fahmina institute Cirebon

For a while, the atmosphere in Rekesan Block, Sadasari Village, Argapura sub-district, Majalengka on Friday 29th February 2008 was tense.  News had been circulating that Ahmadiyah followers would be chased out of the village or ordered to carry out their Friday prayers alongside other local citizens in the hope that they would see the light and return to the mainstream of Islam.

Previously, Istiqomah Mosque, owned by Sadasari Ahmadiyah followers, was attacked and damaged by a crowd of demonstrators acting in the name of the Anti-Immorality Alliance (AGAM), made up from a number of Islamic mass organisations. At first, this group planned to carry out peaceful action on 28 January, 2008, on the grounds of Al-Imam Mosque, Majalengka.  As part of this action, they approached the city police, the district head and district attorney’s office. Members of the crowd gave speeches and carried banners critical of the existence of Ahmadiyah Sadasari and demanded that the local government dissolve the group.  Government representatives responded by saying that the demands of the group would be followed up in accordance with the law and that they were, of course, awaiting the decision of the central government.  When they heard the response of the local government, the demonstrators were disappointed and decided to disperse peacefully and without anarchy.  However, unexpectedly the crowd in fact approached Ahmadiyah followers and caused damaged to the Ahmadiyah mosque and the houses of a number of Ahmadiyah followers.

The mosque and a number of private homes were damaged badly.  One witness, who did not want to be named, said that dozens of people viciously destroyed the facilities at the Istiqomah mosque, a few private homes and the homes of local Ahmadiyah religious leaders. Only a small number of police were guarding the mosque at the time, surely a case of negligence on the part of law-enforcement agencies to anticipate people taking the law into their own hands. The police denied this, saying that the events could not have been reasonably anticipated giving the reason that the demonstrators had never mentioned any intention of approaching or causing damage to Ahmadiyah facilities.  The police considered that they had been deliberately deceived by the demonstrators.

Terror and violence towards Sadasari Ahmadiyah followers also occurred at the end of last year, when dozens of people, whose identity and affiliation remains unknown, pelted the Istiqomah mosque with stones and caused damage to mosque facilities.  A number of private homes also became the target of the mob’s fury.

Until recently, Ahmadiyah followers had lived peacefully among the community in Sadasari village for about 30 years.  Only since 2005 have they been subject to pressure or intimidation by hardline groups and certain religious figures in Argapura sub-district.  As the story goes, the conflict was originally triggered by a speech given by Habib Riziq Shihab in Sadasari, vilifying Ahmadiyah.  One week later, attempts were made to put a stop to Ahmadiyah activities and places of worship by a few religious figures in the Argapura area.  

Dialogues between the local government, Ahmadiyah and non-Ahmadiyah citizens of Sadasari, have been carried out.  In 2005, talks were arranged between senior Sadasari Ahmadiyah followers, government representatives from the sub-district office, police security forces and the police comissioner, and religious leaders.  The terms of the post-dialogue agreement included the sealing of the Al-Istiqomah mosque, the banning of the use of Ahmadiyah private homes as places of worship, a call for Ahmadiyah followers to assimilate with the rest of the community and a guarantee from religious leaders to protect the assets and facilities of Sadasari Ahmadiyah followers provided that they complied with the other terms of the agreement.  The agreement was signed by 12 Kyai from Argapura sub-district.  The consequences of this agreement, then, were that Ahmadiyah followers lost their right to carry out acts of worship in accordance with their beliefs.

By around the middle of 2007, Al-Istiqomah mosque was once again being used for activities of worship, but was considered by anti-Ahmadiyah to be in breech of the terms of the mutual agreement.  This renewed antagonism coincided with a flare-up of violence towards Ahmadiyah in a number of other regions including Parung, Bogor and Manislor, Kuningan.

Quite apart from all this, the MUI fatwa (religious ruling) declaring Ahmadiyah to be a heretical sect was another factor legitimising forms of violence towards Ahmadiyah followers.  They no longer felt safe from violence and were uneasy even going about their daily activities.   The fatwa also had implications on growing suspicion and mistrust in the community towards Ahmadiyah and even led to ill-sentiments being expressed publicly regarding Sadasari Ahmadiyah.  

The role of the government in the Majalengka district towards Ahmadiyah has therefore been negligent in upholding the rights of religious minorities.  This is evident both in the creation of the discriminatory agreement described above and in their failure to protect Ahmadiyah from acts of violence.  It is clear, then, that the regional government sides with Islamic groups that condone illegal behaviour. The regional government has said that Ahmadiyah’s problems are the central government’s problem, however it should still adopt an attitude that is in accordance with the authority and obligations vested in them by the constitution, as well as providing adequate security for Ahmadiyah in anticipation of acts of violence.  

The state must guarantee freedom for its citizens in carrying out worship in accordance with their religion or beliefs.  This is clearly embodied in the second amendment to the 1945 constitution which states in clause 28E that “Every person shall be free to choose and to practice the religion of his/her choice, to choose one's education, to choose one's employment, to choose one's citizenship, and to choose one's place of residence within the state territory, to leave it and to subsequently return to it” and “Every person shall have the right to the freedom to believe his/her faith (kepercayaan), and to express his/her views and thoughts, in accordance with his/her conscience.” Indonesia is among the nations that have ratified the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights, guaranteeing freedom of religion and belief for every citizen, as is set out in Clause 18 of the declaration: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

With this declaration, the nations of the world, including Indonesia, have agreed to a common goal to promote, to respect, to protect, to facilitate, to provide and to fulfil human rights of individuals and groups. The state must therefore hold true to a number of points: it must play an active role in protecting the right to freedom of religion and belief, and prevent all forms of discrimination; it must create national laws to guarantee these rights and prohibit discrimination by the state, community groups, individuals or any party on the basis of religion or belief.  The right to choose, believe, teach and carry out ones beliefs is a basic right of individuals and of groups.

However in mainstream interpretations, protection of freedom of religion is often impeded by a number of factors including non-compliance with both the constitution as well as the guarantees of international covenants and laws that have been ratified; inconsistency in democracy, the absence of an awareness of tolerance, diversity and multiculturalism and a lack of understanding in the general public about human rights.
What is needed is instead is mutual awareness in responding to problems based on religious understandings and beliefs. Our state is a constitutional state and breaches of the law, including both attempts by individuals to force their beliefs on other as well as attempts to carry out violence, must be processed in accordance with the law. (ab). translated by jo Mcmillan.

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment