The state of religious freedom in Indonesia-June 2008

The second World Peace Forum -co-hosted by Muhamadiyah (the second largest Muslim organization in Indonesia), The Centre for Dialogue and Cooperation between Civilizations, and the Cheng Ho Multicultural Trust- will open today (24^th of June 2008 ) in Jakarta with many speeches by influential world leaders including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and an opening address by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Such a conference will, among other things, stress the need for tolerance between different ethnicities, nationalities and religions.

Yet a joint ministerial decree on the severe limitation of actions (if not an implicit ban) concerning the religious group Ahmadiyah as well as religious violence carried out by the Islamic Troop Command (Komando Laskar Islam) earlier this month raises serious questions over religious tolerance within Indonesia itself and will overshadow the upcoming conference.

Events leading up to the Decree regarding Ahmadiyah

The proposal to ban Ahmadiyah arose at a joint meeting led by the coordinating minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs, Adi Sucipto, on the 17^th of April and was drafted by the Reglious Affairs Ministry, Home Ministry and Attorney Generals Office. It has caused great tension among Indonesia’s religious communities that has pitted religious hardliners, such as the Islamic Defenders Front (Front Pembela Islam) against more tolerant groups.

This tension erupted into violence on the 1^st of June 2008, the 63^rd anniversary of Indonesia’s Pancasila philosophy, at the National Monument (Monas) in Jakarta when the Islamic Troop Command comprising of members from Front Pembela Islam, Forum Umat Islam and Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia used bamboo sticks to attack demonstrators from the National Alliance for the freedom of faith and religions (Aliansi Kebangsaan untuk Kebebasan Beragama dan Berkeyakinan). More than 90 people were injured during the violence with 14 needing further medical attention at the hospital.

The event caused a national outcry against the perpetrators and Din Syamsuddin, the chair of Muhammadiyah, called the violence criminal. Nevertheless Din acknowledged that government indecision at the time over the issue of banning Ahmadiyah was a reason for the violence. Indeed, Munarwan the leader of Islamic Troop Command, who is now in police custody, stated at the time ‘The clash at Monas is just an initial warning to whoever supports Ahmadiyah. I have prepared my people for a long term war.’

Although police investigations into the violence led to the arrest of several members involved, protest by religious hardliners continued. On June 9^th 2008 another protest (comprised of members from Front Pembela Islam, Forum Umat Islam, Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia and Forum Betawi Repung) was held outside the Presidential Palace with representatives of the demonstrators speaking with members the presidential offices and Religious Affairs Ministry.

Later that afternoon, when the protestors had dispersed, the Minister for Religious Affairs Maftuh Basyumi, Attorney General Hendaman Supandji and Minister for Domestic Affairs Mardiyanto, held a press conference where they announced their Joint Decree concerning Ahmadiyah (SKB No 3/2008). The letter comprised of six points severely limiting the actions of the sect. Although it Joint Decree does not explicitly ban the sect, it does severely limit their activities with the threat of five years imprisonment for ‘religious actions that stray from the main interpretation/points of that religion.’

Reactions to the joint ministerial decree

Members of the Islamic Defenders Front believe the ban has not gone far enough and have called on the government to make an explicit ban on Ahmadiyah while ordering the group to dissolve. According to Ma’ruf Amin, head of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) Fatwa commission, ‘if action is carried out it is not out of provocation…all (Islamic groups) still wish for Ahmadiyah to be dissolved.’

Others believe the joint decree to stand against the pluralist and tolerant nature upon which the Indonesian nation was built. The Maarif Institute for Culture and Humanity has pointed out that the joint decree violates the Indonesian Constitution regarding religious freedom. Meanwhile, Nono Anwar Makarim believes the joint decree is an act ‘theocratization’ that strays from the Pancasila philosophy of the state.

The reaction by Ahmadiyah itself has been muted. According to the Deputy Amir of Jemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia, Muhammad Siddiq Jian, although the government decision does not call for the banning of Ahmadiyah, they are still studying the decision and any action taken will be of a legal nature.

Yet according to Rumadi of The Wahid Institute the Joint Decree is misunderstood. Ahmadiyah are only called upon to stop their activities while the government still recognizes the existence of the group. He believes the decree to be a middle way; on the one hand, although limiting Ahmadiyah activities, it also forces the government to protect Ahmadiyah members from violence. On the other hand, the Joint Decree allowed the government to ease pressure from Islamic hardliners while not giving into their demands for the outright banof the sect.

Although Rumadi is right to point out that the Joint Decree still recognizes the existence of the group, it is difficult to believe that it will force the government to protect Ahmadiyah members from violence when police have previously shown little effort in stopping such attacks. Further, if police do stop attacks against Ahmadiyah, they will also be allowed to arrest followers if they deem the violence a result of religious activities by the sect that stray from the main teachings of Islam.

The joint decree may also be viewed as a victory by religious hardliners as, although Ahmadiyah is not banned, the timing of the government decision, hours after a demonstration outside the Presidential Palace, gives the impression that the government has been pressured by such groups and the violence they carry out in the name of religion. Although police action to arrest those involved in the violence is a positive move, the prosecution of those involved will be an important step so as not to give the impression to members of the Islamic Troop Command that violent activities against others is a viable course of action and thus cause greater religious tension in the future.

The Joint Decree also points to a greater problem concerning religious minorities in Indonesia. Although the country recognizes six major religions; Islam, Christianity (Protestantism), Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism, it does not recognize any religion that may exist outside of these categories. Ahmadiyah is allowed to be restricted and perhaps banned as it is considered a sect that strays from the teachings of Islam and therefore is un-Islamic, falling outside of the ‘Islamic’ category and not fitting into any of the other recognized religions. This highlights wider questions regarding the freedom of religion and religious interpretation within Indonesia while raising theological questions of who can truly speak on behalf of one religion to decide what is official and what is deviant interpretation within the country. Indeed, the restrictions on the behaviour of Ahmadiyah show how such a categorization of religion may in fact contradict the Indonesian Constitution that states ‘The state shall guarantee freedom to every resident to adhere to their respective religion and to perform their religious duties in accordance with their religion and that faith’ (Article 29 (2)). Thus the debate concerning Ahmadiyah not only raises questions about the state of religious tolerance within Indonesia but raises questions concerning the interpretation/protection of the Indonesian Constitution and the Pancasila philosophy that lie at the very foundations of the archipelagic nation.

Joint Ministerial Decree Concerning Ahmadiyah

1) To remind and instruct citizens not to preach, advocate or cultivate general support for interpretations about a religion which is followed in Indonesia or carry out religious actions which are similar to religious activities from that religion but stray from the main teachings of that religion.

2) To remind and instruct followers, members and/or managing members of Jemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia (JAI), while they profess to be Muslims, to stop spreading interpretations and activities which stray from the main teachings of Islam, especially the spreading of a understanding which acknowledges there is a prophet which taught after the Prophet Muhammad.

3) Followers, Members and/or managing members of Jemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia (JAI) who don’t respect the reminder and instructions as dictated in the First and Second Dictums can be sanctioned within the regulations of the law, including legal bodies and organizations.

4) To remind and instruct citizens to guard and protect the union of religious followers and the peace and order within the livelihood of the community by not carrying out actions that oppose the law concerning followers, members and/or managing members of Jemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia (JAI).

5) Citizens who do not respect the reminders and instructions dictated in the First and Fourth Dictums can be sanctioned within the regulations of the law.

6) To instruct government bodies and local governments to carry out constructive steps within a safe and careful framework in order to carry out this joint decree.