Thursday, May 16, 2013

Sketsa Karya Erfan Dahlan tentang Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi

Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi (1888-1977)

The portrait sketch below was hand-drawn in June 1961 by Erfan Dahlan, who had been a student at the Lahore Ahmadiyya Anjuman’s Isha‘at Islam College in 1927 where Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi was a teacher.



In this portrait Erfan Dahlan has represented Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi in the garb of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. For comparison, see photo of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on the left.
Below the portrait, Erfan Dahlan has quoted a verse from a poem by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. We translate this below: “For so long had unbelief been devouring the faith [of Islam],
 

Rest assured now that the days are here for devouring unbelief
(From the poetry of the Promised Messiah, peace be upon him).”




About Erfan Dahlan

View photographs of Erfan Dahlan at our other page.
Erfan Dahlan had come from Java to study in Lahore at our Anjuman and had then been sent by the Anjuman to run a mission in Pattani in Siam, present-day Thailand. In the booklet World-Wide Religious Revolution, published in December 1932 by the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at Islam Lahore, it is recorded that a Dr A.W. Khan had established an Islamic mission at Pattani, and later Dr Khan came in contact with the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at Islam Lahore and he:
“…obtained from our Society the services of Mr. Erfan Dahlan, a young Javanese and a student of our Ishaat Islam College. Mr. Erfan Dahlan joined the Pattani Mission in October 1930. A little later he was sent to Bangkok, the capital of Siam, to learn the Siamese language where he was cordially received by Maulana A. Karim Masoodee, Imam of the Royal Mosque, who is helping him in every way.” (p. 18)
Further information about Erfan Dahlan is found in a paper entitled The rupture between the Muhammadiyah
and the Ahmadiyya
by Herman L. Beck published in the journal Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (Vol 161, No 2/3, 2005) which can be read as below:
According to this paper, Erfan Dahlan was son of Ahmad Dahlan (d. 1923), founder of the Muhammadiyah movement in Indonesia. He was born in 1905, and his name originally was Jumhan which he changed to Erfan during his stay in India (p. 228). He was sent to the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Lahore by the Central Board of the Muhammadiyah for religious education, after the arrival in Yogyakarta of the Lahore Ahmadiyya missionaries Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig and Maulana Ahmad (p. 226, 227). He qualified as a Muslim missionary and was sent to work in Thailand where he spent the rest of his life.

Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi meets Erfan Dahlan again, June 1958

In June 1958, on his way to the Fiji Islands from Lahore, Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi stopped off in Bangkok on 23rd June. Here he met Erfan Dahlan again. This is mentioned in the Maulana’s letter about his journey published in the magazine Ruh-i Islam, October-November 1958 issue, p. 39.

http://www.abdulhaq.info/photos/sketch.htm

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Denial of flood aid to the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan



Malik A.M. 2011. "Denial of flood aid to the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan". Health and Human Rights. 13 (1): 70-77.

Atif M. Malik

Abstract
During the catastrophic floods of 2010 in Pakistan, approximately 500 internally displaced families belonging to the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam were denied humanitarian relief. The failure of international agencies and Pakistan’s government to protect basic human rights in the context of disaster relief raises profound questions. If all humanitarian work associated with natural disasters must be governed by canons of human rights, how should international agencies deal with legally empowered official discrimination? A review of the history of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan reveals decades of state-sanctioned persecution, particularly through its anti-blasphemy laws, and poses a serious challenge to the international community. When effective intervention is predicated on cooperation with state institutions, how can international relief agencies avoid becoming implicated in official discrimination? The denial of flood aid to Pakistan’s Ahmadiyya community highlights the need for concerted action in disaster settings to prevent discrimination against vulnerable groups. Discriminatory legislation is not only a violation of basic norms enshrined in international compacts, it is a key problem for disaster relief.

http://www.hhrjournal.org/index.php/hhr/article/view/403/602

Monday, May 13, 2013

Survivors Recount Violence in Cikeusik

By webadmin on 10:42 am May 16, 2011.

Ulma Haryanto

Ahmad Masihuddin, Irwan and Bebi are the lucky ones.
Ahmad recalls the moment when a man attempted to mutilate his genitals, while Irwan has developed an intense fear of water. Bebi cannot speak, due to a dislocated jaw, and must eat through a straw.
Despite the fear of reprisals, two of these three men — Ahmad and Irwan — met with the Jakarta Globe over the weekend to recount their memories of the bloody attack against a small group of Amhadiyah sect members in the village of Cikeusik, Banten, on Feb. 6.
On that day, three Ahmadis — Roni Pasaroni, Warsono and Tubagus Chandra — were killed by a 1,500-strong mob. Much of the violence was captured on video, and footage of Ahmadi men stripped of their clothes and being brutally beaten with stones and bamboo sticks can be seen on YouTube.
Twelve men are facing charges in relation to the attack. If found guilty their maximum sentences could range from 12 years in jail to the death penalty.
But Irwan and Ahmad say that even the harshest of punishments for those 12 men will not blot out the acts of cruelty they witnessed and endured on that day. Nor will guilty verdicts dampen the attendant rage and frustration they feel at a police force that is widely seen as having stood by and allowing the violence to unfold.
“Police pronounced me dead when my muddy, naked body was thrown into a police truck,” Ahmad said. “If I did not use the martial arts knowledge I learned through the years, I’d be among the dead.”
The police had collected Ahmad’s battered body after he had been dragged through the dirt by a group of enraged attackers. “Along the way, people slashed me with machetes, and threw rocks and bamboo poles at me. I lost consciousness. I believed I had died.”
Unguarded
Irwan, Roni and Warsono had left for Cikeusik from Jakarta on the night of Feb. 5. Irwan told the Globe that they had traveled to Cikeusik to provide security for a demonstration that the village’s Ahmadiyah community was planning on staging the next day.
“I was at our regular Koran recital meeting in Petojo [Central Jakarta]. Roni came to me and asked if I wanted to come along with him to Cikeusik,” Irwan said. “I asked him what for. He told me to guard a demonstration.”
They arrived around 10 p.m. on Saturday night, and were met by Deden Sujana, head of security for the Indonesian Ahmadiyah Congregation (JAI). The next day, Deden would almost lose his right arm to a machete attack, and police would later name him as a suspect for triggering the violence.
Ahmad, who lives in Kalideres, West Jakarta, had likewise gone to Cikeusik to provide security for the demonstration.
“Eki, a colleague of mine at JAI, was on holiday and asked me to replace him to guard an Ahmadi home in Cikeusik. Without thinking it over, I agreed,” he said.
“I was in the same car as [Tubagus] Chandra and Diaz [Ferdiaz Muhammad, an Ahmadi who survived the incident]. Chandra was driving, we arrived at Serang at 3 a.m. and picked up five more Ahmadis.”
Ahmad had prior experience protecting sect members. In 2008 he had guarded an Ahmadi school in Parung, Bogor, that had come under attack, and he had been on hand with the now-deceased Tubagus when one of the sect’s orphanages in Tasikmalaya, West Java, was sealed by local authorities last December.
Ahmad worked in the administrations division at JAI, while Tubagus worked for the security division with Deden. Ahmad, however, was well trained in self-defense. He had earned a black belt in Taekwondo at the age of 15, and was instructing others in Muay Thai at 18.
As Ahmad and his friends pulled into Cikeusik, he was relieved to see some dozens of police officers standing watch over both ends of the road where the house of local Ahmadiyah cleric Ismail Suparman was located. “I texted my parents so that they didn’t have to worry. The police were here,” Ahmad said.
“Suddenly, the wife of the Cikeusik village head, Inayah, ran toward us screaming. She told all of us to leave immediately, because it seemed thousands of people were marching to Cikeusik to slaughter us. Deden told her, ‘Don’t worry. We have Pak Hasan [Cikeusik Police chief of general crimes unit] here.’ ”
However, video footage posted on YouTube clearly showed the police running away when the mob attacked.
Tired from their late-night journey, Ahmad said he and his friends laid down to rest. They awoke around 10:30 a.m., he said, to loud chants of “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) and “Ahmadiyah infidels” mixed in with the sound of stones hitting the house.
To Ahmad’s ears, it sounded as if thousands of people were outside Ismail’s home. It was then, Ahmad said, that Deden rushed outside, and attempted to hit a man in a black jacket who seemed to be leading the mob.
“This man was Idris Mahdani,” Ahmad said. “He is from Banyu Mundu village [40 kilometers away from Cikeusik]. After he was hit by Deden, he retreated several steps back before taking out his machete and waved it in the air as the villagers pelted the Ahmadis with rocks.”
Vicious Beatings
Following Deden’s lead, Ahmad said he went outside and starting throwing stones back at the mob, but realizing that they were vastly outnumbered, he and some of the other sect members tried to escape out the back door of Ismail’s house. “We ended up stuck in knee-high mud at the paddy fields. We could not run. The drive to Cikeusik was taxing and we were exhausted,” he said.
The group of Ahmadis parted then, he said. Some sought cover in a patch of jungle while others headed to a nearby river.
Irwan and Ahmad fled to the river. Irwan slipped and fell in. Ahmad stumbled and was caught by the mob.
“I had with me about Rp 2 million ($235) for food and accommodation, and my BlackBerry. The mob greedily took it. But they still did not spare me.”
It was then that he saw Roni trying to go to the defense of their friend Bebi, who was on the ground being kicked by members of the mob. Someone would drop a heavy stone on Bebi’s face, but he would survive, largely because of Roni’s help.
Roni, who declined to talk to the Globe, would suffer a dislocated jaw in the attack.
In the meantime, Ahmad was fighting for his own life.
“I saw Irwan slip and fall into the river. I had 10 men on top of me trying to hit me with sticks and stones and they stabbed me with their machetes,” he said.
Ahmad said he was dragged 500 meters back to Ismail’s house, and viciously beaten the whole way. He said he saw Roni being stabbed with a bamboo spear.
“They stripped me,” Ahmad said. “They were about to cut my genitals. I shoved the man and shouted ‘You guys have to have limits!’ Another man hit me on the side but the impact also knocked away the guy who tried to mutilate my genitals.”
Ahmad said that he tried to retain his focus and stay calm during the beating, protecting his head and neck in particular to avoid being fatally wounded by the mob.
“I turned on my side and let it take the beatings. I did not want to give them my neck.” He said that he still felt a numbness in his neck from the injuries he sustained during the prolonged beating. “Part of my body went to sleep, as if struck by a stroke.”
At some point, Ahmad said, he lost consciousness.
“The police thought I was dead; they threw me into the car just like that. But I gained consciousness and started to ask for water. I was extremely dehydrated,” he said.
While Ahmad was struggling to survive the mob’s anger, Irwan was struggling to stay afloat in the river while also dodging a hail of rocks being thrown at him.
“I could barely swim,” Irwan said. “I was dragged by the current as I tried to stay afloat. In the meantime the mob was still trying to hit me with rocks,” he said.
At one point, he went under, and lost track of the time. He said he had no idea how long he was submerged, but remembered being pulled from the river.
“At one point it was all dark. But then I heard a voice calling me. It was Yadi, another Ahmadi” Irwan said. Yadi had swum against the current to rescue Irwan, dragging him to the shore.
Shirt for a Bandage
For Ahmad, the trip from Cikeusik to Malingping hospital, 10 kilometers away, took one and a half hours. He said the police gave him a shirt with which to stem the bleeding from a gash on his head.
“I met Deden in the hospital, he was holding his right hand, I saw Bebi vomiting blood, Ferdiaz put me on his lap and started giving me water, he was also injured,” he said.
Deden was taken to Pertamina hospital in Jakarta. The other men were transferred to Serang hospital, six hours away. In Serang, their fresh stitches had to be removed because they crusted with dirt.
Although Irwan did not sustain any serious injuries, he said he was now terrified of water, and had trouble recounting the details of the attack.
“I am undergoing counseling for my trauma. My therapist said that I had to think of water as my savior. If the river current didn’t carry me away, I might be one of the casualties,” he said.
Ahmad, however, said he was consumed with rage whenever he saw police officers or fundamentalist Muslims in white robes.
“Once I wanted to go to Senen, I passed the National Monument and at that time there was a demonstration on Libya and Ahmadiyah. All of a sudden I started shouting to the driver, ‘Just hit them! Hit them! Why should they make a fuss over another country when their own is still in a mess,’ ” he said.
Ahmad also said he suffered from vertigo and severe headaches after the beating, and had just recently recovered the ability to speak.
“Previously, I found it almost impossible to talk,” he said.
“Once I was in Citraland [West Jakarta mall] and saw a police officer. I went to him and screamed at him, ‘What are you doing here? You’re doing nothing! Just like in Cikeusik! Officers only watch and do nothing!’ ”

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/archive/survivors-recount-violence-in-cikeusik/

Awards for War? Why Are We Giving Prizes to Burma's Thein Sein and Indonesia's SBY?



Intelligent people can be staggeringly unintelligent at times.

In recent weeks, two respectable international organisations working in the fields of conflict resolution, human rights and interfaith dialogue have awarded prizes to the leaders to two Asian countries where there is growing religious conflict and grave violations of human rights.

On 22 April, International Crisis Group presented its annual "In Pursuit of Peace" award to Burma's President, Thein Sein. And last week, the Appeal of Conscience Foundation announced it was giving its World Statesman Award to the Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Both men, it is true, have taken their countries on a path of greater openness and more engagement with the world. Both have talked the language of reform and democratisation. And in both countries, there are positive achievements to point to.
In Burma, over the past two years there has been a change in atmosphere. There is more freedom of expression, and increased space for civil society, the media and political actors. Many political prisoners have been released, and Aung San Suu Kyi was elected to Parliament a year ago in by-elections, along with 42 of her colleagues in the National League for Demcoracy (NLD). Fragile, preliminary ceasefires have been agreed with all but one of the ethnic armed groups.
Indonesia has made a remarkable transition to democracy from dictatorship, and President Yudhoyono - or "SBY" - has consolidated political reform. Indonesia now has a thriving civil society and a largely free press.
And yet, in both countries, during the governments of both men, conflict and religious intolerance has grown.
In June 2011, President Thein Sein's government ended a 17-year ceasefire with the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO) and launched a major military offensive against the Kachin people. The KIO, despite its name, is not fighting for secession - they simply want equal rights for the ethnic nationalities, and a degree of autonomy in a federal democracy. From 1994 until 2011, they not only maintained a ceasefire, but co-operated actively with the regime, participating in the sham National Convention to draft a new Constitution. Yet when the regime pushed them to become a Border Guard Force under the control of the Burma Army, effectively surrendering without any political settlement, the KIO not unreasonably refused. The response from Thein Sein's government? A return to war which has left over 100,000 civilians displaced, more than 200 villages burned down and over 66 churches.
In December, the Burma Army intensified its assault on the Kachin, using airstrikes for the first time in decades. Elderly people, women and children were among the casualties. Even now, although the conflict has de-escalated, severe human rights abuses continue. I met one man recently who had been imprisoned last year, and endured horrific torture. He was hung upside down for a day and a night, beaten and attacked with knives. "They put a hand grenade in my mouth and threatened to pull the pin ... then they put a plastic bag over my face and poured water over it," he told me. The wife of one current Kachin prisoner described seeing her husband after he had been tortured. "He was covered in blood, and his nose was broken...An iron bar was rubbed along his legs. He was forced to engage in homosexual sex ...He was told that as he was a Christian, he should kneel on very sharp stones with his arms outstretched like Christ on the cross...He was beaten on his hands and arms."
As another Kachin told me, "the impact of the war this time has been enormous. Many have lost land, plantations, livelihoods ... People are living in the middle of nowhere, hopeless, desperate, suffering." Another talked of their loss of trust in Thein Sein. "This civilian government is worse than the previous military regime," one said. "They should start with dialogue. Imposing demands with military action is wrong." A third said that when Thein Sein became President, "people had hope". But now, due to the hardship of war, "instead of hope, they hate the government".
And the Kachin are not the only ones whose suffering has increased dramatically in the past year or two. In June last year, a major campaign of violence against the Muslim Rohingya people in Arakan State began, followed by another wave in October, resulting in at least a thousand deaths, and the displacement of at least 130,000 people. Wider anti-Muslim violence erupted this year, and tensions continue to smoulder. Thein Sein's security forces were complicit in many instances: in some cases they actively participated in the violence, in other places they stood by and watched as Muslims were slaughtered. Major international human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch have warned of ethnic cleansing.
To what extent Thein Sein himself is directly culpable is open to debate. At times his rhetoric has been reassuring, but at other times his statements have been extraordinarily inflammatory, as when he called on the UN to resettle Rohingyas to third countries. Either way, even his reassuring statements have not been followed through with action, and whether through weakness, negligence or deliberate design, he has presided over the displacement of over 230,000 people during his presidency, and an escalation in conflict. How can he be the recipient of a peace award?
Similarly, during SBY's presidency religious intolerance has escalated. Christian churches have been forced to close even though they are legally licensed; congregations have been subjected to violence and intimidation; Ahmadi Muslims have faced increasing persecution, and now live in fear; Shia Muslims are under threat too; and an atheist has been jailed. Like Thein Sein, it is debateable whether SBY is actively complicit or just weak, but either way he has not intervened to stop violence, protect minorities or promote religious harmony. He has not been heard contradicting the chilling remarks of the Governor of West Java, who said that Indonesia's problems will disappear when the Ahmadiyah disappear. Indonesia's tradition of pluralism and moderate Islam has begun to unravel during his presidency. What on earth qualifies him for an award for championing religious freedom?
Sometimes well-intentioned people see situations only in simplistic terms. Burma is beginning, at least on the surface, in some areas, to change - so, think the policy wonks, Thein Sein is a wonderful man who deserves a peace prize. Ditto Indonesia, which has made a remarkable transition - ergo, SBY is a great champion of religious freedom. So desperate are they for just a glimmer of good news after years of bad, they are like British people at the first hint of sunshine - they strip off, get the barbecue out and have a party, ignoring the storm clouds gathering on the horizon.
On the other hand, sometimes complexity is over-emphasised, and used as an excuse for inaction. Such an approach is equally dangerous, attempting to excuse severe human rights violations in the name of complexity or 'cultural differences'.
If the international community is to encourage genuine reform, promote religious harmony and resolve conflicts, it must recalibrate its position in regard to both Burma and Indonesia. It is right to caveat criticisms with a recognition of positive achievements; it is also right to present criticisms as constructively as possible, appealing to self-interest. Indeed, both Thein Sein and SBY risk undoing all they have achieved by ignoring religious intolerance and failing to end conflict and promote peace, and that point should be made clearly to them. But it is plain wrong to ignore the problems and let them go unchallenged, and it is either stupidly naive or wilfully complicit to present awards for peace to Thein Sein or SBY while conflict in both countries increases. What will be next? Kim Jong Un for the Nobel Peace Prize?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ben/awards-for-war-burma-indonesia_b_3284972.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=2794554b=facebook

Monday, May 6, 2013

Dialog Awam tentang Keyakinan Ahmadiyah

Membicarakan persoalan keagamaan sering terjebak dalam diskusi yang tak berujung pangkal, penyebabnya adalah adanya keinginan pihak-pihak yang terlibat dalam pembicaraan berusaha menguasai, mendominasi bahkan menjatuhkan lawan bicaranya. Upaya memenangkan perdebatan sebenarnya merupakan sebuah kewajaran ketika satu dengan lainnya merasa mempunyai kebenarannya sendiri-sendiri. Sejauh tidak berdampak pada rasa dendam dan perilaku anarkis, perdebatan sengit yang dikelola dengan baik merupakan katup pengaman yang baik dan berlatih menghargai orang lain. Dalam perbincangan satu dengan lainnya saling memberi kesempatan lawan bicaranya untuk menjelaskan argumentasi masing-masing. Sehingga satu dengan lainnya akan memahami alasan dan argumentasi yang melatar-belakangi pendapat mereka. Inilah sebuah deskripsi tentang dialog, didalamnya terdapat proses pembelajaran kedua belah pihak yang memperbincangkan suatu masalah.

Rumusan dialog di atas sulit untuk bisa dilaksanakan pada kelompok manusia yang mempunyai peradaban rendah. Mereka cenderung menggunakan bahasa komunikasi yang paling kuno, yakni melakukan tindakan kekerasan fisik dan jauh dari adu argumentasi pemikiran, apalagi menghargai pendapat orang lain. Situasi menjadi lebih parah ketika aparat pemerintah yang seharusnya menjadi penjaga dan pelindung warga masyarakat terlibat memihak sehingga menimbulkan korban kekerasan fisik diantara mereka. Dan bisa dipastikan kaum minoritas dalam posisi yang lemah menjadi korban persekusi tersebut. Kenyataan semacam ini secara terang benderang dapat disaksikan dalam berbagai media masa yang memberitakan tentang kekerasan berlatar-belakang agama. Dalam berbagai laporan dari para penggiat Hak Azasi Manusia (HAM) menunjukkan adanya kecenderungan yang meningkat dari waktu ke waktu, khususnya persekusi yang menimpa Jemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia (JAI) di beberapa daerah.

Buku yang ada ditangan pembaca yang budiman, bukanlah buku tentang peristiwa-peristiwa tindak kekerasan terhadap kaum Ahmadiyah, melainkan sebuah buku yang menggambarkan adanya dialog orang-orang awam tentang keyakinan Ahmadiyah. Bertemunya orang awam Muslim dengan orang awam Ahmadi mencoba mendiskusikan tentang keyakinan Ahmadiyah dari sudut pandangnya sendiri-sendiri. Maka buku inipun diberi judul juga dengan cara yang awam yakni DIALOG awam tentang keyakinan AHMADIYAH. Buku ini diharapkan memberi informasi yang faktual tentang keyakinan kaum minoritas Muslim Ahmadiyah, rujukan sumber bacaan juga merupakan literatur asli dari lingkungan Ahmadiyah, bukan dari sumber-sumber yang anti-Ahmadiyah.

Semoga buku ini mencapai tujuan diterbitkannya sepanjang pembaca yang budiman terbuka untuk mengenal perbedaan-perbedaan pendapat, pemahaman, tafsir dan argumentasi mengenai keyakinan Ahmadiyah.

Download the book

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Ahmadi Juga Manusia

Kamis, 24 Februari 2011 | 13:51 WIB

TEMPO Interaktif,  Alinea terakhir tulisan tanggapan Saudara Qosim Nursheha Dzulhadi (www.hidayatullah.com, 21 Februari 2011) atas tulisan saya (“Dalam Bayang-bayang Kuasa Umat”, Koran Tempo, 9 Februari 2011) sebagian menggambarkan semangat di balik seluruh tulisan saya yang ditanggapinya tersebut. Qosim mengatakan: "Ketakutan Saipul Mujani-lah yang berlebihan melihat reaksi terhadap Ahmadiyah saat ini. Dia khawatir jika konsep HAM-Barat tak bisa lulus dan diterima dalam kehidupan beragama dan berbangsa di Indonesia yang mayoritas penduduknya Muslim. Padahal memang sudah terbukti bahwa HAM-Barat hanya merugikan 'umat Islam', tidak lebih."

Saya takut atas perkembangan terakhir yang menimpa orang Ahmadiyah yang nyawanya melayang karena keyakinan mereka yang sesat? Ya. Atau mungkin lebih tepatnya saya marah dan geram betul, bukan takut, atas melayangnya nyawa manusia seperti itu. Bukan karena mereka Ahmadiyah, melainkan karena mereka manusia. Saya pun akan sangat geram kalau orang yang membenci Ahmadiyah harus hilang nyawanya hanya karena benci terhadap Ahmadiyah. Saya juga akan sangat takut kalau ada orang harus mati hanya karena ia berkeyakinan bahwa Ahmadiyah sesat. Apakah saya berlebihan bersikap seperti itu? Sepanjang kita tetap manusia, saya kira tidak. Sebaliknya, bila ada orang yang merasa tidak sangat takut dan cemas akan kejadian itu, saya gagal memahami manusia jenis apa dia.

Poin-poin utama tulisan Qosim bahwa Ahmadiyah sesat, saya setuju. Ulama dunia sudah menghukum bahwa Ahmadiyah sesat juga saya tahu. Tapi apakah orang sesat harus dilarang hidup di sebuah negeri, dan apalagi dibunuh, karena kesesatannya itu, akan selalu saya tentang. Ini berlaku bukan hanya bagi Ahmadiyah, juga pemeluk agama atau paham agama lain. Bukan karena agama atau paham agamanya, melainkan karena ia manusia. Tidak ada kompromi tentang nyawa manusia apa pun agama dan paham agamanya.

Apakah sikap saya tersebut merupakan sikap dan pandangan HAM Barat? Saya tidak peduli. Mau dari Barat, mau dari Timur, mau dari Islam, mau dari agama lain, saya tidak peduli sepanjang itu menghargai nyawa manusia. Sebaliknya, paham agama apa pun, ideologi apa pun, kitab apa pun, tidak punya nilai di mata saya kalau dia tidak menghargai manusia, dan apalagi mau membenarkan penghilangan nyawa manusia karena perbedaan paham keagamaannya tersebut.

Cara pandang yang mengutamakan manusia seperti itu memang relatif baru dalam sejarah umat manusia, bukan hanya dalam sejarah umat Islam, tapi juga dalam sejarah umat lain. Bukan hanya dalam sejarah Timur dan Arab, tapi juga dalam sejarah Barat. Penghargaan terhadap manusia adalah temuan baru jika dibandingkan dengan sejarah manusia yang jauh lebih panjang. Pembunuhan terhadap manusia karena perbedaan paham keagamaan juga menjadi bagian dari sejarah Barat, seperti halnya sejarah Islam. Karena kita punya sejarah seperti itu, bukan berarti kita dibenarkan melakukan pemusnahan terhadap nyawa manusia hanya karena berbeda paham keagamaan tersebut. Ini sikap yang relatif baru, dan kita tidak boleh dibelenggu oleh sejarah masa lalu kita yang tidak menghargai manusia.

Dalam tulisan saya yang ditanggapi itu, sekilas saya mengungkapkan sejumlah perbedaan paham dalam wilayah akidah yang amat mendasar yang pernah terjadi dalam sejarah Islam. Tujuannya untuk mengatakan bahwa perbedaan paham keagamaan yang sangat mendasar pun ada dalam khazanah Islam dan mengapa kita sekarang tidak belajar dari sejarah itu. Saya memang kurang menegaskan bahwa perbedaan paham akidah dalam sejarah itu kemudian menjadi bencana, saling bunuh, muncul peperangan, ketika perbedaan paham itu melekat dengan kekuasaan. Dan kita tidak boleh mengulang persekutuan tidak suci antara agama dan politik itu. Sumber kekerasan atas nama agama itu terjadi ketika ulama dan penguasa berselingkuh.

Pada Abad Pertengahan, dalam Islam maupun Kristen, perselingkuhan yang memang tidak pernah suci itu terjadi, dan membawa bencana. Bukan hanya bagi manusia, tapi juga bagi agama itu sendiri yang sejatinya membawa pesan perdamaian dan toleransi, bukan peperangan dan bukan pula membunuh manusia. Perbedaan akidah itu ada, dan masing-masing mengklaim paling benar. Sampai di situ tidak menjadi persoalan. Tidak jadi persoalan bagi saya kalau Qosim berkeyakinan bahwa akidah atau paham Islamnya paling benar dan yang selain itu sesat, sejauh keyakinan itu tidak dipaksakan kepada orang lain lewat negara sedemikian rupa, sehingga paham yang selainnya harus dimusnahkan dari negeri ini seperti yang dialami Ahmadiyah yang tak boleh mendakwahkan keyakinannya. Seperti halnya paham Mu'tazilah tentang barunya Al-Quran, dan sebaliknya paham Asy'ariah tentang qadim-nya Al-Quran, tidak menjadi masalah kalau saja Mu'tazilah tidak memaksakan pahamnya lewat kekuasaan khalifah Al-Makmun--sehingga muncul kebijakan negara yang mengkafirkan dan melarang mereka yang menolak paham tersebut . Dan sebaliknya, ketika khalifah Mutawakil berkuasa dan menganut paham Asy'ariah, paham Mu'tazilah juga dilarang.

Saya, dari keluarga dengan paham akidah Ahlussunah, berpaham seperti Asy'ariah itu. Tapi, ketika ada orang Islam lain mengikuti paham Mu'tazlah, apa hak saya melarang dia? Misalnya, dia mengatakan kepada saya bahwa yang Mutlak, Yang Abadi, hanya Allah. Selainnya tidak mutlak, atau relatif. Kalau Al-Quran abadi dan mutlak, maka ada dua abadi dan dua mutlak, yakni Allah dan Al-Quran, dan ini bertentangan dengan prinsip dasar Islam, Tauhid, yang meyakini hanya ada satu yang mutlak ataupun yang abadi, yakni Allah SWT. Dia katakan, barang siapa menduakan Tuhan, meyakini ada yang abadi dan ada yang mutlak selain-Nya, maka ia seorang musyrik yang tidak bisa diampuni dosanya. Atas paham seperti ini, kita harus bilang apa? Apa kita harus memeranginya? Subhanallah!

Perbedaan akidah itu ada, dan sangat manusiawi, dan perbedaan itu melahirkan bencana ketika negara ikut campur menyensor akidah seseorang atau sekelompok orang. Pandangan bahwa perbedaan itu hanya pada hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan cabang (furu') atau fiqh, bukan ushul yang bersifat mendasar, itu adalah klaim umum ulama mainstream. Padahal klasifikasi yang mendasarnya hanya tafsiran, bukan atas dasar sebuah ayat yang dinilai qat'i (pasti). Jangankan melarang beda paham agama atas dasar tafsir, atas dasar nash (teks) yang qati' pun, kalau harus memusnahkan manusia, tidak boleh terjadi di negara kita yang bukan negara Islam ini.

Meskipun penghargaan terhadap manusia di negeri kita masih sangat lemah, saya merasa beruntung dan bangga lahir dan menjadi warga Indonesia sekarang ini, karena penghargaan terhadap manusia di negeri ini relatif lebih baik dibanding di negara-negara yang mayoritas penduduknya muslim, seperti di Timur Tengah ataupun Asia Selatan seperti Pakistan. Di negara-negara itu, jangankan berbeda paham akidah, berbeda sikap politik pun tidak dibenarkan, dan dimusnahkan kalau menjelma dalam bentuk tindakan seperti yang kita saksikan dalam hari-hari belakangan ini. Kita tahu bagaimana persekongkolan ulama dan penguasa di negara-negara itu. Tak terbayangkan ada Wahabisme tanpa kekuasaan keluarga kerajaan Ibn Sa'ud, dan demikian juga sebaliknya, dan kita tahu bagaimana manusia, terutama perempuan, diperlakukan di kerajaan itu sampai hari ini.

Kita punya Konstitusi yang melindungi kebebasan paham beragama dan mempraktekkannya sesuai dengan keyakinannya tersebut. Konstitusi inilah yang harus jadi dasar untuk menilai apakah paham dan perilaku kita, termasuk dalam hubungan antar-paham agama, menyimpang atau tidak menyimpang, bukan sebuah paham keagamaan tertentu. Barangsiapa yang menyebarkan paham dan apalagi melakukan tindakan yang bertentangan dengan Konstitusi tersebut, ia harus diluruskan, dibina, atau paling banter dibui. Tapi tidak boleh dibunuh, siapa pun dia, termasuk orang Ahmadiyah (Ahmadi). Wallahualam.

*Saiful Mujani, Dosen FISIP UIN Jakarta

http://www.tempo.co/read/kolom/2011/02/24/330/Ahmadi-Juga-Manusia

Saturday, May 4, 2013

Dalam Bayang-bayang Kuasa Umat

(Koran TEMPO, 9/2/2011)

Anggota jemaah Ahmadiyah diburu, dikepung ruang geraknya, seperti binatang. Bukan hanya oleh orang-orang di lapisan bawah, tapi juga oleh elite negara dan ulama. Wujudnya adalah kebijakan jahat yang dibuat elite tersebut dalam bentuk surat keputusan bersama (SKB) tiga menteri, dan dikaitkan dengan undang-undang penistaan agama. Dalam SKB itu, Ahmadiyah jelas kehilangan hak-hak asasinya yang paling fundamental sebagai warga negara, yakni kebebasan berkeyakinan dan menjalankannya.

Sejumlah aktivis mengajukan review kebijakan dan undang-undang yang digunakan untuk mendiskriminasi dan membantai warga Ahmadiyah itu. Dasar pengajuan review tersebut adalah kebijakan yang diskriminatif itu dinilai bertentangan dengan konstitusi, yang menjamin kebebasan berkeyakinan serta beragama dan, karena itu, wajib hukumnya dibatalkan. Kita tahu semua, Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak mengabulkan permohonan tersebut.

Kalau bicara secara pribadi dengan para pejabat negara tersebut, mereka mengakui bahwa kebijakan negara itu diskriminatif dan melanggar konstitusi. Tapi mereka tidak bisa berbuat apa-apa. Bahkan bicara secara jernih pun bahwa setiap warga, apa pun keyakinannya, dijamin di negeri hukum ini mereka tidak berani. Saya melihat mereka takut. Takut terhadap siapa? Saya tidak tahu, tapi kesan saya, mereka takut terhadap "umat Islam".

Umat Islam adalah kolektivitas yang dibayangkan hidup, punya logika, dan punya jalan pikiran sendiri. Ia punya sikap tentang apa itu Islam dan apa itu bukan Islam. Barang siapa yang memahami Islam di luar pemahamannya dianggap mengancam Islam dan umat Islam dan, karena itu, harus dikeluarkan. Bila tidak mau keluar, tetap bernaung dalam nama Islam, ia dinilai pantas dimusnahkan.

Sikap umat seperti ini sebenarnya diciptakan dalam sejarah oleh sebuah otoritas agama atau ulama dan negara atas dasar penafsiran yang dinilai berlaku umum dalam tradisi otoritas tersebut. Peran ulama adalah membentuk paham-paham Islam mana yang benar dan mana yang tidak benar, mana yang boleh dan mana yang tidak boleh. Sampai di situ tidak apa-apa. Tapi, ketika otoritas agama ini punya kekuasaan atau bisa menggunakan kekuasaan negara, paham tersebut bisa punya daya paksa dan bahkan daya musnah seperti yang kita saksikan di Pandeglang itu.

Negara bisa dipaksa atau mungkin dipersuasi oleh ulama, terutama Majelis Ulama dan para ulama di Kementerian Agama karena petinggi negara terkait takut dinilai membela hak-hak beragama jemaah Ahmadiyah. Mereka takut dinilai memusuhi umat Islam kalau menolak permintaan para ulama untuk mengkerangkeng jemaah Ahmadiyah.

Saya tahu para ulama itu sungguh-sungguh melihat Ahmadiyah sebagai ancaman terhadap umat Islam. Tapi para pejabat negara terkait sebenarnya tidak merasa seperti itu. Sebenarnya banyak di antara mereka yang memandang bahwa paham seperti yang dipegang oleh Ahmadiyah merupakan hak jemaah Ahmadiyah sendiri dan negara tidak boleh memaksa mereka berislam selain cara mereka sendiri. Mereka juga percaya bahwa negara wajib melindungi setiap keyakinan apa pun, termasuk keyakinan yang dikaitkan dengan Islam, seperti Ahmadiyah. Tapi elite negara itu takut terhadap umat kalau harus mengatakan demikian secara terbuka kepada publik. Mereka takut dinilai merusak Islam, dan takut dimusuhi umat Islam.

Ketakutan elite negara, yang umumnya awam dengan tafsir Islam, itu semakin menjadi-jadi karena hampir tidak ada ulama tandingan dari umat Islam yang berpengaruh untuk menyampaikan paham alternatif terhadap pandangan tentang Islam yang dinilai umum tersebut. Kita tahu ada sejumlah ulama atau intelektual yang menoleransi adanya perbedaan paham dalam Islam, termasuk yang berkaitan dengan akidah, karena mereka tahu bahwa perbedaan semacam itu punya sejarah yang panjang dalam tradisi Islam. Dan sah adanya.

Kita ingat bagaimana para pendukung Sayidina Ali dan para pendukung Sayidina Usman saling mengkafirkan, saling mengeluarkan mereka dari Islam. Padahal mereka semua para pengikut setia Nabi. Mereka berebut pengaruh. Bukan soal paham agama betul.

Kita tahu banyak ulama besar pada masa keemasan Islam yang lebih mengutamakan akal daripada wahyu, yang menganggap akal lebih penting daripada wahyu. Juga kita ingat perdebatan besar para ulama Asyariah dan Mu'tazilah tentang hakikat wahyu atau Al-Quran, apakah ia kekal (qadim) atau baru (hadis). Kita juga tahu ada ulama besar tasawuf, seperti Yazid Albustami atau Al-Hallaj, yang punya ungkapan ganjil bagi awam umat Islam ketika mengatakan, misalnya, "tidak ada Tuhan selain Aku"; "Aku adalah Tuhan", dan seterusnya.

Itu semua wilayah akidah dan, karena itu, beda paham dalam soal akidah juga biasa saja. Kalau Mirza Ghulam Ahmad mengaku dirinya seorang nabi, ya, tidak ada apa-apanya kalau kita melihat perbedaan paham para ulama pada zaman keemasan Islam tersebut. Jangankan yang mengaku sebagai nabi, yang mengaku dirinya sebagai Allah saja ada. Jangankan perbedaan paham dalam menafsirkan sumber doktrin Islam, yakni Al-Quran, yang menganggap Al-Quran kurang penting pun ada. Dan semuanya berdasarkan atas otoritas keulaman mereka.

Celakanya, para ulama yang berdiri di belakang SKB itu cukup tahu sejarah Islam, tapi mereka memilih secara selektif. Seleksi itu bukan karena mereka sudah bertemu dengan Allah dan mengatakan bahwa Allah membenarkan substansi SKB itu, tapi lebih karena perasaan dan sejarah sosial mereka sendiri dalam lingkungan ulama Indonesia yang jumud, yang mata hatinya tertutup terhadap kenyataan bahwa ini adalah Indonesia, negara Pancasila, bukan negara Islam.

Sejauh ini para ulama yang bernafsu mengeluarkan Ahmadiyah dari Islam cukup berhasil memonopoli arti dan makna Islam itu, sehingga paham yang lain harus dimusnahkan. Lebih dari itu, mereka kemudian berhasil juga menciptakan ketakutan di seantero negeri, termasuk kepada para jenderal yang paham keislamannya dari tradisi abangan itu.

Para elite negara begitu takut kepada umat Islam yang maknanya ciptaan para ulama itu. Mereka begitu percaya, kalau melawan paham ulama itu, mereka akan ditinggalkan umat Islam, yang membentuk hampir seluruh penduduk negeri ini. Kalau ditinggalkan, apalagi dimusuhi umat yang buatan ulama itu, habislah riwayat petinggi negara yang nasibnya bergantung pada pilihan umat itu, apakah itu presiden, anggota DPR, gubernur, maupun bupati. Pejabat-pejabat negara lainnya yang tak dipilih umat, seperti yang duduk di Mahkamah Konstitusi, kejaksaan, kepolisian, dan kementerian, juga takut karena bergantung pada para pejabat yang dipilih umat tersebut. Umat berkuasa, dan membuat takut seantero negeri.