Indonesia Risks Taking Pakistan’s Path to Intolerance

OPINION

Ali Dayan Hasan | April 18, 2011

Radical cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, currently on trial on terrorism charges, is a symbol of religious intolerance in Indonesia. (Reuters Photo/Beawiharta)

Were a hundred Indonesians to die in a suicide bombing, one would expect Indonesian politicians, political parties and religious groups to condemn it no matter who the victims were. But when such an attack occurred last year in Pakistan, silence ruled the day. The one political leader who spoke out was the target of vitriol from religious parties and groups. Frighteningly, the series of events that led Pakistan down this path appears to be repeating itself in Indonesia.

On May 28, 2010, Islamist militants attacked two Ahmadiyah mosques in the central Pakistani city of Lahore with guns, grenades and suicide bombs, killing 94 people and injuring well over a hundred. The Punjabi Taliban, a local affiliate of the Pakistani Taliban, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, claimed responsibility. The Taliban have targeted not just Ahmadis but all Pakistanis — regardless of religious or sectarian affiliation. The Pakistani opposition leader Nawaz Sharif condemned this attack on “brothers and sisters who are Pakistani citizens.”

Yet his statement was greeted with anger by religious political parties and groups led by the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Pakistan branch of the Khatm-e-Nabuwat — an international Islamist umbrella organization dedicated to the “preservation of the finality of the Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood,” which considers Ahmadis heretics. It was a very ugly moment for Pakistani society.

The Ahmadiyah community has long been persecuted in Pakistan. What has happened in Pakistan is instructive in understanding the nature and potential objectives of those attacking — verbally and physically — the Ahmadiyah community in Indonesia. The situation for Ahmadis in Indonesia suggests a similar pattern of systematic persecution and a similar trend toward legalized discrimination against all Ahmadis for their religious beliefs and practices. Moreover, there are clear and specific ideological links between anti-Ahmadi organizations in Pakistan and Indonesia.

In 1974, Pakistan’s Parliament introduced constitutional amendments that defined the term “Muslim” in the Pakistani context and listed groups that were, under the law, to be considered non-Muslim. The amendment, which went into effect on Sept. 6, 1974, explicitly deprived Ahmadis of their identity as Muslims.

In 1984, five ordinances in Pakistan’s penal code were amended to explicitly target religious minorities: a law against blasphemy; a law punishing the defiling of the Koran; a prohibition against insulting the wives, family or companions of the Prophet of Islam; and two laws specifically restricting the Ahmadis’ activities. On April 26, 1984, Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq issued these last two laws as part of Martial Law Ordinance XX.

Ordinance XX undercut the activities of religious minorities generally, but struck at Ahmadis in particular by prohibiting them from “indirectly or directly posing as a Muslim.”

Ahmadis thus could no longer profess their faith, either orally or in writing. Pakistani police destroyed Ahmadi translations of and commentaries on the Koran and banned Ahmadi publications, the use of any Islamic terminology on Ahmadi wedding invitations, the offering of Ahmadi funeral prayers and the displaying of the Kalima — the statement that “there is no god but Allah, Muhammad is Allah’s prophet,” the principal creed of Muslims — on Ahmadi gravestones.

In addition, Ordinance XX prohibited Ahmadis from declaring their faith publicly, propagating their faith, building mosques or making the call for Muslim prayer. In short, virtually any public act of worship or devotion by an Ahmadi could be treated as a criminal offense.

With the passage of the Criminal Law Act of 1986, Parliament added Section 295-C to the Pakistan Penal Code. The “Blasphemy Law,” as it came to be known, prescribed the death penalty for blasphemy. With Section 295-C, Zia and the Pakistani government institutionalized the persecution of Ahmadis as well as other minorities in Pakistan. The Ahmadi belief in the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is considered blasphemous insofar as it “defiled the name of Prophet Muhammad.” Therefore, theoretically, Ahmadis can be sentenced to death for simply professing their faith.

As a consequence, Ahmadi mosques have been burned, their graves desecrated and their very existence criminalized. Since the 1980s, hundreds of Ahmadis have been formally charged in criminal cases for professing their religion. Scores of Ahmadis have been specifically charged with blasphemy; several have been convicted and face life imprisonment or death sentences, pending appeal. The offenses included wearing an Islamic slogan on a shirt, planning to build an Ahmadi mosque in Lahore and distributing Ahmadi literature in a public square. As a result, thousands of Ahmadis have fled Pakistan to seek asylum abroad.

Not surprisingly, anti-Ahmadiyah prejudice remains widespread in Pakistan. The foundation of legalized discrimination laid by the Pakistani state has played into the hands of the Taliban and other militant sectarian groups. The suicide bombings and other attacks on Ahmadis by these groups in recent times are only a deadly extension of the Pakistani state’s legal regime against its Ahmadi citizens since 1974. And all Pakistanis are affected: the Taliban demand that either Pakistanis accept their version of Islam as the true faith or face discrimination, flee or live in fear for their lives.

The horrific example of Pakistan should instill fear in the heart of every Indonesian. Last week’s suicide bombing attack on the Cirebon Police mosque in West Java provides an ominous foretaste of what lies ahead unless extremism nurtured by bigotry is checked before it consumes Indonesian society. For, much like their Pakistani counterparts, those who espouse extremism in Indonesia are turning on their own state and its security forces.

In Indonesia, as in Pakistan, Ahmadis are easy targets in times of religious and political insecurity. Following the June 2008 national decree that bans the Ahmadiyah from publicly practicing their faith, punishable by up to five years in prison, provincial governments have increasingly issued anti-Ahmadiyah bans —16 provinces and regencies have done so since 2006.

These provincial bans on Ahmadiyah activities breed intolerance, discrimination and, as the increasing attacks against Ahmadis in Indonesia show, violence. In February, Islamist militants beat three Ahmadis to death in Cikeusik village, Banten. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono should immediately void the 2008 national decree and all the provincial decrees. He should ensure that the police act quickly to protect the Ahmadiyah from violence and hold perpetrators accountable. Indonesia’s reputation as a tolerant society is at grave risk.

Today it’s the Ahmadis, tomorrow, as in Pakistan, it could be you.

Ali Dayan Hasan is the senior South Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch.

Copyright 2010 The Jakarta Globe
Source:	www.thejakartaglobe.com/commentary/indonesia-risks-taking-pakistans- path-to-intolerance/435924

Fatwa NU yang Mendukung Keyakinan Ahmadiyah

Masyhuri, ʻA. ʻAziz. 2004. Masalah keagamaan: hasil muktamar dan munas ulama Nahdhatul Ulama kesatu-1928 s/d ketiga puluh, 2000 = [Ahkamil fuqahai : fimaqarrata muhtamarot Nahdhatul Ulama wa musyaawaraatihaa]. Depok: Diterbitkan atas kerjasama PP RMI dan Penerbit Qultum Media. pp. 30-31

Keputusan Muktamar Nahdlatul Ulama ke-3, di Surabaya pada tanggal 12 Rabiul Tsani 1347 H / 28 September 1928 M.

"Nabi Isa akan turun kembali ke dunia sebagai Nabi dan Rasul"

Soal: 
Bagaimana pendapat Muktamar tentang Nabi Isa as. setelah turun kembali ke dunia. Apakah tetap sebagai Nabi dan Rasul? Padahal Nabi Muhammad SAW adalah Nabi terakhir. Apakah madzhab empat itu akan tetap ada pada waktu itu?

Jawab:
Kita wajib berkeyakinan bahwa Nabi Isa as. itu akan diturunkan kembali pada akhir zaman nanti sebagai Nabi dan Rasul yang melaksanakan syariat Nabi Muhammad SAW. Hal itu, tidak berarti menghalangi Nabi Muhammad SAW sebagai Nabi yang terakhir, sebab Nabi Isa AS hanya akan melaksanakan syariat Nabi Muhammad SAW, sedang madzhab empat pada waktu itu hapus (tidak berlaku).

download fatwa

Ahmadiyah bans: Legal justification for intolerance?

Published on The Jakarta Post (http://www.thejakartapost.com)

The Jakarta Post   |  Sat, 12/10/2011 4:27 PM  |  Opinion

Ati Nurbaiti
As of September this year, at least 26 regencies and municipalities have passed bylaws restricting or banning the Ahmadiyah sect, 11 of them in West Java alone, according to a list from the National Commission on Violence Against Women.

Some were issued after the murderous assault on the sect in Pandeglang regency, Banten, in February 2011; including the Banten bylaw itself. The Commission has said women and children of the sect were the most vulnerable in the attacks, which according to the Setara Institute have included 342 cases of assault from 2007 to 2011. This also includes the resettlement of an entire Ahmadiyah community to an island off Lombok.

The local regulations justify other citizens and authorities into closing down Ahmadi mosques, forcing them out of their homes, or ordering them to denounce Islam if they insist on their beliefs. Unlike mainstream Muslims, the Ahmadiyah do not believe that Muhammad is the last prophet, saying they differentiate between prophets and messengers.

However, Muslims have said this is their excuse to hide their real beliefs; that the Ahmadiyah have frequently violated the joint ministerial decree on their sect by proselytizing; and that the attacks on them would stop — if only they would drop their teachings, or declare that they are no longer Muslims.

The bylaws and the joint ministerial decree, revived in 2008, refer to the 2005 non-binding fatwa of the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI) which states the Ahmadiyah is deviant; and also the 1965 Law on Blasphemy, which was upheld in 2005 by the Constitutional Court in its ruling against a group of human rights advocates who wanted it annulled. The plaintiffs had said the blasphemy law was no longer relevant for a democracy since it was issued under martial law in 1965.

The movement to annul the 1965 law and those advocating an end to prosecuting minorities, pursue entirely different reasoning from groups who are sealing the Ahmadiyah mosques, often accompanied by local police.

The first argues that the state of a democratic country should not decide which Islam is “right”. The second wonders out loud why the state is leaving Muslims to take matters into their own hands, because, they say, it is evident that Ahmadiyah should be banned, based on the 1965 law, the joint ministerial decree and the MUI fatwa.

A glimpse at news reports in the wake of the Feb. 6 attacks shows that a number of these reports asserted or implied that the real victims were not the Ahmadiyah, whose three members were mobbed and killed, with helpless police officers looking on — all on display to the world thanks to YouTube.

According to the sources in the reports, such as in CyberSabili and hidayatullah.com, the real victims were the Muslims, because the Ahmadis, who insulted Islam, and blatantly defied all civilized requests to stop proselytizing, gained all the sympathy. The “victimization” of Muslims is traced to the marginalization and suppression of Islamic expression by Soeharto, apart from reports of intelligence operations against Muslim activists.

That the Ahmadiyah were not the real victims in the February assault would not necessarily be the majority view; a poll involving 3,000 respondents found most rejecting violence in the name of religion. The July poll by the Setara Institute was conducted in 47 regencies and municipalities in 10 provinces.

But if most Indonesians agreed with these respondents, it doesn’t explain all those bylaws restricting the Ahmadiyah, emerging right under the nose of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. The passing of the bylaws had no difficulty, it seemed, even though the regional autonomy law states that religion should be regulated by the state. But similarly, Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali and Home Minister Gamawan Fauzi have voiced their opinions that the state should ban or dissolve the Ahmadiyah instead of only restricting their activities.

So are Indonesia’s Muslims becoming increasingly intolerant? Many say tolerance is not the issue, for the Ahmadiyah has insulted Islam.

Leading lawyer Adnan Buyung Nasution told a recent discussion in Canberra that he had a hard time convincing President Yudhoyono that the Ahmadiyah had constitutional rights as a minority — and thus the President may have been persuaded against an outright ban. The ministers overseeing the joint ministerial decree restricting the Ahmadiyah also have a constitutional reference; that religious freedom is limited in respect of followers of other faiths.

The International Crisis Group had recommended an independent body to work out a strategy for religious tolerance; such a body would have to deal with this legal confusion stemming from demands to “protect” the Muslim majority against “deviants”, through rulings such as a state ban on the Ahmadiyah.

Malaysia may seem tragic to many of us as its activists say ordinary citizens, including Muslims themselves, cannot speak out against increased state regulation of Islam, lest they would be considered un-Islamic.

But the incidences of Malaysians’ violence against minorities do not come anywhere close to our long list. Should we be proud of outdoing Malaysia?

The author is a staff writer at The Jakarta Post.
— JP

Copyright © 2011 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.

---

Source URL: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/12/10/ahmadiyah-bans-legal-justification-intolerance.html

NU, Ahmadiyah, dan FPI

AntaraNews.com, Sabtu, 5 Maret 2011 11:22 WIB | 5905 Views

Edy M. Ya`kub 


Surabaya (ANTARA News) - Hanya dalam satu bulan Februari 2011 tercatat tiga kerusuhan bernuansa agama yakni di Cikeusik, Pandeglang, Banten (6/2), Temanggung, Jateng (8/2), dan Pasuruan, Jatim (15/2).

Rentetan peristiwa itu agaknya membuat Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono bersikap keras dengan mengeluarkan "warning" tentang kemungkinan pembubaran ormas anarkis.

Dalam sikapnya, Presiden tidak menyebut ormas yang dimaksud secara spesifik.

Walhasil, tiga kerusuhan bernuansa agama itu akhirnya tidak hanya berhenti pada penegakan hukum, melainkan juga mendorong persoalan mengerucut pada polemik tentang Ahmadiyah di berbagai daerah, bahkan para petinggi Front Pembela Islam (FPI) pun turut meramaikan polemik itu.

Adalah Gubernur Jawa Timur Soekarwo yang merupakan kepala daerah yang pertama mengeluarkan Surat Keputusan Nomor 188/94/KPTS/013/2011 tentang Larangan Aktivitas Jamaah Ahmadiyah Indonesia (JAI) di wilayahnya.

Surat tertanggal 28 Februari 2011 itu disampaikan Gubernur di depan anggota Forum Pimpinan Daerah (Forpimda) dan pimpinan sejumlah media massa di Gedung Negara Grahadi, Surabaya (28/2/2011).

Dalam SK tersebut terdapat tiga pasal. Pertama, melarang aktivitas JAI yang dapat memicu dan/atau menyebarkan terganggunya ketertiban masyarakat Jawa Timur.

Pasal kedua berisi empat poin; a) menyebarkan ajaran Ahmadiyah secara lisan, tulisan, maupun melalui media elektronik; b) memasang papan nama organisasi JAI di tempat umum; c) memasang papan nama pada masjid, mushalla, lembaga pendidikan, dan lain-lain dengan identitas JAI; dan d) menggunakan atribut JAI dalam segala macam bentuknya.

Gubernur Soekarwo menegaskan bahwa pihaknya tidak berwenang membubarkan ajaran Ahmadiyah.

"Kami hanya bisa melarang aktivitasnya, bukan membubarkan, karena pusat yang berwenang (membubarkan). Urusan agama merupakan salah satu dari lima kewenangan pusat," ujarnya.

Sikap gubernur Jatim yang juga mendorong sikap serupa di Jabar dan provinsi lain itu mengundang protes dari Jaring Masyarakat Anti-Kekerasan (Jamak) dan Aliansi Anak Bangsa Peduli HAM.

"Dari diskusi panjang lebar tentang kekerasan dalam beragama, kami mendesak Gubernur Jatim untuk mencabut SK Larangan Aktivitas JAI," kata Presidium Jamak Jatim, Ahmad Zainul Hamdi, di Surabaya (3/3).

Mereka menganggap SK tersebut salah alamat dan harus dicabut, karena SK itu seharusnya bukan dialamatkan kepada JAI, melainkan kepada kelompok-kelompok masyarakat yang selama ini melakukan kekerasan terhadap Ahmadiyah.

"Ahmadiyah selama ini selalu menjadi korban. Penerbitan SK pelarangan Ahmadiyah menunjukkan kalau pemerintah kalah dengan kelompok tertentu. Khususnya negara sudah kalah dengan masyarakat yang kalap. Negara juga sudah gagal dalam memberikan jaminan keamanan kepada masyarakatnya, terlebih pada masyarakat kelompok minoritas," katanya.

Menanggapi protes itu, gubernur mempersilakan para pemprotes untuk menggugatnya secara hukum, karena upaya hukum lebih bagus daripada demonstrasi (demo).

"Yang jelas, esensi SK hanya melarang aktivitas JAI di Jatim dan bukan membubarkan organisasinya. Akidah dan ritualnya tidak bisa dilarang. Hanya aktivitasnya, seperti pemasangan `plang` (papan nama) dan penyebaran melalui lisan dan tulisan. Itu juga sesuai SKB Menag, Mendagri, dan Jakgung," ujarnya.

Sikap yang sama dikeluarkan Gubernur Jawa Barat melalui Pergub Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pelarangan Kegiatan Jamaah Ahmadiyah di Jabar yang esensinya sama dengan SK Gubernur Jatim tentang Ahmadiyah.

Sikap NU

Di tengah polemik itu, pandangan Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) dalam menyikapi tiga kerusuhan (6-15/2) itu agaknya cukup menarik untuk disimak, termasuk soal Ahmadiyah dan FPI itu sendiri.

Hal itu karena NU merupakan organisasi kemasyarakatan (ormas) Islam terbesar di Indonesia, sehingga sikapnya menjadi rujukan bagi ormas lain untuk menilai konflik legalitas Ahmadiyah (Cikeusik), konflik antaragama (Temanggung), dan konflik Sunni-Syiah (Pasuruan).

Pengurus Wilayah Nahdlatul Ulama (PWNU) Jawa Timur mendukung pembekuan kegiatan Jamaah Ahmadiyah sebagaimana tertuang dalam Surat Keputusan Bersama (SKB) Menteri Agama, Jaksa Agung, Menteri Dalam Negeri tertanggal 9 Juni 2008.

"Soal keyakinan itu tidak dapat dipaksakan, namun bisa didialogkan. Karena itu kami mendukung SKB Ahmadiyah yang intinya membekukan kegiatan Ahmadiyah yang menyimpang," kata Sekretaris PWNU Jatim HM Masyhudi Muchtar kepada ANTARA di Surabaya (21/2).

SKB Ahmadiyah itu antara lain berbunyi peringatan kepada jamaah Ahmadiyah untuk menghentikan penyebaran penafsiran dan kegiatan yang menyimpang dari pokok-pokok ajaran Agama Islam yaitu penyebaran faham yang mengakui adanya Nabi dengan segala ajarannya setelah Nabi Muhammad SAW.

Didampingi Rais Syuriah PWNU Jatim KH Miftachul Akhyar, Masyhudi Muchtar mengatakan Ahmadiyah itu menyimpang dari ajaran Islam dan paham NU, karena jamaah Ahmadiyah dari aliran Qadian dan Lahore itu sama-sama mengakui Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pernah menerima wahyu untuk menerima tugas sebagai Imam Mahdi atau Isa Almasih.

"Kami mendukung SKB Menag, Mendagri, dan Jaksa Agung, karena pelarangan atau pembekuan itu merupakan peluang pemerintah dan tokoh agama untuk bertindak sesuai porsi masing-masing yakni pemberintah menindak secara hukum dan tokoh agama melakukan pembinaan atau dialog dengan jamaah Ahmadiyah," katanya.

Hal itu penting, karena keyakinan agama itu merupakan keyakinan asasi yang tidak bisa dipaksakan kepada orang lain, tapi perlu dilakukan kompromi melalui dialog. "Islam sendiri mengajarkan `mauidhoh hasanah` atau cara-cara yang baik dan menjauhi cara-cara kekerasan. Hidayah itu hak Tuhan," katanya.

Menanggapi hal itu, Ketua Forum Cendekiawan Ahmadiyah Jatim Ustadz Hamid Ahmad kepada ANTARA di Surabaya (28/2) mengaku siap berdialog, karena Ahmadiyah itu menggunakan Al Quran, membaca syahadat, kiblat untuk shalat, nabi, dan hal-hal lainnya yang sama dengan umat Islam pada umumnya.

"Kalau dibilang kami punya kitab suci Tadzkirah itu nggak betul, karena kita suci kami tetap Al Quran. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad itu juga bukan nabi, tapi penerus nabi seperti Imam Mahdi atau Isa Almasih," paparnya.

Namun, Rais Syuriah PBNU KH Hasyim Muzadi berpendapat sebaliknya. Ia menilai aktivitas dan penyebaran Ahmadiyah ini memang harus dilarang dan dihentikan seperti SK Gubernur Jatim atau SKB Menag, Mendagri, dan Jakgung itu.

"Ajaran Ahmadiyah itu memang harus dihentikan, karena rawan terhadap umat Islam itu sendiri, kecuali kalau Ahmadiyah itu menjadi satu agama sendiri dan bukan Agama Islam. Itu (Ahmadiyah) tidak ada kaitannya dengan kebebasan beragama, tapi justru penodaan agama," ucap mantan Ketua Umum PBNU itu.

Tapi, kata Sekjen International Conference of Islamic Scholar (ICIS) tersebut, kebebasan hidupnya sebagai warga negara tetap dilindungi dan SK atau SKB itu justru melindungi mereka dari oknum yang menggunakan atau memanfaatkan kerawanan untuk memicu konflik.

Senada dengan itu, Ketua Umum PBNU KH Said Aqiel Siradj menegaskan bahwa Ahmadiyah memang menyimpang dan tidak sejalan dengan NU, karena pandangan yang menganggap ada nabi setelah Nabi Muhammad SAW itu tidak sejalan dengan akidah NU (Aswaja).

"Namun pembubaran Ahmadiyah adalah domain Pemerintah dan NU tidak berada dalam wilayah itu. Selain itu, perbedaan keyakinan tidak bisa menjadi pembenar untuk melakukan tindakan kekerasan atau kesewenang-wenangan," katanya.

Agaknya, NU selalu bersikap "jalan tengah" (tawassuth, i`tidal, musawah, tasamuh). NU menyalahkan ajaran Ahmadiyah, tapi tidak menyalahkan pemeluknya terkait hidayah Tuhan.

NU menyalahkan cara kekerasan FPI, tapi NU tidak menyalahkan atau membubarkan organisasinya terkait hidayah Tuhan juga.
(*)

Editor: AA Ariwibowo

COPYRIGHT © 2011

Retrieved from: http://www.antaranews.com/berita/248702/nu-ahmadiyah-dan-fpi