Azra on Ahmadiyah and the so-called deviant teachings

‘The first attack on Ahmadiyah was led by a descendant from Hadral Maut’

Violent clashes between sects within Islam are no longer unusual in Indonesia, a country, once known for its religious tolerance. The past months for example, saw several attacks made on the sect Ahmadiyah. The obvious question is: Why now? After all, the Ahmadiyah community has lived in peaceful co-existence with mainstream Muslims in this country ever since it was still a Dutch colony. Could it be because the Indonesian Council of Ulemas (MUI) declared it an “errant” and “deviant” sect? Or is it because the government has allowed violence to pass unpunished?

To get at the root of the problem, a colleague of mine, spoke to Azyumardi Azra, a professor of history and director of post-graduate studies at Jakarta's State Islamic University (UIN) Syarief Hidayatullah. Below are excerpts of the interview (with some minor editing from me):

Q: Do these conflicts have their root far back in the past, during the time of the Prophet Muhammad, or are there other reasons?

A: When we talk about frictions, conflicts and so forth, Islam is actually no different from other religions. To a certain degree, other religions, particularly Christianity, could be even worse. We can see this in Europe's history, what happened there when Protestantism became a religion apart from Catholicism. All religions are susceptible to break-ups because the principles laid down in the scriptures could be multi-interpretable. That creates differences in understanding, and often one understanding is held to be the truest by those who promulgate that interpretation. And so each sect, or school of thought, comes to see its own interpretation as the “most correct.” This happens especially because of the emergence of movements, or ideas, that are transnational in character and position themselves (in the case of Islam) as the only unadulterated teachings of Islam—or the Salafiah, the school of Salafi, in the popular vernacular. This movement is brought and disseminated here by descendants of people from Hadral Maut, in Yemen.

Q: Could you be a little more specific?

A: If we look at the attack on the first attack on Ahmadiyah in Parung, that was led by a descendant from Hadral Maut. I forgot his name. But that is the way they express themselves. They are different from NU (Nahdlatul Ulama) or Muhammadiyah—the country’s two largest Muslim organizations—which are more tolerant because their Islam is more in a social, cultural and political Indonesian context.

Q: What actually is the orientation, and the societal and social-political leaning of groups such as Hisbut Tahrir?

A: Hisbut Tahrir is one of the transnational movements of Islam that emerged in Syria, led by a sheik named Taqiuddin Adamhani, which separated from the original group, the Ihwanul Muslimin. He founded the Hisbut Tahrir. Its main idea is to set up a caliphate embracing all Muslims in the world. Second is to establish the sharia (Islamic law). In their belief, only the establishment of a caliphate can unite all Muslims in the world. Therefore, the establishment of a universal caliphate is a central issue for Hisbut Tahrir, although the idea of a caliphate has never been popular in Indonesia. It has never been an important issue within NU or Muhammadiyah. Actually, Hisbut Tahrir has existed since the late 1970s or early 1980s, although they did not dare to proclaim their existence openly. That only happened after the reform movement (reformasi).

Q: And what about Ahmadiyah?

A: Ahmadiyah already existed here during the Dutch colonial era, since the 1920s. And I know for sure that for more than 90%, both in practice and religious understanding, Ahmadiyah is identical with Sunni or Syiah. They are different only in one respect: that of Mirza Gulam Ahmad. Whether Ahmad is a “mujadid” (renewer) or a prophet. Yes, there is a group within Ahmadiyah which considers Ahmad to be a “prophet,” but not in the sense that he introduced a new sharia. Their sharia is still that of the Prophet Muhammad. Ahmad as a “prophet” only revitalized it. Our Dutch-educated Muslim leaders became familiar and studied Islam using Ahmadiyah books written in English. The interpretation of the Koran by Muhammad Ali, an Ahmadiyah follower—leaders like Muhammad Roem and Haji Agus Salim, used that to study Islam.

Q: So Ahmadiyah is not a new phenomenon. What about Wahabiah, or Wahabism?

A: Not at all. And generally they live in peace with the local population. But since the puritan teachings of Islam came to Indonesia and grew more immoderate, Ahmadiyah became a target. So there is a foreign, or transnational element. The arrival of Wahabism or Salafiah from the Middle East did sway certain people in certain organizations or joined the MUI, for example—and it was then that Ahmadiyah was decreed an aberrant sect. Wahabiah (Wahabism) is a sect within Islam which puts the emphasis on purifying the teachings of Islam. Under their societal idea, people who practice things that in their view is not in accordance with the teachings of Islam will be made their target. Maulid Nabi (the birth of the Prophet), for example, they consider it haram (forbidden) while in our villages it has become part of the people's tradition. It is these things that upset the stability of Islamic life in Indonesia, creating frictions and even growing violence.

Q: What can our Islamic leader and thinkers do to ensure that Islam in Indonesia can grow more tolerant and peaceful?

A: I am now criticizing MUI's fatwas that are based on a very rigid interpretation of the fiqih (Islamic law), such as the one which says that liberalism, pluralism and secularism are haram. Quite often their understanding is wrong, like equating pluralism with syncretism, so that accepting pluralism would mean mixing religions. Of course this is wrong, because pluralism is recognizing the existence of other religions and respecting their beliefs and being tolerant. That is what happens with MUI fatwas, which often depart from a wrong understanding, or from a rigid interpretation of the fiqih. They don't sufficiently take into account the social, cultural and political Indonesian context.

Q: As far as you know, does the government have any cultural program ready to cool down religious tension in this country?

A: I don't think they have. Generally speaking, the government has no firm policy or a clear direction to accomplish a healthier religious life. This is especially evident since a number of religious affairs ministers since the reform movement have said that Ahmadiyah should be banned. That shouldn't be the way to do it. The government is duty bound to protect its citizens. It is perfectly alright for a certain group to say that another group is aberrant, but that is no justification for violence or taking the law into one's own hands. That is where the weakness of two successive governments lies. They don't want to be firm in upholding the law, and so the Ahmadiyah people continue to be targets of violence.

Q: A while ago the Attorney General said that his institution cannot take any action until the MUI has issued its fatwa. What is your comment?

A: That is a good example of an official making a misguided statement. Apart from that he is putting the MUI in a wrong position. The MUI is not an official institution and it is not a government institution, and legally it has never been decided that it is the only one which is authorized to issue fatwas. An according to the fiqih (Islamic law), a fatwa is not binding. It is only one among several legal opinions that can either followed or not. So the Attorney General has made mistakes on several levels. First, Indonesia is not an Islamic state. There is no mufti. We have no ifta' which in Islamic countries has the sole authority to issue binding fatwas. MUI is not a formal institution. It is federation representing several Islamic organizations in Indonesia. In Indonesia, there are several kinds of fatwa, such as those from the Majlis Tarjjih Muhamaddiyah and NU's Bahsul Masa'il, and the ummat is free to decide which one to follow—or to follow none at all.