THE MUI’S VIEW ON AHMADIYAH AND THE DISPUTE SURROUNDING IT

Lilik Roﬁ qoh

A former student of Universiteit Leiden Mobile Phone: Lilik_hoqi4@yahoo.com

Abstract

The MUI, an ulama organization founded by the government in 1975, was engineered to be the national authority on Islam. This organization functions as a forum for the ulama to discuss problems related to ‘the duties of ulama’. Therefore, the organization issues religious decrees in the form of fatwa and recommendation to respond cases in the society including the Ahmadiyah case. Thus, this article aims at describing the aforementioned fatwa and recommendation on the Ahmadiyah and the debate around them.

MUI, sebuah organisasi ulama yang dibentuk pemerintah pada tahun 1975, ditujukan sebagai pemegang otoritas nasional dalam Islam di Indonesia. Organisasi ini berfungsi sebagai forum bagi para ulama untuk mendiskusikan berbagai masalah terkait dengan tugas ulama. Oleh karena itu, organisasi ini mengeluarkan keputusan-keputusan dalam bentuk fatwa- fatwa dan rekoomendasi untuk merespon berbagai macam masalah dalam masyarakat termasuk kasus Ahmadiyah. Tulisan ini bermaksud menjelaskan fatwa-fatwa dan rekomendasi yang telah dikeluarkan MUI tentang Ahmadiyah dan perdebatan seputar fatwa tersebut.

Keywords: MUI, Fatwa, Recommendation, Ahmadiyah.

Introduction

corporation in 1953, the Indonesian Muslims The longest recorded issue on religious

continuously denied its existence. In 1965, heresy is on the Ahmadiyah case. This

the provincial MUI of West Sumatra issued denomination received the denunciation from

a fatwa on Ahmadiyya Qadian as a deviant the society, organizations and institutions. The

denomination. Another rejection came in denunciation was ﬁ rstly emerged in 1926 when

1973 from the North Sumatran government the indigenous Muslims in Sumatra noticed

which refused to issue a license for building that the doctrines brought by the preacher

an Ahmadiyah Mosque. In the same year, of Ahmadiyah background were different

the District Military Command of South from theirs, the mainstream Sunni Islam.

Sumatra arrested two Ahmadiyah preachers. Additionally, in 1929 the Muhammadiyah

In 1976 the District Attorney of Subang issued a resolution stating that anyone

West Java issued a decree on the banning believing in the existence of a prophet after

on the Ahmadiyah and a recommendation the Prophet Muhammad was considered

to the regency MUI in Subang to retrain an “unbeliever.” Though the Ministry of

the followers of the Ahmadiyah Qadian. Justice acknowledged Ahmadiyah as a

The last decree was issued by the General

56 | De Jure, Jurnal Syariah dan Hukum, Volume 2 Nomor 1, Juni 2010, hlm. 55-70 Attorney three days before the MUI issued

after its establishment? And why did the its ﬁ rst fatwa on the Ahmadiyah doctrine on

MUI ignore the decree of the Muslim World June 1 st , 1980. In later development, the MUI

League while Indonesia was one of its active also established a recommendation in 1984

members?

and another fatwa in 2005. The later fatwa In fact, in its ﬁ rst year of establishment encouraged many intellectuals to speak about

the MUI was busy with administration Islam and religious freedom.

matters such as working schedule, basic These phenomena encouraged me to 2 policies, and fund. Besides, the MUI made an

explore the fatwas, the recommendation and effort to introduce its existence through the the case surrounding their issuances more

Islamic Brotherhood Commission which was comprehensively. In this article I would like

appointed to hold meetings with all leaders to ﬁ nd the answers of how is the MUI’s view

of national Muslim organizations as well as on the Ahmadiyah case? In ﬁ nding the answer

with Muslim leading ﬁ gures. Furthermore, for the question, I describe the background

this commission was in charge of establishing behind issuing these religious decrees and

relationship with Muslims all over the world. In their contents.

addition to these efforts, the Commission for the Improvement of the Cooperation between

Analyses on the Three Religious Decrees

ulama and the Government had agenda to

Issued by the MUI on Ahmadiyah

visit the leading ﬁ gures of the country, and all The MUI has issued two fatwas and

governmental institutions and departments. one recommendation on the Ahmadiyah

Meanwhile, the fatwa commission was urged teachings. Each of them is discussed in

to issue fatwa to support the success of the details together with the other decrees issued 3 country’s development and national defense.

preceding and following their issuance. The themes discussed by the fatwa commission in this ﬁ rst year of establishment

Fatwa on the Banning of the Ahmadiyah

were far from studying various religious

Qadian Doctrine in 1980

doctrines in Indonesia. Based on the result of Before the MUI issued the ﬁ rst

the plenary meeting on 18 November 1975, fatwa on the Ahmadiyah doctrine in 1980,

the fatwa commission was given ﬁ ve themes there were two fatwas issued by the Muslim

which were drugs, holidays during the fasting World League 1 in 1974 and the Malaysian

month, setting off ﬁ recrackers, simple life government in 1975 on the banning of the

and the government ofﬁ cials as pioneers in Ahmadiyah doctrines. This fact raised at least 4 performing devotional activities.

two questions. Why did the MUI issue the The duty to oversee the differing religious fatwa on the Ahmadiyah doctrine ﬁ ve years

doctrines within the society was in the hands

of the Commission for the Inter-religious

The Muslims World League is an Islamic non-

Harmony. This commission was in charge of

governmental organization based in Saudi Arabia and controlled and Funded by the Saudi government. It was

studying the doctrines of the differing sects

founded in 1962 by the representatives of 22 countries.

in each of the ﬁ ve ofﬁ cial religions, their

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.

organizational chart and operational methods. 5

asp?grpid=7347. I cannot get the information on

Accordingly, any fatwa or recommendation

when Indonesia joined this organization. But in 1975 Indonesia had its representatives in this organization.

2 See Dewan Pimpinan Majelis Ulama Indonesia, Hamka himself was appointed by the Minister of

Majelis Ulama Indonesia 1976, Sekretariat Majelis Ulama Religious Affairs at the time to attend the Mosque

Indonesia, Jakarta, 1976, pp. 48-49 congress held by the Muslims World League in

3 Ibid., pp.84-85

September 1975. See Prof. Dr. Hamka, “Pidato Ketua

4 Ibid., p. 89

Umum Majelis Ulama Indonesia Empat Tahun,” 5 Dewan Pimpinan Majelis Ulama Indonesia, Mimbar Ulama 1984, pp. 49-50

Majelis Ulama Indonesia 1976, p. 89

Lilik Roﬁ qoh, The Mui’s View On Ahmadiyah And The Dispute Surrounding It| 57

on heretical doctrines, which were issued in information available surrounding it is rare. this period, must be rooted from the result

The only existing information was given of the study conducted by this commission. 6 by the fatwa commission which enlisted

However, the MUI did not discuss the the Ahmadiyah case as one of its agenda Ahmadiyah doctrines yet. 8 in the second national conference in 1980.

In 1979 the Minister of Religious Affairs It denoted that the Ahmadiyah case was issued an instruction to the General Director

intended to be discussed in the meeting and of Muslim Guidance and Hajj Affairs, the

that the case was considered crucial by the Chairman of the Research and Development 9 national MUI.

of the Ministry of Religious Affairs, the According to K.H. Ma’ruf Amin, the General Inspector and the chairmen of the

present Chairman of the Fatwa Commission Ministry of Religious Affairs in provincial

of the national MUI, this ﬁ rst fatwa on level, that they improve their effort toward

Ahmadiyah was issued after the council was guiding, and overseeing the activities of

denounced by the society concerning this the Islamic organizations and schools of 10 denomination. However, the name of the

thought which were contradictory to Islamic mustafti was not mentioned in the fatwa. doctrines. In this regards, the Minister of

The fatwa was signed by three most Religious Affairs instructed these four leaders

authoritative people in the national MUI. to improve their relationship and cooperation

They were Hamka, the General Chairman of with the General Attorney, Department of

the leadership board, 11 Drs. H. Kafrawi, the Home Affairs, Badan Koordinasi Inteligen Negara

secretary and Alamsjah Ratu Prawiranegara, (BAKIN) or the State Intelligent Coordinating

the Chairman of the Advisory Board who was Agency, local government, the Council of

also the Minister of religious affairs at the time. Indonesian Ulama (MUI), and all Islamic

This fatwa took the form of governmental institutions in order to improve their guidance

decree which contained preamble and dictum. to those Islamic organizations and schools of

The preamble consisted of three points thought. Furthermore, the instruction stated

which I call “considering,” “listening” and that the intended guidance must be in line

7 “observing” sections. Meanwhile, the dictum with Islamic doctrines and legislations. It is

covered the substance of the fatwa. clear that the establishment of the instruction

In this fatwa, the “considering section” of the minister of religious affairs, who was

mentioned the Qur’an and The traditions of also the General Chairman of the Advisory

the Prophet. However, neither the speciﬁ c board of the MUI at that time, inﬂ uenced

verse of the Qur’an nor the Prophetic the emergence of the discussion on the

traditions were used as reference. The second Ahmadiyah doctrines in the second national

section of the preamble, the “listening conference of the MUI on 26 May – 1 June

section” enlisted President Suharto speech, 1980.

the introductory remarks given by Hamka However, it is difﬁ cult to uncover the

as the General Chairman of the Leadership background of the fatwa issuance since

Board of the MUI and the speech given by the

6 There was only one fatwa issued on heretical 8 Anonymous, “Materi-Materi yang akan dibicarakan doctrine before the MUI issued the fatwa on the

dalam Musyawarah Nasional II Majelis Ulama” , Mimbar Ahmadiyah doctrine. The intended fatwa was addressed

Ulama V/No.40 Mei/Juni 1980, p. 24 to the Jamaah Muslimin Hizbulaah which was issued in

9 There is a possibility for the provincial MUI to 1978.

raise another issue which is not enlisted. 7 See the instruction of the Minister of Religious

10 Aris Mustafa et.al, Ahmadiyah Keyakinan yang Affairs no.8/1979 on guiding and overseeing Islamic

digugat, p. 144

organizations and schools of thought which are 11 Hamka was reelected as the General Chairman contradicting Islamic doctrines, Mimbar Ulama no.36,

of the Leadership Board of the MUI in the second 1980, pp. 62-63

national conference in 1980.

58 | De Jure, Jurnal Syariah dan Hukum, Volume 2 Nomor 1, Juni 2010, hlm. 55-70 Chairman of the Fatwa Commission who was

day.

K.H. Syukri Ghazali. 12 In his speech Hamka The second point of the dictum, which stated that “in regards to religious cases the

states the need to cooperate with the MUI depends on the Fatwa Commission. It is

government regarding the Ahmadiyah case, agreed that the uncertain ( khilaﬁ ah) cases will

explained that the MUI did not have the right not be discussed. Moreover, issuing a fatwa

to ban certain denominations. Rather it is in on Islamic law should cover all propositions

the hands of the Pengawas Aliran Kepercayaan and the opinions of all Islamic schools.” 13 Yet

Masyarakat (PAKEM) or the Overseer of the the fatwa on Ahmadiyah, as mentioned above

People’s Belief. 15 This institution consisted did not mention any rationale or background

of the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Ministry of issuance. The last section of the preamble,

of Home Affair and the General Attorney. the “observing section” mentioned the report

This interdepartmental institution is more of the fatwa commission as well as ideas and

powerful than the MUI since its main duty is opinions of the participant of the conference.

“To maintain ‘stability and order’, and However, these two important items were not

14 this includes, inter alia, ‘monitoring available.

mystical beliefs movement that can The dictum of the fatwa listed two points.

be dangerous to people and the state, The ﬁ rst point mentioned that, based on the

preventing the misuse and/or insult data and facts found from the nine books on

to religion’. Moreover, this body can investigate religious books, brochures,

Ahmadiyah, the MUI declared that the Jamaah tracts, and materials produced in

Ahmadiyah was a non-Islam group, heretical Indonesia or imported from foreign and deviant. The second point stated that

countries. Additionally, it has unlimited in order to deal with the problem the MUI

power to judge which religious and/or needed to get in touch with the government.

mystical beliefs is deviant and deviating This fatwa had no appendices giving additional

and thus conceived as ‘dangerous’ to explanation of the dictum. Therefore, it left 16 the people.”

one with an unclear argumentation on the In fact, according to K.H. Ma’ruf Amin, nine intended books and their contents. Yet,

there were nine Ahmadiyah branches closed none of the editions from 1980 to 1981 of

after the fatwa was issued. 17 However, the MUI the ofﬁ cial magazine of the MUI, Mimbar

has no such power to close these branches. ulama, discussed this fatwa. The Ahmadiyah

Rather, they were closed after the General continuously ask about the intended books

Attorney issued a decree on the Ahmadiyah and their heretical contents, to the present 18 Qadian Doctrine in October 1980.

12 Unfortunately I cannot get the copies of the 15 This institution was ﬁ rstly established by the speeches of President Suharto and the chairman of

Ministry of Religious Affairs in 1954. But in 1960 the the fatwa commission

institution was taken under the ministry of justice and 13 See, Prof.Dr. Hamka, ‘MUNAS II Majelis Ulama

the general attorney. See Trisno S. Sutanto, The Challenges se-Indonesia,’ Mimbar Ulama, V/No.40 May/June

of Religious Freedom- An Indonesian Experience. pp. 3-4. 1980, p. 7

Unpublished paper presented at the 56 th General 14 Sometimes the MUI omits the detail of any

Assembly of EKUMINDO, 14 th -16 th September fatwa’s arguments since many ulama were usually asked

2006, Stuttgart, Germany. The online article can be to present papers on the topics being deliberated.

read through the following link http://ec.europa. Detailed arguments and references are given in these

eu/external_relations/indonesia/eu_indonesia_day/ papers, but not retained in the texts of the fatwas as

speeches/21_t_sutanto_chalenge_religious_freedom. issued. This entails that one needs to join the meeting

pdf.

in order to know the complete rationale behind the

16 Ibid., p. 4

issuance of fatwa. Alternately, copies of the data on the 17 Aris Mustafa et.al., Ahmadiyah keyakinan yang conference provide the important information related

digugat, pp.145-146

to the fatwa. Nadirsyah Hosen, “Behind the Scene; 18 The issued decree is probably the decision of Fatwas Majelis Ulama Indonesia,” p. 161

the PAKEM. However, it did not mention the ban on

Lilik Roﬁ qoh, The Mui’s View On Ahmadiyah And The Dispute Surrounding It| 59

However, in the view of the Saudi West Lombok issued a decree in 1983 on government closing those Ahmadiyah

the banning of the denomination. It was branches would not stop the dissemination

the Minister of Religious Affairs, Munawir of the Ahmadiyah teachings. Therefore, the

Sjadzali, who brought the discussion on the Saudi government through its embassy and

banning on Ahmadiyah doctrine in the national the Attaché of Religious Affairs sent letters

working meeting in 1984. He encouraged the mentioning the decrees of the Muslim’s

MUI to issue recommendations both on the World League, the Organization of Islamic

Ahmadiyah and Shiite. He also presented Conference, and the International Council of

a speech before the meeting was held, the Mosque on the Ahmadiyah Qadiyan heresy.

preparatory meeting of the plenary meeting The letters were aimed at reminding the

of the MUI, in which he explained about the government of Indonesia as an active member

Ahmadiyah. Regarding the Ahmadiyah case of the Muslim’s World League to support its

he emphasized banning only the Ahmadiyah decree. In these letters, the Saudi government

Qadian since the Ahmadiyah Lahore doctrines encouraged the Ministry of Religious Affairs 21 does not contradict “Islamic faith”. In the

to ban the Ahmadiyah (Qadian) and to explain end, the recommendation on the Ahmadiyah its heresy to religious people in Indonesia. 19 was more or less inﬂ uenced by the Minister’s

However, this intervention seemed to be

speech.

ignored since the government did not voice This recommendation was issued in one any decree to strengthen the decree of

long decree, together with a fatwa on adoption, the General Attorney on the Ahmadiyah

recommendations on taking beneﬁ t from the doctrines.

inherited land, performing Hajj and Shiite. It Rather, the Indonesian government moves

was signed by the General Chairman of the in regards to the Ahmadiyah case seemed to

MUI, K.H. Syukri Ghazali and the General

be ambiguous. In the one hand, the Minister 22 Secretary Qadir Basalamah. Compared to the of Religious Affairs signed the fatwa as a

fatwa in 1980, this recommendation gave more symbol of the government’s agreement to the

precise explanation on the MUI’s view on the fatwa. On the other hand, he did not ban the

Ahmadiyah doctrines. The recommendation arrival of the Vice- Khalifah of the Ahmadiyah

mentioned the decree of the Ministry of on June 1981. Moreover, the Chairman of the

Justice on the status of the Ahmadiyah local MUI of Tasikmalaya regency attended

Qadian as a corporation. Furthermore, it the meeting by the local Ahmadiyah at that

stated that the Ahmadiyah teachings had time. 20 evoked social unrest and disintegration,

thus endangering the social stability and the

The Recommendation on the Ahmadiyah

security of the country. The social unrest,

Qadian in 1984

according to the recommendation, was a Before the recommendation on the

result of the dissimilarity of the Ahmadiyah banning of the Ahmadiyah doctrines was

doctrines from the Sunni Muslims’. In this issued in 1984, the District Attorney of

case, the dissimilar doctrines are the belief

on the death of Isa, the Prophecy and the

Ahmadiyah. Rather it mentions that the Ahmadiyah

belief in Mirza’s prophecy as contradicting the belief

divine revelation received by Mirza Ghulam

of the Indonesian Muslim 21 See Departemen Penerangan RI, 10 Tahun Majelis 19 The letter sent by the Saudi Arabia embassy in 6 th Ulama Indonesia (26 Juli 1975 - 26 Juli 1985), pp. 112-

May 1981, while the attaché sent its letter a week after.

However the content of the two letters is absolutely the 22 The complete text of this decree was published same. See M. Amin Djamalludin, Ahmadiyah Menodai

in Mimbar Ulama no. 81/1984, pp. 24-36. Besides, the Islam. pp. 138-145

above fatwa and recommendations were published in 20 Aris Mustafa et.al. Ahmadiyah keyakinan yang

the compilation book of fatwa and also the ofﬁ cial digugat pp. 91-91

website separately.

60 | De Jure, Jurnal Syariah dan Hukum, Volume 2 Nomor 1, Juni 2010, hlm. 55-70 Ahmad, the founder of Ahmadiyah. Up to

General Attorney stated that the Ahmadiyah now, these doctrines are still being contested

doctrine was non-Islamic doctrine and that in and outside Indonesia. The disintegration,

all its publications were banned and that its as in the recommendation, is in performing 25 status as a corporation would be reviewed.

devotional activities such as in performing In 1985 a non-governmental organization prayers. The Ahmadi people are not allowed to

namely Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengkajian Islam pray with a non-Ahmadi imam, otherwise, they

(LPPI) or the Institute of Research and need to redo the prayer. Besides, the Ahmadi

Study on Islam was ofﬁ cially legalized. This people are not allowed to marry non-Ahmadi

institution was led by M. Amin Djamaluddin 26 Muslim unless the non Ahmadi would like to

who holds the position up to the present day. pronounce the Ahmadi oath. Regarding this

He was the one who actively disseminated marriage affair, it is stated that the prohibition

the result of his study on the Ahmadiyah is aimed at creating a harmonious family

book, the Tadzkirah. Based on his study, the where both husband and wife share the same

Tadzkirah is a compilation of the verses of the vision. The Ahmadi people are obliged to pay

Holy Koran which are mixed here and there.

a sum of money, chandah, to the Caliph. This Additionally, before becoming the member of obligation may not be fulﬁ lled if either the

the MUI, Amin in the name of LPPI actively husband or wife is not an Ahmadi; otherwise, 27 summoned the local resident of Parung to

he or she will lose the membership. 23 urge the local government on the status of the Ahmadiyah headquarters there. 28 Besides

Since the above problems may endanger the

he also sent letters to the Supreme Court in social stability and the security of the country, June 1994 and to the General Attorney in the MUI recommended that the local MUIs June 1996 on the banning of the Ahmadiyah throughout Indonesia should explain the

nationally. 29

heresy of the Ahmadiyah doctrines and those These letters seemed to be inﬂ uential to

who became members of this denomination the PAKEM since it issued a decree on the

to return to the “true Islam”. In addition, the recommendation was ended with the call for

Djamaludin, Ahmadiyah dan Pembajakan Al-Qur’an, p.

increasing vigilance toward the Ahmadiyah

135. See also recommendation of the central PAKEM

doctrine.

on the ban on the Ahmadiyah in M. Amin Djamaluddin, Ahmadiyah Menodai Islam, pp. 118-119

This recommendation was followed by

25 This decree was followed by the District Attorneys

the issuance of circular letter by the General

of Sidenreng Rappang in 1986, Tarakan in 1989, Jambi

Director of Muslims Guidance and the Hajj

and North Sumatra in 1994. M. Amin Djamaluddin,

Affairs, who was Qadir Basalamah, which Ahmadiyah dan Pembajakan Al-Qur’an, pp. 90-93

26 was based on the recommendation of the The LPPI, the institution led by Djamaluddin,

enlisted as one of the members of the research

MUI in 1984. This circular letter mentioned

team for the Ahmadiyah case. This team was found

two points; the ﬁ rst point stated that the

in 1990. See M. Amin Djamaluddin, Ahmadiyah dan

Ahmadiyah Qadian was considered a deviant

Pembajakan al-Qur’an, pp. 145-146. Djamaluddin has

group since it acknowledged its founder as a become the member of the commission of research prophet; the second point which was based in the MUI since 2000. However, I cannot reach any

data mentioning the exact year of the LPPI or Amin

on the ﬁ rst, mentioned that in order not to

enrollment to the MUI.

evoke social unrest and irritate the society’s 27 It is the headquarters of the Ahmadiyah Qadian. religious harmony, the Ahmadiyah should

It is located in West Java.

28 not disseminate its doctrine outside of its See copies of letters to the local government

24 community. urging to ban the Ahmadiyah conference in 1989. M. In the same year, 1984, the

Amin Djamaluddin, Ahmadiyah Menodai Islam, pp.127- 23 Aris Mustafa et.al., Ahmadiyah keyakinan yang

136 and pp.179-190

digugat, pp. 129-130 29 The complete text of this letter can be read in 24 The content of this circular letter is quoted in

M. Amin Djamaluddin, Ahmadiyah dan Pembajakan Al- the LPPI letter to the Supreme Court; see M. Amin

Qur’an, pp. 126-137

Lilik Roﬁ qoh, The Mui’s View On Ahmadiyah And The Dispute Surrounding It| 61

banning of both Ahmadiyah Qadian and 33 headquarters in East Lombok. As a matter of Lahore in 31 July 1996. However, according

fact, the attack was committed after a seminar to Amin Djamaluddin, the government

on religion discussing the heretical sects in postponed the issuance of the decree since it

Indonesia including the Ahmadiyah. The was close to the forthcoming general election

seminar was held by the district MUI in which in 1997. Nevertheless, the reformation wave

M. Amin Djamaluddin was invited to present in that year made the decree ignored. 30 Up to the result of his study on the Ahmadiyah the present, the decree remains unpublished. 34 doctrines. Thus the destruction must have

been stimulated by what he presented in the

Fatwa on the Banning of the Two

seminar.

Differing Doctrines of Ahmadiyah in

Following the aforementioned seminar

in 2002, the MUI held the fourth Muslims The Ahmadiyah case re-emerged in

congress in April 2005 and resulted a decision 2000 when the Ahmadiyah held its annual

mentioning that

meeting. In this meeting, which was intended “ Aliran sesat” (heretical sects) should to commemorate the 75 th years of the

be a special priority having precedence establishment of the Ahmadiyah Qadian

over other major social problems in Indonesia, the committee cooperated

such as corruption, bribery, adultery, with Dawam Rahardjo and his institution

abortion, pornography, porno-action, International Forum on Islamic Studies. They

narcotics, gambling, alcohol, intellectual copyright, criminality, destruction of the

invited the fourth Caliph, Mirza Tahir Ahmad, environment, violence and enmity. 35 to attend this meeting. Besides, with the help

This decision was enacted by the seventh of Dawam Rahardjo, the Caliph managed to meet the President at the time, Gus Dur and

national conference of the MUI in July 2005. the Chairman of the People’s Consultative

As a matter of fact, there were many Council ( Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat), Amin

denominations which were considered to Rais. Rahardjo, then, stated that the meeting

be deviant. But it was only the Ahmadiyah between the Caliph and these two ﬁ gures was

doctrines which were discussed in the seventh

a sign that Indonesian Muslims could accept national conference. The reason for issuing the Ahmadiyah’s existence and that the MUI’s

the case was probably the absence of the fatwa was no longer valid. 31 In response to this

government policy on these denominations. statement, the MUI pronounced campaign

Besides, there was continuous discussion on against heretical doctrines in its conference in

the Ahmadiyah doctrines among the society, 2000.

so the case was discussed by the PAKEM. It Additionally, in 2002 LPPI sponsored

held coordination meeting twice. The ﬁ rst

32 meeting listed three religious denominations

a seminar held in Istiqlal mosque, entitled “Ahmadiyah, 33 its heresy and danger”. The Komisi Hak Asasi Manusia (KOMNASHAM) or

seminar was attended by the boards of the

the Indonesian Commission for Human Right received

national and regional MUI, as well as a complaint regarding this matter and sent a letter of ulama

clariﬁ cation to LPPI. See correspondence between

of the national Islamic organizations. It

KOMNASHAM and LPPI in M. Amin Djamaluddin,

was reported that the seminar stimulated a

Ahmadiyah Menodai Islam, pp. 218-226

number of people to attack the Ahmadiyah 34 See M. Amin Djamaluddin, Ahmadiyah Menodai

Islam, pp. 224-225 and also Aris Mustafa et.al. Ahmadiyah 30 Misbah and Lovine, ‘Mirza Lebih Parah dari

Keyakinan yang digugat p. 31

Musailamah,’ Sabili, no.3/2000, p. 36 35 John Olle, ‘The Campaign against “Heresy”- state 31 Misbah et.al. ‘Menggugat Kesesatan Ahmadiyah,’

and Society in Negotiation in Indonesia.’ p. 2. Paper Sabili, no.3/2000, p. 28

presented in the 16 th biennial conference of the Asian 32 The great mosque situated in Jakarta. The ofﬁ ce

Studies Association of Australian in Wollongong 26- of the national MUI is also in this mosque

29 June 2006

62 | De Jure, Jurnal Syariah dan Hukum, Volume 2 Nomor 1, Juni 2010, hlm. 55-70 as the topics for discussion, including the

and Ahmadiyah Lahore in Indonesia. Ahmadiyah. In this ﬁ rst meeting, 36 held on Subsequently the chairman of the meeting,

18 January 2005, the national MUI sent two the representative of the General Attorney, representatives to attend the meeting; they

appointed the representatives of the Ministry were Dr Utang Ranuwijaya and M. Amin

of Religious Affairs, the Ministry of Home Djamaluddin. The meeting was attended

Affairs, the Police Headquarters, MUI and by representatives of the General Attorney,

the General Attorney to make a draft of Police Headquarters, the Army Force

Presidential Decree on the banning of the Headquarters, the Department of Home

Ahmadiyah, both Qadian and Lahore, in all Affairs, the Department of Foreign Affairs,

part of Indonesia. 38 Eventually, the meeting the Department of Religious Affairs, the State

for making the draft was held on 12 May Intelligence Agency ( Badan Inteligen Nasional),

and the Department of Culture and Tourism. Although the PAKEM had issued the draft

In this meeting, Dr. Utang Ranuwijaya into a recommendation, the government did

explained the Ahmadiyah case reported by not take any action. Rather, the Ahmadiyah the provincial and the district MUI. These

got the license to hold an annual conference local MUIs demanded the banning of the

or Jalsah Salanah from both Provincial Police Ahmadiyah since there had been many clashes

Department of West Java and the Head of between the Ahmadi and the non-Ahmadi. M.

the Regional Police in Bogor. Amin Djamaluddin explained the doctrines of This approval encouraged LPPI to send a

the Ahmadiyah, differing from those of the letter to these two institutions to revoke the

majority of Muslims in Indonesia as well as license. Besides, LPPI also establish Posko

speaking of his personal experience of being Pembubaran Ahmadiyah secara Nasional or Post

interviewed by the Chairman of the National for Dismissing the Ahmadiyah Nationally 39 .

Commission for Human Rights. Besides, he It follows from the above explanation that M.

showed the letters between LPPI and the Amin Djamaluddin, through his institution-

Ahmadiyah. Eventually, all representatives LPPI is the one who continuously spreads

in this meeting agreed upon banning the the accusation on the Ahmadiyah heresy.

Ahmadiyah. However, the representatives of Additionally, his status as a member of the

the Ministry of Religious Affairs suggested national MUI 40 enabled him to inﬂ uence the

that the ban done locally since there was special team of the fatwa commission to list

protest from the International Commission

37 the Ahmadiyah case in the seventh national for Human Right. In the end the committee

conference in July 2005. decided to ban both the Ahmadiyah Qadian

In short, the absence of the government

This meeting was a continuation of the previous

policy on the Ahmadiyah, the continuous

meeting in September 2004 which did not reach any

discussion on this denomination and the result

decision whether to ban the Ahmadiyah locally or nationally. See M. Amin Djamaluddin, Ahmadiyah

of the coordination meeting of the PAKEM

Menodai Islam p. 104

have made the MUI launch the Ahmadiyah

37 This information is gained from Djamaluddin’s

case as an important issue in its seventh

note while attending the coordination meeting. There was no additional explanation on the content the

38 The intended draft was a recommendation for International commission for Human right protest

the President to issue a Presidential decree. M. Amin and when it was issued. However, in this meeting the

Djamaluddin, Ahmadiyah Menodai Islam, p. 110 representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

39 M. Amin Djamaluddin, Ahmadiyah Menodai Islam, stated that many Indonesian embassies were often

pp.194-196

protested regarding the Ahmadiyah case. But the 40 He is enlisted as a member of the research intended embassies and the protesters were not

commission of the national MUI in 2005-2010. mentioned. M. Amin Djamaluddin, Ahmadiyah Menodai

http://www.mui.or.id/mui_in/komisi_mui. Islam, pp. 104-110

See

php?id=22

Lilik Roﬁ qoh, The Mui’s View On Ahmadiyah And The Dispute Surrounding It| 63

national conference. Nevertheless, this However, before issuing the fatwa the MUI latest fatwa on Ahmadiyah did not mention

had undergone a study on the Ahmadiyah by the result of the PAKEM or any District

tracing its history of establishment, assessing Attorneys decree on the Ahmadiyah. Rather,

books written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the fatwa which was aimed at strengthening the

and the leading ﬁ gures of the two differing previous fatwa issued in 1980 was supported

schools of the Ahmadiyah as well as their by the decision of the Organization of Islamic

doctrines through their publications. Besides, Conference on the deviating doctrines of

the MUI studied the Qur’an, the Prophetic the Ahmadiyah Qadian and the Ahmadiyah

traditions, the ulama consensus and their Lahore. 41 However, echoing the result of the

opinions and also the world ulama’s fatwas meeting of PAKEM, the MUI considered 44 on the Ahmadiyah. The intended study

both Ahmadiyah Qadian and Ahmadiyah must have been done before the case being Lahore were sectarians.

brought to the national conference because The same as the previous fatwa in 1980,

the special committee was given two days to this recent fatwa does not mention the name

make the draft of the fatwa. Since the fatwa is of the Mustafti. Besides, the fatwa has no

aimed at strengthening the previous fatwa in appendices that the reason for issuing the

the second national conference, the intended fatwa remains unclear. Regarding this matter

study may also mean to rely on the research the MUI then published a book which

on the Ahmadiyah which was conducted in explained all the issued fatwas in the seventh

national conference including the Ahmadiyah Similar to the previous fatwa, this latest in 2007. The book explains that the fatwa was

fatwa contains of two parts. The ﬁ rst part is issued after many questions proposed by the

the preamble consisting of the “considering society through various forums, letters and

section,” “bearing in mind section,” and emails. 42 These questions were selected by “observing section”. The second part

the Tim Materi (Material Team) of the fatwa

mentions the dictum.

commission for the national conference. In the ﬁ rst section of the preamble, The team, which was led by K.H. Ma’ruf

“considering section,” the fatwa listed four Amin, consisted of 15 people and most of

points mentioning the backgrounds of issuing them were from the Fatwa Commission. The

the fatwa. The background consisted of (i) the eleven selected cases were then discussed by continuous dissemination of the Ahmadiyah the team. Then, they made the fatwa drafts of doctrine though there is a fatwa which forbids each of the case in two days. The drafts were it, 45 (ii) the effort to develop the Ahmadiyah

then submitted to the Fatwa Commission to doctrines has evoked social unrest, (iii) the

be reviewed. Next, the drafts were submitted demand for the afﬁ rmation of the MUI’s

to the plenary national conference board to

43 fatwa on the Ahmadiyah doctrines in relation

be legalized.

to the emergence of various opinions and

See www.mui.or.id for the fatwa on the Ahmadiyah

reactions within the society, and (iv) the

doctrine in 2005 42 Majelis Ulama Indonesia, Fatwa Munas VII Majelis

need to strengthen the fatwa on Ahmadiyah

Ulama Indonesia: perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual,

doctrine, in order to fulﬁ ll the demand to

perdukunan (kahanah) dan peramalan (‘irafah), do’a bersama,

purify Islamic belief.

perkawinan beda agama, kewarisan beda agama, kriteria

Different from the previous fatwa and

maslahat, pluralisme, liberalisme, dan sekularisme agama, pencabutan hak milik pribadi untuk kepentingan umum,

44 Majelis Ulama Indonesia. Fatwa Munas VII Majelis wanita menjadi imam shalat, hukuman mati dalam tindak

Ulama Indonesia pp.136-137

pidana tertentu, aliran Ahmadiah, disertai lampiran penjelasan 45 Both the MUI’s recommendation issued in 1984 fatwa, 2005, pp.136-137

and the decree of the ministry of religious affairs 43 Aris Mustafa et.al. Ahmadiyah Keyakinan yang

issued in 1984 on the banning on the dissemination of Digugat. pp.149-151

the Ahmadiyah doctrine are not mentioned here.

64 | De Jure, Jurnal Syariah dan Hukum, Volume 2 Nomor 1, Juni 2010, hlm. 55-70 recommendation, in this latest fatwa the MUI

has made him and his followers become emphasized the Ahmadi belief in Mirza as

apostates, deviating from Islam. The

a prophet. It is stated in the second section Ahmadiyah Qadian and the Ahmadiyah of the preamble, “bearing in mind section,”

Lahore are the same, although the later (the Ahmadiyah lahore) believes that

which mentions particular verses of the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the shadow Qur’an such as chapter 33 verse 40 on the and the continuation of the Prophet

Prophet Muhammad prophecy, chapter 6

Muhammad.” 48

verse 153 on the “right path of Islam” and In fact, this quotation is the explicit chapter 5 verse 105 on maintaining faith. This supporting reason for banning the Ahmadiyah, section also enlisted two Prophetic traditions; both Qodian and Lahore. By contrast, the the ﬁ rst tradition which was narrated by two points in this section do not relate to Bukhari mentioned that there will not be the dictum of fatwa directly, especially since any prophet after the Prophet Muhammad; the fatwa in 1980 is addressed to Ahmadiyah and the other tradition which was narrated Qodian only, and the opinions of the fatwa by Tirmidhi having the same content with

46 commission are not available. different phrasing.

In the above preamble, the dictum of The last section of the preamble, the the fatwa which is in the last section listed “observing section,” mentions the decree of three points. The fi rst point reaffi rmed the the Organization of Islamic Conference on fi rst issued fatwa in 1980 stating that the Ahmadiyah Qadian and Ahmadiyah Lahore Ahmadiyah doctrines are heretical, deviant as deviants in 1985, the fatwa issued on and deviant and that Muslims who follow Ahmadiyah in 1980 and the opinion of the these doctrines are apostates. The second fatwa commission in the seventh national

47 point stated that those who became members conference in 2005. The MUI referred to

of these denominations should return to “the the decree of the Organization of Islamic right path” of Islam which is in line with the Conference since Indonesia is a member of Qur’an and the Prophetic traditions. The last this organization. However, this reference point states that the government should ban gives lead to a number of interpretations. the doctrines in all over Indonesia and ban First, the MUI acknowledges the authority of their organizations and close their ofﬁ ces. this international organization, and second,

the MUI needs to underpin its decision by

The Struggle for Banning the Ahmadiyah

referring to a more wide-scale organization.

in Indonesia after the Fatwa in 2005

This decree mentioned the following statement

After issuing this fatwa, the MUI held a sequence of meetings. These were the Forum

“Truthfully, what is claimed by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on his prophecy, the th of the Muslims Community in 16 August

doctrines he carried and revelations 2005, the Islamic Brotherhood Forum of the descended on him are strict deviancy th MUI in 27 August 2005, a meeting with the

against the deﬁ nite Islamic doctrines th 8 commission of the Indonesian Legislative that the Prophet Muhammad is the last

Assembly (DPR) in 31 st August 2005, a messenger and Prophet; and that there

meeting with leaders of Islamic organizations would be no more revelations descended

and the Head of the Indonesian Police in 6 th on anyone after this. The belief

September 2005, and the Islamic brotherhood disseminated by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad forum of the MUI in 10 th September 2005, on

46 See the translation of the cited verses and the Prophet traditions in the fatwa text in the MUI ofﬁ cial

website www.mui.or.id. 48 It is translated from the Indonesian translation 47 The opinion of the fatwa commission in this

of the Arabic text of the OIC decree quoted in the conference is not provided.

fatwa.

Lilik Roﬁ qoh, The Mui’s View On Ahmadiyah And The Dispute Surrounding It| 65

the status of Ahmadiyah in Indonesia. 49 In on the banning on the Ahmadiyah. Rather, order to strengthen the recent fatwa the MUI

it gained greater conﬁ dence to intervene the sent a letter to the Minister of Home Affairs,

making of the state policy after getting the the Minister of Religious Affairs, the General

support from the President as well as the Attorney and the Head of the Indonesian

national ulama.

Police Department. The letter mentioned that In fact the MUI is not an institution which the Ahmadiyah in Indonesia has evoked social

holds the right to ban certain denominations. unrest and conﬂ ict amongst society. Besides

As mentioned previously, it is the PAKEM, of their doctrines have stigmatized Islamic

which the MUI is one of the members, which doctrines and evoked enmity which in turn

holds the authority to do so. The support of will potentially create instability. Therefore,

the President may belittle the power of the the MUI encouraged the addressee of this

PAKEM, which has the authority to judge letter to ban the Ahmadiyah, to revoke their

certain denominations whether religious or status as ofﬁ cial organizations, to strictly obey

mystical, to be deviant. However, the PAKEM their leaders and preachers and also to save

is not the most powerful body able to ban any and guide the Ahmadiyah followers to return

religious or mystical groups; it is the President to the “right path of Islam” as it is stated in

who holds the ﬁ nal decision on banning such the Qur’an, the traditions of the Prophet and

50 group. This is the reason why the MUI sent as it is acknowledged by the ulama.

the above mentioned letter to him to consider. Having read the above fatwa and the letter,

This letter mentioned all fatwas issued by the it is clearly proved that the MUI exhibited its

World ulama, the fatwas of Indonesian ulama, right to judge which denomination is holding

as well as the decrees of both the General the right path and which did not. This right

and the District Attorneys on the “heretical” is supported by the present President who 52 doctrine of the Ahmadiyah. However,

in his speech during the opening ceremony after the letter was sent, neither the PAKEM of the seventh national conference of the

nor the President issued any decree on the MUI stated that he would support the MUI

Ahmadiyah doctrines. On the contrary, this decision regarding Islamic belief. 51 Besides, the

latest fatwa evoked lots of critiques. MUI also get the support from the national

In response to the criticism, the MUI later ulama after gathering them in sequences of

on issued ten points of heresy. These points meeting. Additionally, the ulama support can

were formulated in the national working

meeting held from 4 th to 6 November 2007. recommendation addressed to the President

be seen in their agreement to sign the letter of

It was attended by all members of the national

MUI as well as provincial and regency levels.

49 Letter sent by the national MUI to the Minister

of Home Affair, the Minister of Religious Affair, the

In this meeting, President Susilo Bambang

General Attorney and the Head of the Indonesian

Yudhoyono, while delivering his speech, stated

Police Department dated in 10 th September 2005. M.

that he would support the MUI’s decision. 53

Amin Djamaluddin, Ahmadiyah Menodai Islam, pp. 162- 163

52 The copy of the letter together with the list 50 The copy of the letter together with the list

of signature can be read in M. Amin Djamluddin, of signatures can be read in M. Amin Djamaluddin,

Ahmadiyah Menodai Islam, pp. 172-184 Ahmadiyah Menodai Islam, pp. 162-170

53 The President in the national working meeting in 51 The President put forward the following

2007 put forward the following statement " Ada 13 poin statement “ Kami ingin meletakkan MUI untuk berperan

yang ditulis MUI. Yang pertama lakukan langkah-langkah secara sentral yang menyangkut akidah ke-Islaman, dengan

sangat tegas dan tepat terhadap aliran dan paham sesat. demikian akan jelas bedanya mana-mana yang itu merupakan

Saya dukung, mari kita jalankan bersama-sama," http:// atau wilayah pemerintahan kenegaraan, dan mana-mana yang

www.antara.co.id/arc/2007/11/5/presiden-dukung- pemerintah atau negara sepatutnya mendengarkan fatwa dari

langkah-tegas-terhadap-aliran-sesat. The President MUI dan para Ulama.” http://www.presidensby.info/

was mistakenly referring to the 10 criteria of heresy index.php/pidato/2005/07/26/370.html

mentioned previously and stated that the criteria

66 | De Jure, Jurnal Syariah dan Hukum, Volume 2 Nomor 1, Juni 2010, hlm. 55-70 In line with the President, the Head of the

considered heretic if one of the ten points Police Department stated that he would

of heresy was found in its doctrine. However, arrest the leader of the deviant denomination

according to the secretary of the MUI, and its followers. 54 However, these points of

Ichwan Sam, these points cannot be used heresy also received a lot of criticism since

by any person to judge one particular sect as it might lead the society to commit anarchy.

heretical. Additionally, he said that there were The ten points cover those sects which;

certain mechanisms and procedures which

a. deny the principle of faith ( rukun iman) must be followed and subsequently studied. and the principle of Islam ( 55 rukun Islam)

Furthermore, one needed to bear in mind that

b. believe or follow certain belief which is issuing a fatwa was not that easy. The MUI’s statute says before judging one particular sect

not in line with Koran and the Prophet tradition

as heretic, research on it must be conducted. Data, information, evidence and witnesses for

c. believe in the revelation after the Holy the concept, rationale, and the sect’s activities

Koran must be gathered and studied by the appointed

d. deny the authenticity and the truth of the commission. Then, this commission will invite content of the Holy Koran

the leader of the sect and the witnesses on the

e. interpret the Holy Koran without depending data, information, and the gathered evidence. on the principle of the interpretation of

Finally, the result is given to the Leadership the Holy Koran

Board of the national MUI. Furthermore,

f. deny the position of the Prophet tradition if necessary this board may assign the fatwa as the source of Islamic doctrine

commission to discuss and issue a fatwa. In

g. underestimate the messengers and the the fatwa on the heretical sects, there is a point mentioning that the MUI refers everything to

prophets the apparatus and warning the society not to

THE MUI’S VIEW ON AHMADIYAH AND THE DISPUTE SURROUNDING IT