Indonesia, Militant Islam and Ahmadiyah: Origins and Implications

Crouch, Melissa. 2009. Indonesia, militant Islam and Ahmadiyah: origins and implications. Melbourne: ARC Federation Fellowship, Centre fof Islamic Law and Society, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne.

Over the last few years in Indonesia Ahmadiyah, a minority religious community that identifies with Islam has experienced increasing tension and hostility from conservative, orthodox Islamic groups. On 1 June 2008, this conflict culminated in a violent attack on supporters of Ahmadiyah by militant Islamic groups at the National Monument (Monumen Nasional, commonly referred to as Monas) in Jakarta. This date (1 June) is significant because it is the official anniversary of the national ideology, the Pancasila, which upholds belief in an almighty God. Shortly after this incident, the Indonesian government issued Joint Decree 3/2008 as a ‘warning’ to followers of Ahmadiyah, though stopping short of an outright ban.2 This Decree has since been heavily criticised by advocates of religious pluralism, because it is perceived as a concession to the demands of radical Islamic groups.

The future in Indonesia of Ahmadis, the followers of Ahmadiyah, is of importance. It goes to the heart of a current debate in that country about the limits of religious freedom for religious minorities within the majority-Muslim population of Indonesia. It also raises the difficult question of where the boundaries of state interference in matters of religion should be drawn in a democratic state. It is also significant because other religious minorities in Indonesia face similar hostility and opposition from radical Islamic groups, and are closely watching how the government handles Ahmadiyah.

In this paper, I begin by outlining the origins and teachings of Ahmadiyah in general, and the formation of Ahmadiyah in Indonesia in particular. I will then examine three key actors pushing for a total ban on Ahmadiyah in Indonesia. The first of these is the Indonesian Ulama Council (Majelis Ulama Indonesia, MUI), which has issued a number of fatawa3 on Ahmadiyah, and against what it perceives to be ‘deviant’ groups. The second is the Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Beliefs in Society (Badan Koordinasi Pengawas Aliran Kepercayaan Masyarakat, commonly known as Bakor Pakem), which conducted investigations into, and negotiations with, Ahmadiyah. The third group of actors includes radical Islamic groups that sanction the use of violence as part of a struggle to formally implement Islamic teachings. These have wielded significant influence through attacks on Ahmadiyah and its supporters, as well as those who simply advocate tolerance of this sect, the most notable of these being the Monas tragedy (discussed below). I will argue that although the Indonesian government compromised by issuing a ‘warning’ (not a total ban), and by prosecuting two of the leading perpetrators of the Monas incident, this has been ineffective, in that neither action stopped the Ahmadis from practising their religious beliefs, nor have they prevented further attacks against them.