Anick Hamim Tohari
Again and again, violence and persecution against the Ahmadis lead to the conclusion that leads to the polemic that abstruse solution: make the Ahmadiyah as a new religion other than Islam. No less, the Director of the National Defense Institute Muladi and Chairman of the House of Representatives Commission VIII Abdul Kadir Karding propose such solutions. So also the Minister of Religious Suryadharma Ali. Muladi refers to the case of Pakistan, which according to him makes the Ahmadiyya as a new religion to prevent violence. Even the Vice Chairman of the House Priyo Budi Santoso said the government the authority to make the Ahmadiyah as a new religion.
This solution is abstruse, and even contrary to our common sense, because some facts. First, it is a bad example Pakistan's treatment of the Ahmadis. Although considered a separate minority group since 1974, and declared as non-Muslims in 1984, persecution, violence and murder against the Ahmadis has never subsided. The last major case occurred on May 28, 2010, when seven men armed rifles and grenades attacked blindly two Ahmadiyya mosques in Model Town and Garishaw when the Ahmadis perform Friday prayers. The attacks killed more than 90 followers of the Ahmadiyah. Policy of Pakistan itself is very discriminatory in light of religious freedom since then, in Act of 1984, running the faith is considered as criminal acts.
Second, in Indonesia has been very clear several precedents in which religion itself is no guarantee of safety and guarantee the absence of violence. Even against religious groups that are considered as "official religion" in Indonesia alone is very real violence that occurs. Temanggung case and hundreds of cases of abandonment and destruction of churches and other places of worship showed that. We also have the precedent the case of religions which are internationally recognized and declared as the religion itself that is still only receive discriminatory treatment and become objects of violence, such as followers of the Bahai religion, Sikh, Jewish. We were also presented with the facts conviction of Lia Eden and Abdurrahman, who has declared his community as outside the Islamic community.
Third, if Ahmadiyya Religion is declared, as in Pakistan and also mentioned by a few leaders who suggest that, as a consequence: Ahmadiyya place of worship should not be called mosques, there should be no call to prayer, worship is should not be called shalat, and so on, which essentially is there can be no doctrine and ritual that "resemble" Islam, because it resembles the mean defamation or blasphemy. The logic is that ensnare Lia Eden because she and her community uses terms-in terms of Islamic teachings. Also what makes the Indonesian Ulema Council Losarang makes fatwa Dayak Segandu Losarang Earth community as an astray community, because one of the rituals "like" events in the Islamic tradition.
It's also common sense not acceptable because it is more than 200 thousand followers of the Ahmadiyya would have to abandon what they believe to be the truth, as the belief that connects them with God, as their way of life passed down through generations, just as we believe in our religion.
Fourth, it seems we need to see again that the only difference in principle between Ahmadis and other Muslims is the belief that there is a prophet after Prophet Muhammad SAW, which is the promised Messiah. While in the view of the Ash'ari generally the promised Mahdi is Prophet Isa AS (which is also the prophet), which will go down in the last days later, in the view of the Ahmadiyya, the promised Mahdi is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, with the needs to be underlined that the Ahmadis also believe that this is the end of the age. Beyond the differences, there was no difference in principle other. Another note is that, in view of Ahmadiyah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's prophethood position different from the position of prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad, because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not bring the Shari'a itself, but insisted that the Shari'a was brought by Prophet Muhammad SAW. Even a sentence of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who often cited the Ahmadis are "compared to the Prophet Muhammad, I am not comparable even with a speck of dust off the feet of Muhammad SAW".
We also need to remember that Islam has a long history of different views and interpretations, even at the level of belief that very principle. History of polemic and takfir (accuse out of Islam) by and against Mu'tazilite, Khawarij, Ash'arite, Maturidiyah, and so on after the death of the Prophet Muhammad clearly gives lesson to us about it.
Fifth, we also need to reiterate that Indonesia is not a state religion, not an Islamic state, which uses a measure of truth based on religion alone. We have agreed to build a country that does not hate religion, but also based on the size of one religion (let alone one school of religion) to make policy. The country is to distinguish between sin and lawlessness. In this context, the state should be (religiously) neutral. And the government has no authority to determine which interpretation is more correct than the other of it.
Finally, the facts abstruseness above should lead us to look at another certainty: that violence is a violation of law, discrimination is a violation of human rights. Therefore, these countries must find solutions to make it zero tolerance towards violence. And I think in this case we agree with the conclusion of President Yudhoyono to take cases Cikeusik that the state is sufficient to perform anticipatory and preventive measures against the phenomenon of violence, and not just be a firefighter. The latter had also occurred only in some cases. Most other cases, there was acquiescence by omission by the state apparatus, if not actually participated in the row and legitimator perpetrators of violence.
Hopefully some of the last statement of President SBY to anticipate and against violence is a form of commitment, not mere lip, or also just be a firefighter. *
Write by Anick Hamim Tohari