The untold story of Ahmadiyah and religious authoritarianism

The untold story of Ahmadiyah and religious authoritarianism

Ahmad Fuad Fanani
and Alpha Amirrachman

Religious violence seems often to have been triggered by
differing ideological interpretations of texts. The danger is
that when one group emotionally attacks another often the
substance of the interpretation problems become blurred as blind
stereotyping overwhelms a rational way of thinking.

The violent attack against the Indonesian Ahmadiyah
Congregation's (JAI) compound by the Indonesian Muslim
Solidarity (GUII) group, which boasts 10,000 members, is an
obvious case. Led by Habib Abdurrahman As-Syegaf, a witness
tremblingly told us the attack was marred by the stepping on of
the Koran. Many don't seem to care that Ahmadiyah, which was
established in 1889 in Qadian, a small village in Punjab, India,
split into two sects in 1914.

Depending on which sect one believes, the group's founder
Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), is either the last holy
prophet and messiah after the Prophet Muhammad or he is just a
respected reformer of Islam.

The first sect Ahmadiyah Qadiani regards Gulam Ahmad as the
Imam Mahdi; the promised Messiah and prophet. This group has been
widely accused of treating the Tadzkirah -- a compilation of
wisdom allegedly received by Gulam Ahmad from God and his reading
of the Koran -- as a holy book, an accusation the group has
consistently denied.

The second group is Ahmadiyah Anjuman Isha'ati Islam, which is
distinct because it considers Gulam Ahmad merely a highly
respected religious reformer of Islam, not a holy prophet -- a
stand that doesn't seem to principally run at odds with the
majority of Muslims. Thus, it could be argued to some extent that
this group should not be considered as extreme as the first.

It is important to note, however, that both groups share
something gracious in common. The two strongly proscribe violence
among their followers who are encouraged to resort to prayer and
be patient when dealing with any disputes; something that is
seemingly rare these days with other Muslim groups.

Ahmadiyah Qadiani was brought to Indonesia in 1925 by M.
Rahmat Ali, who named the movement the Indonesian Ahmadiyah
Congregation (JAI). Meanwhile, Ahmadiyah Anjuman Isha'ati Islam
was brought to Indonesia a year earlier by Maulana Ahmad and
Mirza Wali Ahmad, who named the group the Indonesian Ahmadiyah
Movement (GAI). These days JAI, which could be regarded as a
"puritan" form of Ahmadiyah, has grown larger than GAI. Until
recently, JAI claimed to have attracted tens of thousands of
Ahmadis, as its devotees are called from throughout Indonesia.

The 1980 fatwa from the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) did not
bother to recognize the theological split and hastily generalized
all Ahmadiyah followers as "infidels". It was this fatwa that
prompted the fundamentalist Committee of Islamic Research and
Studies (LPPI) in 1994 to bring a case to the Supreme Court in
order to have the movement banned. The Court, however, refused to
hear it as it ruled the case did not fall under its jurisdiction.

Regardless of the split within the group -- not a new
phenomenon in other faiths -- the recent attack against JAI's
compound is grossly deplorable. This religious authoritarianism
can be considered in no other way than as a robbery of God's
rights. It is God who has the right to decide whether people have
deviated or not, not people who call themselves "religious
officials". And when the fatwa was translated into an act of
violence, inhumane anarchy materialized.

The attack was part of an immense backlash against almost all
Ahmadis. It has been increasingly reported that many Ahmadiyah
compounds and followers throughout the country have also been
subject to mob violence, humiliation and harassment.

The best way to deal with this interpretation problem is
through continuous dialog, not through a repressive fatwa. The
tradition of dialog has long been initiated by ulema in the past
through mujadalah (debates). Did not the Prophet Muhammad teach
Muslims to spread his teachings through hikmah (wisdom), mauidzah
hasanah (good conversation) and jadilhum billati hiya ahsan or
elegant debate?

A debate was once conducted between A. Hasan of Persis and Abu
Bakar Ayub of Ahmadiyah Qadiani in 1933. There was, as
anticipated, no conclusive ending to the debate, but what was
important was the spirit of brotherhood in dealing with religious
interpretations in a civilized and enlightened manner. This type
of dialog should be encouraged and continued. With a newly
democratic atmosphere, despite cases of immaturity, we have been
rigorously training ourselves to agree to disagree in politics
without having to abandon our principles, so why not in religion?

The most effective way to counter those who might be
considered "deviants" is by proving that what we hold is
logically true through peaceful and persuasive means without
having to jeopardize the other faith's existence.

Ahmad Fuad Fanani is head of research and development at the
Madinatul Ilmi School of Islamic Studies. Alpha Amirrachman is a
researcher at The Public Sphere Institute.