No way around multiple interpretations

Bramantyo Prijosusilo ,  Ngawi, East Java   |  Mon, 06/23/2008 10:36 AM  |  Opinion

The controversial joint ministerial decree issued last Monday stops short of banning Ahmadiyah, but orders the sect to stop "spreading interpretations and activities that deviate from the principal teachings of Islam". While human rights activists have condemned the decree as a violation of the basic right to worship, hard-liners have also condemned the decree for not explicitly banning the sect.

The decree has done nobody any favors, but has severely damaged the Indonesian government's reputation for being democratic. With the decree, the government has sided with a particular interpretation of Islam.

This action, while not condoning the violence itself, unwittingly supports the excuses of violent groups like the Islam Defenders Front (FPI), whose leader is currently basking in the honor of visits from high-ranking state officials, politicians and celebrities -- while still in police custody for several serious offenses.

What are the principle teachings of Islam? In my village mosque, I was taught as a child the five pillars of Islam and the six pillars of faith. I must have missed something, for the government's decree implies there are other principles of Islam my village teachers had clearly overlooked.

Apparently the belief (stemming from a Hadith, not from the Koran) that Muhammad was the last Prophet is now also a principle of Islam, even though both Sunni and Shia schools of thought say the end of the world will bring with it a new Messiah and the second coming of Jesus.

The Ahmadi belief that Mirza Gulam Ahmad was the promised Messiah is thus a "violation" of the basic tenets of Islam -- but the use of violence and threats in a peaceful country, as practiced by the FPI and other hard-line groups, apparently is not.

By showing it can be bullied into siding with a certain interpretation of Islam, the government has created a tragic and dangerous precedent: it has moved ever closer to becoming a representative of a certain Islamic sect. This is a potential political nightmare because there exist myriad differences between sects in Islam.

Shia, for instance, have a slightly different way of performing wudlu (ablutions), reciting the adzan (call to prayers) and performing shalat (prayer) from other Muslims. They also overlook the four Caliphs of early Islam, whom Sunni Muslims hold in high regard, and instead acknowledge Ali to be the rightful successor to Muhammad.

The differences between Shia and Sunni are arguably deeper than the differences between Ahmadiyah and Sunni. In their devotion to Ali and his descendants, they too deviate from what could be considered the "main principles" of Islam by hard-line Sunni groups, now seemingly represented by the government. Will the Shia be banned from practicing their religion in Indonesia too? Several Shia followers I spoke to have expressed this fear.

The Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) has issued a fatwa declaring secularism, liberalism and pluralism haram -- forbidden in Islam. Take into account the fact several MUI officials also moonlight as leaders of hard-line groups that forced the government into issuing the decree, and the bigotry comes through loud and clear.

After their "victory" in getting the decree issued, it is highly likely these hard-liners' next step will be to demand legalized and state-enforced persecution of other minorities. Other interpretations of Islam, such as liberal Islam which has been systematically attacked by the MUI, are prey to similar crippling decrees.

If one studies closely statements made by the MUI and other hard-line groups that claim to represent Indonesian Muslims, it is clear their goal is not merely the banning of Ahmadiyah, liberalism, secularism or pluralism. Their repeatedly stated aim is to establish sharia law throughout Indonesia.

At every opportunity, these groups call for the reinstatement of the "seven words" of the 1945 Constitution. Had they not been cut from the formulation of the Pancasila philosophy, they would have obliged all Indonesians to obey sharia law.

Non-Muslims would not be the only ones to suffer if sharia law was indeed to be implemented. True, non-Muslims would be second-class citizens, but once certain "taxes" are paid, they would receive protection and their second-class status would be much better than the status of other Muslims -- who would most certainly face persecution.

Millions of Javanese Abangan Muslims, for instance, who believe in a different interpretation of Islam that does not emphasize sharia at all, would be further ridiculed, persecuted and punished.

Sharia law is widely believed to be God's law, but in practice, it comes across as a savage, brutal, distinctly human creation. When a society believes it is carrying out God's will, it shuts out criticism and innovation.

By blinding itself to the fact even the most clearly defined verses of the Koran are still subject to human interpretation, the movement to implement sharia law denies its humanity and claims Absolute Truth -- a privilege only God can claim.

Such a movement will only lead toward a fascist dictatorship or tyranny. The groups pushing for this nightmare vision apparently do not see the irony: they are committing blasphemy in its gravest and most tragic form.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.