraid that something that is initially issued to reduce restlessness will have the opposite effect.

Some indeed say that the edict provoked the attackers to launch the attack. What do you think about such a statement?

MUI's edict is not everything. MUI also comprises of people who cannot be considered to represent Islam. The edict is not borderless. It's not effective in other countries. MUI's edict is not a judgment. People can obey it or ignore it. Again, MUI, the attackers, and Ahmadiyah need to meet and talk so that the problem will not be drawn out. The Ministry of Religious Affairs can play the role of facilitator. We are dealing with public interests that can disturb the political stability.

Yet, as it also involves a crime, the legal process has to be handled properly. Law enforcement is important. Otherwise, any group can just commit a crime in the name of Islam, Christianity or any other religion.