Registered user login:

Indonesia's persecuted

Robert Pringle

Published 16 June 2008

Retired US diplomat Robert Pringle explains why Ahmadiyya Muslims have been a target of sectarian violence and government persecution and how this threatens pluralism in the country

Roughly 85 per cent of Indonesia’s 240 million people profess Islam, making the country the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation. Indonesian Islam is diverse, with virtually every variation of the faith represented, from mystical Sufism to politically radical fundamentalism, though there are very few shias.

Except for an extremist fringe, most Indonesian Muslims are moderate, and they tolerate each other well. They generally agree, however, that the government-persecuted Ahmadiyya sect, which claims to be “Islam,” is unacceptably nothing of the kind.

The sect’s refusal to give ground on this point is has made it a soft target for fundamentalist mobs and put the government of President Bambang Susilo Yudhoyono in a dilemma. If the president allows Ahmadiyya to exist in accordance with Indonesia’s constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, it will provoke more violence, and he may lose some much-needed Muslim political support in next year's election.

Ahmadiyya, founded in India in the late nineteenth century, was energetically seeking converts in Indonesia, then known as the Dutch East Indies, as long ago as the 1920s. The problem was (and is) that its founder, Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, claimed to be a new, post-Mohammed prophet, as well as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. This runs flatly contrary to the fundamental Muslim belief that Mohammed was the seal of the prophets, final as well as perfect.

The Islam-Ahmaddiya contretemps has something in common with the historic tension in the USA between Christianity and Mormonism, which was also founded by a break-away prophet. Mormons were persecuted in the US, often violently, until the church modified its doctrine to accommodate the Christian majority, most notably by outlawing polygamy. But Ahmadiyya has refused to question its founder’s prophethood or to drop its claim to be just as Islamic as anyone else.

Indonesia has got past the widespread communlal violence and terrorism which followed the fall of Suharto, epitomized by the Bali bombing of 2002, but militant radical groups such as the Islamic Defenders’ Front (FPI) are still eager to prove what vigilant Muslims they are, and Ahmadiyya, thanks to its obvious doctrinal deviation, makes a perfect target.

In 2005 the controversial, quasi-official Indonesian Council of Ulamas issued a non-binding fatwa (decree) reasserting that Ahmaddiyya is heretical, and this has been followed by sporadic mob violence against the sect’s followers and mosques ever since. The government has been unable to stop what is patently illegal violence. Recently the authorities offered Ahmadiyya a choice: it could stop claiming to be Muslim, in which case it would enjoy Indonesia’s constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, or it could close up shop.

Such a solution might have placated Muslim radicals, but Ahmadiyya, which has about 200,000 followers in the country, refused to renounce its Islamic identity or to go out of business. Instead it is appealing the government’s either-or decision. On 1 June, when supporters of religious rights, including prominent mainstream Muslim figures, staged a rally in Jakarta to support the sect, they too were attacked by a mob.

In some ways the Ahmadiyya case is a distraction from the more important competition between Islamic extremists and the moderate majority of Muslims, which the moderates seem to be gradually winning.

There has been no terrorist violence in Indonesia since 2005, and the country’s decentralized democracy is working well, with spirited elections at all levels frequently lost by incumbents. But Indonesians and foreigners alike are justifiably concerned about the continuing threat to pluralism and minority rights which the Ahmadiyya case demonstrates. Until the government is willing to uphold a basic freedom spelled out in its own constitution and crack down on mob violence, Indonesia will not get full moral credit for its undoubted democratic achievements.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

13 comments from readers

faez
16 June 2008 at 12:59

If a peace loving community in the world is getting persecuted, we should all stand up and condemn the perpetrators, and full marks to Robert for highlighting the plight of the Ahmadis. Its a shame that Indonesia has stooped down so low under the pressure of the fanatical mullahs, and it is rather unwise of them to think that the demands of these fanatical mullahs will end here. I fear for the future stability of Indonesia. They are going down a path like Pakistan did, and we all know that there is nothing left of Islam in Pakistan today except the Islam presented by the peace loving Ahmadis. We need to hear more about the Ahmadis.

Ahmad
16 June 2008 at 13:33

This article highlights an important issue of extremists targeting a peaceful minority, and conflict between moderates and radicals that is endemic in the Islamic world. There are some important errors in the piece- Ahmadis also believe that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the Seal of the Prophets, the final law bearing prophet and perfect. They differ from other Muslims over who will be the Promised Messiah (who Christians and Muslims are awaiting)- the difference is therefore like that of Jews and Christians who split over the identity of the Messiah. Orthodox Muslims are awaiting the return of Jesus of Nazareth (who is also a prophet) while Ahmadi Muslims believe Jesus died on earth and therefore the Promised Messiah is someone with his qualities ie a paragon of peace and virtue. This accounts for the Ahmadis' philosophy of Love for All Hatred for None.

faez
16 June 2008 at 19:01

Thankyou for your comments Ahmad. I have always found it quite confusing that whilst the orthodox muslims are waiting for Jesus Christ to come back, yet still claim that Muhammad (pbuh) is the last prophet. Surely there is nothing of significance in being "last". If the word "Khatam" in Arabic can also mean "best", why is this translation not used?. Secondly, it occured to me that mankind as a whole never seems to learn its lesson from history. When Jesus came, his message was simply that of peace. Yet he and his followers were severly persecuted. Today, we see the same scenario repeating itself in the case of the Ahmadis. Their message of peace is ignored likewise, and the persecution that Robert Pringle has highlighted in his article illustrates that we as human beings really havent understood God, His purpose and His message. Instead man, throughout the ages, seems to "want" to live in disarray and disharmony with fellow man. Why is this?

Ahmad
16 June 2008 at 21:34

Might also be worth noting that in 2006, the New Statesman described Ahmadi Muslims as "...the most educated, organised and disciplined of all Muslim communities". The key difference is thay they have accepted the Promised Messiah- others are still waiting for the Messiah to come. The divide between Ahmadi Muslims and non Ahmadi Muslims is like the divide that occurred between Christians and Jews ie over the identity of the Messiah.

lalahabal
16 June 2008 at 22:39

On Finality of Prophet hood in Islam, may I humbly suggest that logically it is an absurd position that no more Prophets can be sent by God and it is equally absurd that this finality is a basic / fundamental belief for a Muslim to be part of Islam.

On the one hand Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised the coming of the Mehdi and Isa bi Maryam and Muslims universally accept this. Yet on the other hand Muslims deny that these two persons can be prophet arriving after Muhammad.

Is the Mehdi (meaning the Guided one) going to be appointed and Guided by God OR by fundamentalist Jihadis OR by Defenders of Islam in Indonesia or Hizbeh Tehrir or Jmaat Islami perhaps? If God is going to Guid this Mehdi then by definition the Mehdi is another form of a Prophet. The same argument is appied to Returning “Isa bin Maryam”. So where is the fundamental condition that no Prophet can come after Muhammad?

Those who follow the absurd belief that prophet hood ended with Muhammad (pbuh) lack basic logic. If they are trying force this down the throats of Muslims and Governments thru violence, then they are criminals and must be tackled by the Muslim Governments everywhere. If left to their devises, these violent Jihadi philosophy careers will turn every Muslim Country into a place of Civil strife and violence just like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Marie
17 June 2008 at 01:22

The mullahs / government are on denial. Money and worldly position are more important. The government should have been firm towards the radical muslim groups, but they bowing to the group's pressure istead. It's a very shameful decision.

Ari T
17 June 2008 at 02:42

Dear commenters: this omits an important development, namely the government's ban and crackdown on the Islamic Defenders’ Front (FPI) after their attacks on the pro-tolerance rally last month. This article makes it seem as if this group is still at large, that the government is bowing to the radicals' demands, and that Indonesian Muslims who disagree with the Ahmadis are going to attack them again. This is absolutely not the case. Even though many Indonesian Muslims do not agree with the Ahmadi position, the majority support peaceful coexistence with them. Radicals may try to provoke the persecution of this group. However, the crackdown on the FPI has shown that neither the people nor the government are going to tolerate any more mob tactics to provoke strife and violence.

shahid
17 June 2008 at 09:39

Rather than try to interpret the meaning of the word Khatim ourselves we should ask the Holy Prophet Muhammad what it means. He said that the word meant that there will be no prophet after me. Similarly, he said naming a person that so and so could have been a prophet except that there is no prophet after me. May I suggest that the Holy Prophet was in a better position to understand what revelation to him meant than the bloggers here.

Ahmad
17 June 2008 at 10:58

I agree wholeheartedly Shahid- the Holy Prophet of Islam(pbuh) did know best and was divinely guided.

The essential meaning of the word ‘Khatam’ in Arabic usage has always been applied to mean not ‘last in time’ but ‘the ultimate in status’. Hence, Prophet Muhammad (saw) was the final authority on prophethood, or to put it simply no prophet can appear after him who will support or revive any religion other than the religion brought by Prophet Muhammad (saw). Anything to the contrary would effectively seek to ‘break his seal’ on the issue of prophethood. This is because the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (saw) has incorporated the beauties of all religions and completed the religious teachings to perfection.

Evidence supporting the possibility of prophets appearing after Prophet Muhammad (saw) can be found in the Hadith

On the demise of his son, the Holy Prophet (saw), said,

‘If Ibrahim had lived he would have been a prophet’ (Sunan Ibn e Maja, vol. 1, p.474).

The Prophet’s son died after the verse noting the Holy Prophet (saw) as ‘Khataman Nabiyyeen’ had been revealed. Yet despite the prior existence of this verse, the Holy Prophet (saw) categorically and publicly stated that if his son Ibrahim had lived he would have been a prophet. This tells us that the Holy Prophet (saw) could not have understood the verse about ‘Khataman Nabiyyeen’ meaning that he was the last prophet.

In another hadith, the Holy Prophet (saw) is reported to have said,

‘Abu Bakr is the most exalted person in my Ummah, except the advent of a prophet in future.’ (Al Jami ul Saghir, vol. 1, p.6).

From these Ahadith, it is clear that prophethood did not cease with the Holy Prophet (saw).

It is worth also noting some Ahadith that to the lay reader may suggest that prophethood ended with Prophet Muhammad (saw). However when studied further it is clear that they cannot mean support the claim that prophethood has ceased altogether.

One of these hadith is:

‘There is no prophet after me’ (Bukhari)

However, the Holy Prophet (saw) here is referring to a law-bearing prophet. This interpretation is further clarified and confirmed by Hadhrat Ayesha (ra), wife of the Holy Prophet (saw), who said,

‘O ye people you should say that the Holy Prophet is Khataman Nabiyyeen, but do not say that there will be no prophet after him.’ (Durr e Manthoor, vol. 5, p.386).

Another hadith often quoted is:

‘I am the last prophet.’ (Sunan Nassai, Vol. 2, p.35).

Here the Holy Prophet (saw) is again referring to law-bearing prophets. This is clear from the full version of the hadith which states,

‘I am the last of the prophets and my mosque is the last mosque.’ (Sunan Nassai, vol. 2, p.35).

By juxtaposing prophet with mosque, the Holy Prophet (saw) is simply implying that there will be no prophet like him just as there will be no mosque equal in glory or piety to his mosque. Future prophets, just as mosques, will be a reflection of his prophethood and mosque.

hanaseem
18 June 2008 at 16:40

The piece written by Robert Pringle is very thought provoking. He rightly asserts that, "most Indonesian Muslims are moderate, and they tolerate each other well." The extremists in Indonesia , for sure, are a very very small minority and there is no reason to believe that this minority will grow in influence and numbers in the future. Robert also asserts that currently there is "a competition between Islamic extremists and the moderate majority of Muslims, which the moderates seem to be gradually winning." I do not understand his depiction of President Susilo's dilemma: "If the president allows Ahmadiyya to exist in accordance with Indonesia’s constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, it will provoke more violence, and he may lose some much-needed Muslim political support in next year's election." ...He will lose the votes of a receding community of extremists! Good riddance... He should and MUST refuse the support of extremists as otherwise he would lose the support of the rest of the moderate majority of Indonesia voters and that of the civilized world. How can the terror tactics of extremists who provide the spanning ground for terrorists be justified even in the name of winning an election. Obviously the government of Indonesia caved in to the pressure of these terrorist groups who in the broad daylight shamelessly physically attacked the peaceloving supporters of Panchashila and peaceful co-existence philosophy demonstrating in support of the Ahmadiyya. Panchashila has been the bedrock of tolerance over which the peaceloving society of Indonesia rested since their independence. To tear down that solid foundation, especially, in the name of Islam, is worst than cutting the limb on which one is sitting. This will predictably throw the peace and tranquility of the whole Indonesian society into tumult. We must remind the politicians that Indonesian people by far expect them to defend and uphold the constitution. To trade the overwhelming majority votes for a very few minority (extremist) votes is an absurdity one does not expect even from two-year olds. Politicians know number games pretty well...There may be some other hidden variables (factors) in this equation that have not come up as yet.

Sarah Waseem
18 June 2008 at 23:37

The Indonesian govenrment claims to be muslim but is failing to follow a fundamental teaching of the Holy Quran, that there is no compulsion in matters of faith. Freedom of worship and faith is deeply enshrined in Islamic theology.

AhsanA
19 June 2008 at 09:39

Shahid's makes a point that we should abide by the Holy Prophet's (sw) ruling and interpretation. He is totally correct - so I ask him should we not accept or reject that Hazrat Isa (Jesus) pbuh, a prophet, will return after the advent of the Holy Prophet.

It was the Holy Prophet(sw) himself informing us of a return of a prophet after him and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is saying no more than that - that he is Isa (as).

Hazrat Isa (as) himself explained about returning of old prophets using Hazrat Elijah as an example.

Old or new is irrelevant because what the Holy Prophet (sw) clearly stated that despite him being the "Khataman Nabiyeen, the need of a prophet after him still exists. The Only difference being how will he return.

Will he be Jesus (as) in his original body (and to date his age is now over 2000 years) or in the body of another person just as Eiljah returned in the person of Hazrat Yahah (John the Baptist).

If Shahid studies the Quran in more detail, he will find that the Quran clearly states that Hazrat Isa has died. If that is the case - then the return has to be in the manner expalined by Hazrta Isa(as).

Ahsan, Crawley, UK

Haji Rafiq
02 July 2008 at 07:32

What the Government of Indonesia overlooked is how the two Pakistani statesmen ended up, during whose time in office anti-Ahmadiyya laws were passed: Bhutto and Zia-ul-Haq.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Did you enjoy the Beijing Olympics?