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.

Indonesia’s pluralist attitude towards religion has taken a worrying turn for the worst as the government considers whether to ban the Islamic sect Ahmadiyah who has 200,000 members throughout Indonesia.

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. The drafting of the proposal shall come from three bodies; the Reglious Affairs Ministry, Home Ministry and Attorney Generals Office.

According to Attorney General Hendarman Supandji, speaking to journalists on the 23^rd of May, the joint letter is almost finished and includes three lines of reasoning; judicial, philosophical and sociological. The judicial reasoning has already been completed as, according to Henderman Supandji, Ahmadiyah contravenes the 1965 law on the prevention of misuse and disgrace of religion. Meanwhile the sociological and philosophical reasoning has almost been completed by the Religious Affairs and Home Ministries. Once the proposal is completed it shall be submitted to the government for final approval.

Followers of Ahmadiyah, a sect that originates from India and believes that Mirzan Gulam Ahmad was the last prophet or messenger, has faced increasing harassment within Indonesia during the past years as Ahmadiyah members have been attacked in Java, Sulawesi and Lombok in September 2005, February 2006 and August 2006 respectively. The situation is exacerbated by a fatwa from the Indonesian Ulemas Council (Majelis Ulema Indonesia) declaring the sect heretical while the Religious Affairs Minister, Maftuh Basyumi, declared Ahmadiyah a ‘deviant sect’ in 2006.

Support for the proposal has been expressed from many religious groups including the hardline Islamic Defenders Front (FBI), who have frequently been involved in violent attacks on Ahmadiyah, and may politicians such as the Mayor of Cimahi, Itoc Tochiya, who claimed such a ban would be in the interest of the security of Ahmadiyah as the police have difficulty defending the sect against attack. He subsequently cordoned off 6 Ahmadiyah mosques in the city banning practitioners from entering them.

However, not all believe the proposal to be beneficial for Indonesia with many urging the president to cancel such a law on the grounds that it is anti-pluralist, can create further religious tension and even contradicts the 1945 Indonesian Constitution on Religious Freedom. Pressure is also mounting from the international community as, on May 16^th, UNCAT noted the failure of Indonesian Security forces to provide security for Ahmadiyah and has made a request for a special rapporteur on religion to visit the country.

By allowing Ahmadiyah to be banned the government may just be paving the way for the prohibition of other religious minorities while giving the green light to groups such as the Islamic Defenders Front, who frequently attacked Ahmadiyah, to carry out similar attacks against other religious groups. This would be a worrying development as it would contravene the pluralist nature of religion in Indonesia that, although being the largest Muslim country, also recognises the right to practice other religions.

In March 2007, Mohammad Shofan, a former lecturer at Universitas Muhammadiyah Gersik, was dismissed by the university council because of a paper he had written titled ‘Christmas and Pluralism’ in which he stated that the saying Merry Christmas was a form of respect for Jesus, who is a prophet in the Quran. This incident was not an isolated case but part of increasing concern over the growth of anti-pluralist religious activity within Indonesia. Indeed, in August 2005, the Indonesia Ulema Council (MUI) issued a fatwa forbidding liberal, secular and pluralist views. Indonesia officially recognizes five religious groups (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism) although no one religion is the state religion. Religious tension has always existed within the state, from the Darul Islam uprisings of the 1950s to the Christmas Eve Church bombings in 2000, yet, where anti-pluralist religious violence previously existed on the fringes of society, recent tension at the regional and national level has led it to become a national concern and a threat to the unity of the country. Violence against religious groups such as Ahmadiyah as well as the passing of religiously influenced laws at the regional level is two ways in which the tolerance of Indonesian society has come under threat.

The Islamic sect, Ahmadiyah, has 200,000 members throughout Indonesia many of whom are on the receiving end of hostility from Muslim hard-line groups who consider Ahmadiyah’s beliefs to be heretical. In the past two years the Ahmadiyah community has been continually harassed and attacked as in Cianjur, West Java, in September 2005, Ranjawila, South Sulawesi, in February 2006, and Praya, Lombok, in August 2006. Further, in July 2005, two hundred rioters ransacked Ahmadiyah’s Mubarak Campus in Jakarta. The situation is exacerbated by declarations from the MUI claiming Ahmadiyah to be a heretical sect and from comments by Religious Affairs Minister, Maftuh Basyuni, declaring Ahmadiyah as a ‘deviant sect.’ Similar harassment has been experienced by other religious minority groups as in March 2007, when members of the Arastamir Evangelical School of Theology were harassed by two-hundred members of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI). This has led to difficulties for Ahmadiyah and other minority groups to practice their beliefs peacefully and is an unfortunate sign that Islamic hard-liners are chipping away at Indonesia’s tolerant identity.

The post-Suharto reformasi led to greater regional autonomy throughout the country. Although this new found regional autonomy was recognition of the country’s cultural diversity, it has often led to the imposition of religious based laws that run counter to Indonesia’s state philosophy of Pancasila which stresses Unity through Diversity. Indeed, more than fifty legislative bodies have imposed Sharia inspired laws within the country. For example, Aceh has recently imposed its version of Sharia, while in Padang, Sumatra, schoolchildren must wear Islamic dress even if they are not Muslim. In Tangerang, June 2006, the ‘tranquillity and public order officers’ charged a woman, Lilis Lindawati, as being a prostitute under a local law forbidding lewd behaviour although she protested her innocence. It is unfortunate that, rather than upholding the states multi-religious identity, the central government has allowed for such breaches of the national civil code to continue. Further, Islamic hard-liners have continued to push for religiously inspired laws at the national level, including an anti-pornography bill that would hand down a five year prison sentence for public kissing.

The harassment of religious minorities, such as Ahmadiyah, and the passing or religiously inspired laws highlights the increasingly worrying anti-pluralist ruptures emerging within Indonesian society. Together with continuing sectarian violence in Sulawesi and religious extremism (evident with the arrest of several people in Yogyakarta, March 2007) the problems facing Indonesian society are vast. Yet, certain movements within Civil Society can perhaps offer a progressive vision. For example, in January, 2007, Haysim Muzadi, leader of Nahdlatul Ulama, met Muhammadiyah chairman, Din Syamsuddin, agreeing to work together to promote national unity. They stressed that the development of Islam should be made in the spirit of togetherness and in consultation with other religious groups. Such a spirit is necessary in order to combat religious intolerance although society cannot work against anti-pluralist groups and legislature on its own. Rather it must work together with the government and local administrations and therefore it is necessary for the government to play a more active role in upholding the civil liberties of the Indonesian people enshrined in the 1945 Constitution.