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

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.