Jinnah’s Pakistan, hijacked by clerics

	Opinion

Jinnah’s Pakistan, hijacked by clerics

Posted by Kashif Chaudhry
Published: September 19, 2011

Jinnah founded Pakistan with the dream of it being a secular state where people could live as free citizens.However, today, Pakistan finds it hard to uphold the very ideals it was founded upon

With the partition of the Indian subcontinent, Pakistan came into existence on August 14, 1947. The valiant and astute Muhammad Ali Jinnah led the minority Muslim community of united India to a separate homeland to fulfill the demand for freedom of religion, profession, and speech.

Jinnah was an outstanding lawyer who had studied law in London. He had a modern outlook on the world and was strongly secular. Part of the oath under which he took office reads:

“No subject … in Pakistan shall, on grounds only of religion, place of birth, descent, color or any of them be ineligible for office.”

He was absolutely clear that the new state he was founding would accommodate people of all faiths and descent without any prejudice. To assert this point, he appointed a non-Muslim as his first law minister. The Muslims in his cabinet consisted of Sunni, Shia, and Ahmadis alike. He believed that Islam endorsed a secular democracy and the two were perfectly compatible.

“The great majority of us are Muslims. Consequently, we have a special and a very deep sense of unity. But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it” he said in an address in 1948.

He believed in a Pakistan wherein the mosque would be separate from the state.

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State” he said.

In the struggle for Pakistan, Jinnah was not faced with the Indian Congress and the British alone. He also had to endure intense animosity from hard-line Muslim clerics and counter their vile propaganda. He was accused, by the ultra right-wing, of blasphemy, and they considered him a great heretic for his secular ideology.

Prominent clerics like Maulana Maududi urged common Muslims not to side with Jinnah. Maududi wrote:

“It is forbidden to vote for [Jinnah’s] Muslim League.”

Despite this, the resolute Jinnah was successful in garnering support from the masses in most Muslim-majority areas.

Today, the nation finds it hard to uphold the very ideals it was founded upon. As it passes through dangerously volatile times, it has forsaken its founding principles of freedom and secularism.

But how and why did Pakistan turn against itself?

Even though he tried his best to steer it toward a secular democracy, Jinnah did not live long enough to see it become one. Over the coming years, Pakistan took a very troubling turn. In a matter of nine years, it became an “Islamic Republic,” and in a little over two decades, it had essentially become a theocracy.

The same extremist clerics who had opposed Jinnah and his struggle for Pakistan gradually claimed ownership of the State. They formed political groups that used religion to amass public support. Their demonstrations of street power, frequently violent, meant that sectarian hatred and intolerance was the order of the day.

Even governments avoided a clash with the radical right and became increasingly wary of arousing any negative religious sentiment and consequently losing popular vote. This only furthered the extremist cause, and in time, the original path Pakistan started on was completely forsaken. Pakistan, it is now said, was formed for the Muslims and is meant to become an Islamic theocracy where the Shariah, as interpreted by the hard-liners, is to be the ultimate law.

One tragedy after another, Jinnah’s Pakistan was dealt with massive blows. His Pakistan was no more his; it had been hijacked by forces of extremism and intolerance.

Non-Muslims could not hold the highest office in any of the core institutions anymore.

In 1953, there were widespread riots against the Ahmadi Muslims, a sect that extremists considered heretics.

The harassment of Shia Muslims and other minority groups also increased and went largely unchecked.

In 1974, the government yielded to intense pressure and declared the Ahmadiyya sect non-Muslim.

Tout de suite, the State had taken authority to decide its people’s religion, and the two were no longer separate.

General Zia ul Haq took over the country and became its third military president in 1977. To legitimize his dictatorship, he sought to please the right-wing and set to Islamize Pakistan. Amongst other things, he introduced the controversial blasphemy laws that stated death as the punishment for any derogatory remark against the Quran, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and other Islamic holy personages.

For Ahmadis, Zia also promulgated an ordinance in 1984 that criminalized the practice of their faith. Zia’s rule was the toughest for citizens who did not adhere to what had now become the state-backed perversion of Islam. Jinnah’s secular Pakistan had drifted into the hands of his enemies.

Jinnah had warned of this in his August 11th, 1947 address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. He said:

“As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days.” He continued: “Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the nation.”

In the same address, he said:

“My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and cooperation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.”

Jinnah knew that a secular form of government could bridge differences and bring together people of all faiths and backgrounds to build a strong Pakistan. Just as the Catholics had learned to live with the Protestants, he was optimistic that the Pakistan he was founding would be a successful nation, a beacon of tolerance and an example of unity in diversity. However, the men who opposed Jinnah’s ideals before partition stood in his way yet again.

Founded on freedom of religion and practice, Pakistan is one of the biggest violator of religious freedom today. For Pakistan to succeed, it will have to reverse the dangerous turn it took and get back on the path that Jinnah laid before it. The blasphemy laws must be amended, everyone must be equal citizen of the state, the anti-Ahmadi laws must be revisited and the state must remain separate from the mosque at every cost. Pakistan must educate itself and look for the unity that Jinnah so cherished in the diversity across the land.

In February 1948, Jinnah said in an address:

“You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of democracy, social justice and the equality of manhood in your own native soil. With faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty, there is nothing worthwhile that you cannot achieve.”

Unfortunately, recent events have shown that Pakistan is still far away from taking that vital turn. The government has shown little resolve to go after the perpetrators of religious hate and violence and definitely no will to even trigger a dialogue on the controversial laws of the land. With Pakistan headed toward a steep decline, the solution lies in bold courage and reform. Jinnah’s Pakistanis will have to wake up sooner than later and reclaim the land from his opponents. Pakistanis must bring about a rebirth of Pakistan – Jinnah’s Pakistan.

Copyrighted © 2011 The Express Tribune News Network
URL: http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/8046/jinnahs-pakistan-hijacked-by-clerics/

Religious freedom report: Pakistan one of 10 countries ‘failing to protect minorities’ rights’

Pakistan Sindh

Religious freedom report: Pakistan one of 10 countries ‘failing to protect minorities’ rights’

By Atika Rehman
Published: September 15, 2011

US state department report states that the Pakistani govt failed to protect minorities against abuse, discrimination. PHOTOS: FILE

KARACHI: Pakistan was cited among 10 countries “failing to sufficiently protect religious rights”, in a report regarding religious freedom released by Washington on Wednesday.

The other countries, mentioned in the US State Department’s International Religious Freedom report for the second half of 2010, included Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and Vietnam.

However, Pakistan was not included in the list of ‘countries of particular concern’ regarding religious freedom – much to the dismay of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). The list named China, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Sudan and Uzbekistan.

“… the current list continues with glaring omissions, such as Pakistan and Vietnam. We respectfully urge Secretary Clinton to consider the six additional countries we recommended for designation,” said USCIRF Chair Leonard Leo.

The report details actions such as active state repression, violence against religious groups, apostasy and blasphemy laws, anti-Semitism and restrictions on religious attire and expression.

The report bluntly states that the constitution and laws in Pakistan “restricted religious freedom and, in practice, the government enforced these restrictions.”

Citing acts of violence against religious minorities as well as societal and governmental discrimination, it states that “the government rarely investigated or prosecuted the perpetrators of increased extremist attacks on minorities and the majority promoting tolerance, which deepened the climate of impunity.”

The report includes a long list of case studies of violence and discrimination against Ahmadis, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other Muslim sects.

The controversial blasphemy law, Aasia Bibi’s case in particular, and discrimination against the Ahmadiyya community take centre stage in the 30 pages of the report dedicated solely to Pakistan. “The government did not undertake reform measures to prevent the abuse of the blasphemy laws.

Toward the end of the reporting period the public discourse regarding the blasphemy laws became increasingly heated, which contributed to the government’s reluctance to address the issue. For example, after initially signalling he was considering pardoning Aasia Bibi’s death penalty sentence for alleged blasphemy, President Zardari refrained from doing so,” the report states.

It adds that the government, in fact, distanced itself from a bill introduced by a member of the ruling party that would have amended the blasphemy laws to prevent abuse.

Terming the blasphemy laws “a legal weapon against religious minorities and other Muslims”, the report says that the government’s failure in addressing religious hostility fostered intolerance and acts of violence against minorities and Muslims alike.

However, the report gives credit to the slain minorities minister Shahbaz Bhatti for promoting religious tolerance and taking an active role in assisting victims of religiously motivated attacks on Christians and Ahmadis.

The report states that, according to the National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP), between 1987 and 2010, a total of 1,068 persons were charged under the blasphemy laws. In 2010, blasphemy complaints were registered with the police against 17 Christians, eight Muslims, five Ahmadis, and seven Hindus, according to the report.

(ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM AFP)

Published in The Express Tribune, September 15th, 2011.

Copyrighted © 2011 The Express Tribune News Network
URL: http://tribune.com.pk/story/252659/religious...rights/

Count Pakistan among countries violating religious freedom: US commission

Pakistan

Thinking proactively: Ahmadis have found their own solutions in Rabwah

By Atika Rehman
Published: September 14, 2011

Female supporters of Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) hold placards and banner during a protest regarding the Pope’s statements on Pakistan’s blasphemy law. PHOTO: AFP/FILE

WASHINGTON: The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) expressed concern over Pakistan’s omission from the list of eight countries termed “countries of particular concern” with regards to violation of religion freedom.

The list was published by the US State Department in a report which listed Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Uzbekistan as countries where religious rights were severely infringed.

Although Pakistan was omitted from the list, the report stated that Pakistan’s laws restrict religious freedom and that the government enforced these restrictions. It also adds that investigation and prosecution of perpetrators in the case of extremist attacks on minorities are rare.

Citing the blasphemy law and Aasia Bibi’s case, the report suggests that the Pakistan government distanced itself from a bill proposed by an MNA to repeal the “discriminatory” law.

It also mentions that the Ahmadiyya community along with members of other Islamic sects, Christians, Sikhs, and Hindus face governmental and societal discrimination.

The report noted, however, that the government took some measures to improve religious freedom. It mentioned the late Federal Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti’s attempts to assist victims of religiously motivated attacks.

The commission on Tuesday remarked that it is concerned that no new countries were added to the list.” said

‘Don’t forget Pakistan’

“Repeating the current list continues glaring omissions, such as Pakistan and Vietnam … we respectfully urge Secretary Clinton to consider the six additional countries we recommended for designation,” said Leonard Leo, USCIRF Chair.

The other four countries recommended by the commission are Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria and Turkmenistan.

Commenting on the report, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged governments Tuesday to do more to defend religious freedom as Washington released a report citing eight countries with troubling records on the issue.

“We reaffirm the role that religious freedom and tolerance play in building stable and harmonious societies. Hatred and intolerance are destabilizing,” Clinton said.

Copyrighted © 2011 The Express Tribune News Network
URL: http://tribune.com.pk/story/252125/count...commission/

Pakistan’s future is tied to rights for minorities

Commentary: Analysis

Pakistan’s future is tied to rights for minorities

Monday, June 13, 2011

By David Alton

In 1947, Muhammad Ali Jinnah gave a speech to the New Delhi Press Club, setting out the basis on which the new State of Pakistan was to be founded. In it, he forcefully defended the right of minorities to be protected and to have their beliefs respected:

“Minorities, to whichever community they may belong, will be safeguarded. Their religion, faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life and their culture. They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste and creed.”

These words are a forgotten aspiration in today’s Pakistan where minorities, ranging from Ahmadis to Sikhs, from Christians to Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrians, face relentless violence and profound discrimination.

It is estimated that, of a population of over 172 million people, at least 4% of the population come from the minorities: in 2011 the Pakistan Hindu Council put the number of Hindus alone at 5.5% - some 7 million people, while there are almost 3 million Christians, and Pakistan’s Ahmadiyya community is 4 million strong. All of these minorities have suffered grievously, along with those caught up in the sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims.

Jinnah rightly declared that the Government of Pakistan has a duty to protect all of its citizens, regardless of their beliefs or origins. The international community ought to be asking how the State today honours that pledge.

Take the Ahmadis. One year ago, in two separate attacks in Lahore, 98 Ahmadis were murdered and many more injured while they were at Friday prayers. The vicious brutality of these attacks is magnified when considering the Ahmadis’ belief: “love for all and hatred for none.”

Sadly, too few share the same passion for tolerance. While the Ahmadis consider themselves Muslim and follow all Islamic rituals, in 1974 the State declared them to be non-Muslim and, in 1984, they were legally barred from proselytising or identifying themselves as Muslims. Ali Dayan Hassan of Human Rights Watch believes that Ahmadis had thus become “easy targets” for militant Sunni groups who behave with impunity believing they have the full authority of the State in declaring Ahmadis to be infidels. Despite repeated attacks on the Ahmadis no prosecution of perpetrators has occurred in the past 15 years.

And the situation is set to get worse. Earlier this month, on June 11th, The Asian Human Rights Commission issued a statement that “extremists openly plan to kill hundreds of Ahmadis while the government turns a blind eye.”

Last year Terrorism Monitor warned that:

“As the Pakistani Taliban are trying to spread their war on the Pakistani State, they are likely to continue to target minorities like the Ahmadis in their efforts to create instability.”

On March 29th of this year that threat was brutally and graphically underlined by the murder of Pakistan’s Minister for Minority Affairs, Mr.Shahbaz Bhatti. An advocate of reform of the country’s Blasphemy Law - the cause of many bogus prosecutions against non Muslims - he was gunned down by self described Taliban assassins as he left his Islamabad home. His murderers scattered pamphlets describing him as a “Christian infidel”. The leaflets were signed Taliban al-Qaida Punjab.”

Shahbaz Bhatti’s death is the second high profile killing this year of someone asking for changes to Pakistan’s laws and greater protection for its minorities.

The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said that Bhatti’s death “is a tragic loss for Pakistan and for all people who believe in human rights and freedom of speech.”

Alistair Burt, Minister for South Asia, added that he had supported Mr.Bhatti’s “in his difficult role and in his attempts to revise his country’s Blasphemy Laws. Those laws have been used to target minorities.”

Minister Bhatti’s death was not an isolated incident.

As terrorism and instability has intensified, so have the deaths. Over 35,000 people have died in attacks since 2003; 2,522 fatalities in the first six months of 2011 alone. And, on the day of writing this, a report from Peshwar detailed the deaths of 34 more people, with over 100 badly injured.

Meanwhile, forced conversions to Islam, rape, and forced marriage are increasingly commonplace.

Take the case of Sidra Bibi.

She is a 14 year old Christian living in the district of Sheikhupura in Punjab, and the daughter of a worker in the cotton industry. She was molested, abducted, raped and threatened her with death. Physically and psychologically abused, she became pregnant. Police have refused to accept her complaint.

Samina Ayub, is also a Christian. Aged 17, she lives with her family near Lahore. Kidnapped, forcibly converted to Islam, renamed Fatima Bibi, she was coerced into marrying in the Muslim rite. Her family reported the abduction but police have not prosecuted those responsible.

Attacks have also been made on places and books sacred to those with minority beliefs. The radical Islamist party, Jamiat ulema-e-Islam recently filed an application to the Supreme Court to ban the circulation of the Bible, describing it as “blasphemous” and “pornographic”

Such intolerance and such virulent attacks pose a grave threat to Pakistan, to the region, but, also, to the UK, where around 1.2 million British citizens of Pakistani descent now reside.

Unlike the authorities who have such a lamentable record in protecting their citizens, Pakistan’s own citizens clearly understand from where the threat to their security originates. In an independent survey 90% cited religious extremism as the greatest threat to the country: which is why we have a duty to speak out for these vulnerable and preyed upon minorities, especially in the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden, since when intolerant violence has intensified.

The former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband commented that: “It is when the international community has taken its eye off the ball in Pakistan that instability has increased…Internally, Pakistan has a duty to protect minority groups and needs the support of its allies to do so.”

Those words are in complete accord with Jinnah’s 1947 Declaration promising tolerance, respect and security for the new country’s minorities - a vision that needs to be reinserted into the political mainstream. In 2011 the grievous plight of Pakistan’s minorities is inextricably bound to its destiny as a nation.

Professor Lord David Alton is a member of the House of Lords. The author of several books, Lord Alton has been widely recognized for his work on behalf of human rights. See: http://www.davidalton.net

© Copyright Spero, All rights reserved.
URL: www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=34...minorities

South Sulawesi outlaws Ahmadiyah

HEADLINES Thu, 03/03/2011 4:32 PM

South Sulawesi outlaws Ahmadiyah

The Jakarta Post

Following in the footsteps of East and West Java, South Sulawesi Governor Syahrul Yasin Limpo issued on Thursday a ban on the Ahmadiyah sect from practicing their religion publicly.

Syahrul said that the sect was neither registered as a mass organization nor a religious organization in the administration.

“For that reason, I don’t think it should be a problem should the administration prohibit its activities here. We also won’t give them a permit to [to practice their religion publicly],” said Syahrul as quoted by tribunnews.com on Thursday.

He said he had issued a circular to ban all activities of the Ahmadiyah Indonesia Congregation (JAI) in the province, referring to a joint ministerial decree from the government that bans members of JAI from propagating their religious teachings, but allows them to maintain their faith and perform their daily religious duties.

Earlier on Thursday, West Java Governor Ahmad Heriyawan also issued a similar decree, telling Ahmadis to stop performing their activities in the province.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved
URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/03/south...ahmadiyah.html

AGO supports local bans on Ahmadiyah

HEADLINES Wed, 03/02/2011 6:40 AM

AGO supports local bans on Ahmadiyah

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has supported the issuance of several bylaws that ban Ahmadiyah activities.

“Of course we support [the regional administrations’ acts] because they are the ones who own their territories, and that’s their stance, so why not support them?” Attorney General Basrief Arief said on Wednesday as quoted by Antara.

Several regional administrations have issued bylaws that ban the Ahmadis from religious activities following a bloody attack on followers of the minority religious group in Pandeglang, Banten, last month.

Basrief said the administrations’ decision to issue the bylaws must have been based on their comprehension of the regions’ social condition and to keep public order.

If Ahmadiyah is considered to be inciting violence and disrupting public order, “it is the regional administration’s authority [to ban Ahmadiyah],” he added.

Ahmadiyah teachings are considered heretical and blasphemous against Islam by the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI). Followers of the faith have been a target of mob attacks in recent years.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved
URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/02/ago...ahmadiyah.html

Banning Ahmadiyah not a solution: Yenny

HEADLINES Wed, 03/02/2011 4:10 AM

Banning Ahmadiyah not a solution: Yenny

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Wahid Institute executive director Yenny Wahid said Tuesday that East Java Governor Soekarwo’s decision to ban the Ahmadiyah sect in her province was not an effective solution as plenty of other factors would need settling after that.

“After being dissolved and banned, what next? Oust Ahmadiyah followers from East Java? Then where will they go?” Yenny said after a discussion at the Wahid Institute in Jakarta.

She said there must be a more realistic solution in responding to the Ahmadiyah issue.

“Will they have to ask for asylum overseas?” Yenny added as quoted by Antara.

On Monday, the East Java governor issued a decree in Surabaya that prohibited all Ahmadis in Indonesia’s second most populous province from any kind of activities related to Ahmadiyah.

Yenny considered the ban that violates the Constitution, which guarantees all citizens can embrace their own beliefs without intervention from the government, as unacceptable.

Whatever Yenny’s objections are, however, calls for banning Ahmadiyah have continuously been echoed by various elements of Muslim society members.

In Jakarta, Islam Defenders Front (FPI) activists staged a rally Tuesday to demand the banning of Ahmadiyah teachings in Indonesia.

Earlier, a number of Islamic organizations and the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) in Banten had asked the government to ban Ahmadiyah in the province.

In Makassar, South Sulawesi, the Islam Congregation Forum, which groups 18 Islam organizations, urged the local administration to issue a decree on the Ahmadiyah banning.

The demand was aired in a mass rally in front of the provincial legislative council’s building. They claimed that the dissolution of Ahmadiyah was not negotiable as the sect was considered to have tainted the religion of Islam and had sparked unending conflicts.

— Indra Harsaputra and Andi Hajramurni contributed to this article from Surabaya and Makassar

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved
URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/02/banning...yenny.html

RI seeks to redefine freedom amid rising religious violence

NATIONAL Wed, 03/02/2011 12:22 PM

RI seeks to redefine freedom amid rising religious violence

Bagus B.T. Saragih, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

God have mercy: A group of Ahmadiyah followers in Yogyakarta conduct a prayer on Tuesday after recent bans issued by several regional leaders across the country. The Yogyakarta chapter of Ahmadiyah has halted its public activities. -JP/Slamet Susanto

As local administrations move to ban Ahmadiyah, the government is in a dilemma revolving around “liberty versus order” as it responds to calls to disband the notorious Islam Defenders Front, known as the FPI.

Following the mob incident that killed three Ahmadis in Banten and the burning of three churches in Central Java last month, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono ordered his ministers to seek legal measures to disband groups frequently involved in acts of violence.

Some believed he was likely referring to groups such as the FPI. But the order has proved to be no easy task.

The Home Ministry, which is endowed with the authority to outlaw an organization, said the freedom to form a union or organization was guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution. This, ministry spokesman Reydonnyzar Moenek told The Jakarta Post, meant the government was in a dilemma.

As of 2010, more than 9,000 mass organizations were registered with the ministry. It has never banned a single one since the issuance of the mass organization law in 1985, which granted it authority.

Home Minister Gamawan Fauzi, a politician from President Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party, denied he had ignored the President’s order, saying he was only cautious not to use the authority recklessly in fear of violating the Constitution. “We are now studying the facts of the incidents,” he claimed.

The minister argued that the procedures to disband mass organizations under the existing regulation were complex. “The 1985 Mass Organization Law is too old and is no longer relevant to the country’s current situation,” he said, adding that his ministry was finalizing the revision draft of the law, which will be submitted to the House of Representatives for deliberation this year.

A 1986 government regulation outlining the ministry’s authority to disband mass organizations stipulates the government at central and regional levels can freeze a mass organization that disrupts national security and public order, receives foreign aid without the central government’s permission and helps foreign parties that jeopardize national interests.

The regulation also stipulates that the ministry ask for considerations from the Supreme Court on whether a certain group be frozen. A frozen organization shall be disbanded if found to continue the illicit acts for three months after receiving warning letters from the government.

Despite its violent acts over the past few years, the ministry said it had not yet found evidence that the FPI had broken the 1985 law.

While legal matters are hindering the government from taking stern action against the militant group, local administrations are facing no difficulties in finding reasons to ban Ahmadiyah, a minority group deemed heretical by the country’s mainstream Muslims.

Last week, Samarinda Mayor Syaharie Jaang in East Kalimantan froze the local chapter of Ahmadiyah after dozens of FPI members rallied in front of his office a few days earlier. The hardline group gave Syaharie a week’s deadline to disband the local chapter of the Islamic sect, saying if it failed to do so it would do it themselves.

The mayor reportedly granted the FPI’s demand because he considered Ahmadiyah “a time-bomb that could trigger violence”.

In another instance, East Java Governor Soekarwo issued a decree banning Ahmadis from conducting any kind of activity on Monday, only days after 32 Islamic organizations announced a plan to carry out a mass rally in the provincial capital of Surabaya to demand the administration outlaw Ahmadiyah in the province.

Activists have questioned whether democracy is the actual reason behind the government’s reluctance to disband the FPI.

Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) chairwoman Erna Ratnaningsih said Timur had a long history of hobnobbing with hardliners since he was West Java Police chief in 2008. Along with Jakarta Governor Fauzi Bowo, Timur attended the FPI’s 12th anniversary celebration at the organization’s headquarters in Jakarta, she said. Last month, she added, Gamawan also met with FPI leader Rizieq Shihab to seek advice over Ahmadiyah.

But disbanding mass organizations, some have argued, might not be the answer to end religious violence. Imam Prasodjo, a sociologist from the University of Indonesia, for instance, said violent acts were also caused by cultural aspects that were difficult to manage. “Disbandment of those groups will not automatically reduce violence. Group members will continue [committing violence] as long as cultural problems exist,” he said referring to the stigma against Ahmadiyah.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved
URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/02/ri...violence.html

Regional heads violate Constitution with bans

HEADLINES Tue, 03/01/2011 1:48 AM

Regional heads violate Constitution with bans

Bagus BT Saragih and Achmad Faisal, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta/Surabaya

While the Indonesian Constitution guarantees religious freedom, the government is backing regional heads who have issued restrictions on the religious activities of followers of Ahmadiyah.

East Java Governor Soekarwo on Monday issued a decree that prohibited all Ahmadis in the country’s second most populous province from conducting any kind of activities related to Ahmadiyah.

According to Soekarwo’s decree, Ahmadis are prohibited from distributing pamphlets and putting signs in front of their offices and mosques. They are also not allowed to wear anything to indicate that they are members of Ahmadiyah.

“This is for the sake of security and public order. It is my right to keep this region free from violence,” Soekarwo told a press conference.

Also attending the conference were East Java Police chief Insp. Gen. Badrodin Haiti, Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) East Java chapter head Abdusshomad Bukhori, the head of the East Java Prosecutors’ Office Abdul Taufiq and Brawijaya Military Commander Maj. Gen. Gatot Nurmantyo.

Abdul said government leaders in the province were concerned about the recent fatal attack on an Ahmadiyah congregation in Cikeusik, Banten, that claimed three Ahmadis’ lives.

“With this policy we hope those who consider Ahmadiyah deviant will not commit violence,” he said.

Home Minister Gamawan Fauzi said such regulations are in line with the 2008 joint ministerial decree banning Ahmadiyah members from proselytizing.

East Java’s restriction on Ahmadis followed regulations issued in Samarinda and Pandeglang following the Cikeusik incident. All cited security issues as their basis.

Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) chairwoman Erna Ratnaningsih said the local rulings might instead exacerbate potential violence.

“The regulation could be taken as justification for pressures against Ahmadiyah,” she said.

Erna said banning Ahmadiyah was against Article 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees every citizen religious rights.

“Besides, religious affairs are supposed to be a central government matter according to the 2004 Regional Autonomy Law,” she said.

The law stipulates that the central government is in charge of foreign affairs, defense, security, the judiciary, monetary affairs and national fiscal policy as well as religious affairs. The rest is under the authority of local administrations.

Prior to the issuance of Soekarwo’s decree, 32 Islamic organizations had announced that they planned to carry out a massive rally in the provincial capital of Surabaya next week to demand the administration not allow Ahmadiyah in the province.

“If the government does not react immediately leaders in other regions will keep succumbing to pressures and continue banning Ahmadis,” Erna said.

Similar policies were also reportedly in effect in the provinces of South Sumatra and West Nusa Tenggara and in the cities of Bogor and Kuningan prior to the Cikeusik incident.

Zafrullah Ahmad Pontoh, a spokesman for Ahmadiyah Indonesia, said he was disappointed with the ban.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved
URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/01/regional...bans.html

Serious problems in Pak on religious freedom: US

November 18, 2010

Serious problems in Pak on religious freedom: US

Updated on Thursday, November 18, 2010, 10:04

Washington: Noting that serious problems remain in Pakistan with regard to religious freedom, the Obama administration has expressed its concern over the existence of laws that are “discriminatory” against religious minorities.

“There have been attacks against Christians, against the Ahmadis. There’s still discriminatory laws on the books, blasphemy laws, anti-Ahmadi laws.”

“We’re raising these issues with the government of Pakistan,” Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, Michael Posner, said.

Posner was responding to questions after the release of the annual State Department Report on Global Religious Freedom by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“The (Pak) government is taking steps. It’s a very tense situation now, and there are tensions within the society. So it’s a mixed picture, honestly.”

“We give the government credit for steps it has taken, but also recognise that more needs to be done. And it’s part of our diplomacy with them,” Posner said in response to a question.

One of the things this report does is identify, in Pakistan and elsewhere, government actions that contribute to the problem, he said.

The annual State Department Report said despite the government’s steps to protect religious minorities, the number and severity of reported high-profile cases against minorities increased during the reporting period.

“Organised violence against minorities increased; for example, there was violence against Christians in Gojra, Punjab, and a terrorist attack on Ahmadis in Lahore, Punjab.”

“There were instances in which law enforcement personnel abused religious minorities in custody,” it said.

Security forces and other government agencies did not adequately prevent or address societal abuse against minorities.

Discriminatory legislation and the government’s failure or delay in addressing religious hostility by societal actors fostered religious intolerance, acts of violence, and intimidation against religious minorities, it said.

“Specific laws that discriminated against religious minorities included the anti-Ahmadi provisions of the penal code and the blasphemy laws which provided the death penalty for defiling Islam or its prophets,” said the report.

The Ahmadiyya community continued to face governmental and societal discrimination and legal bars to the practice of its religious beliefs. Members of other Islamic sects, Christians, Sikhs, and Hindus also reported governmental and societal discrimination, it said.

Noting that relations between religious communities remained tense, the State Department Report said societal discrimination against religious minorities was widespread, and societal violence against such groups occurred.

Non-governmental actors, including terrorist and extremist groups and individuals, targeted religious congregations, it said, adding that a domestic insurgency led by religious militants increased acts of violence and intimidation against religious minorities and exacerbated existing sectarian tensions.

“Extremists target violence against Muslims advocating for tolerance and pluralism, including followers of Sufism,” the report said.

During the reporting period, US embassy officials closely monitored the treatment of religious minorities, worked to eliminate the teaching of religious intolerance, and encouraged the amendment or repeal of the blasphemy laws, it added.

PTI

URL www.zeenews.com/news668802.html

Time to repeal the blasphemy law

OPINION

Time to repeal the blasphemy law

Nasim Zehra
November 16, 2010

The writer is director current affairs, Dunya TV and a former fellow at Asia Center, Harvard University nasim.zehra@tribune.com.pk

In June 2008, Asiya Bibi, a Pakistani farm worker and mother of five, fetched water for others working on the farm. Many refused the water because Asiya was Christian. The situation got ugly. Reports indicate Asiya was harassed because of her religion and the matter turned violent. Asiya, alone in a hostile environment, naturally would have attempted to defend herself but was put in police custody for her protection against a crowd that was harming her.

However, that protection move turned into one that was to earn Asiya a death sentence. A case was filed against her under sections 295-B and C of the Pakistan Penal Code, claiming that Asiya was a blasphemer. Her family will appeal against the judgment in the Lahore High Court.

The Asiya case raises the fundamental question of how Pakistan’s minorities have been left unprotected since the passage of the blasphemy law. There may have been no hangings on account of the law but it has facilitated the spread of intolerance and populist rage against minorities, often leading to deaths. There is also a direct link between the Zia-ist state’s intolerance against minorities and the rise of criminal treatment of Ahmadis.

Cases have ranged from the Kasur case to the more recent Gojra case, from the mind-boggling row of cases between 1988-1992 against 80-year-old development guru Dr Akhtar Hameed Khan, to the case of the son of an alleged blasphemer, an illiterate brick kiln worker who was beaten to death by a frenzied mob.

Although doctor sahib faced prolonged mental torture, he was saved from the maddening rage that has sent to prison, and in some cases devoured, many innocent, poor and hence unprotected Pakistanis.

There is a long list, prepared by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, of unjust punishments handed down to Pakistani citizens whose fundamental rights the state is obliged to protect. Beyond punishments, minorities live in constant fear of being lethally blackmailed by those who want to settle other scores.

Yet most political parties have refrained from calling for the law’s repeal or improvement in its implementation mechanism. When, in the early 90s, I asked Nawaz Sharif sahib to criticise the hounding of Dr Khan, his response was a detailed recall of the story in which Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) went to ask after the health of a non-Muslim woman who repeatedly threw garbage over him. He condemned what was happening but said politics prevented him from doing so publicly. Later, General Musharraf, advised by other generals, reversed his announcement of changing the law’s implementation mechanism. Small crowds protested against it. Among politicians, very few exceptions include the PPP parliamentarian Sherry Rehman and, more recently, the ANP’s Bushra Gohar, who asked for its amendment and repeal.

Already sections of the judiciary have been critical of flawed judgements passed by lower courts in alleged blasphemy cases. Recently in July, Lahore High Court Chief Justice Khawaja Sharif quashed a blasphemy case against 60-year-old Zaibunnisa and ordered her release after almost 14 years in custody. According to the judgment, the “treatment meted out to the woman was an insult to humanity and the government and the civil organisations should be vigilant enough to help such people.” Surely the Bench should know the plethora of abuses that Pakistan’s minorities have suffered because of an evidently flawed law.

A message more appropriate, perhaps, would be to repeal the black law that grossly undermines the Constitution of Pakistan and indeed the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, one of the most tolerant and humane law-givers humankind has known. This environment of populist rage, fed by the distorted yet self-serving interpretation of religion principally by Zia and a populist mixing of religion and politics by a politically besieged Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, must be emphatically challenged. A collective effort to roll back these laws must come from parliament, the lawyers’ forums, the judiciary, civil society groups and the media.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 17th, 2010.

URL: http://tribune.com.pk/story/78368/time-to-repeal-the-blasphemy-law/

Secularism back

	Your Right To Know
Tuesday, October 5, 201	Front Page

Secularism back

HC says original constitution automatically restored thru' 5th amendment verdict; nobody can be forced to wear burqa, cap, dhuti

Staff Correspondent

The High Court yesterday ruled that Bangladesh is now a secular state since the original constitution of 1972 has been automatically restored following the Supreme Court judgement on the fifth amendment.

In this secular state, everybody has religious freedom, and therefore no man, woman or child can be forced to wear religious attires like burqa, cap and dhuti, the HC said in a verdict.

But nobody could be prohibited from wearing religious attires if he or she wishes to wear those, it said.

The court also directed the authorities to immediately issue a circular asking all educational institutions not to compel students to wear religious clothes.

A division bench of the HC came up with the judgement after hearing a suo moto rule issued by it on August 22 asking the government to explain why compelling women to wear religious attires should not be declared illegal.

The bench comprised of Justice AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik and Justice Sheikh Md Zakir Hossain had issued the rule following a report published in a Bangla daily with the headline “Rani Bhabani Mohila College: Burqa Na Porle Ashte Mana” (Students of Rani Bhabani Women’s College not wearing veils are barred from entering the campus).

The August 22 report said principal of the college at Natore Mozammel Haque stopped cultural activities and sports at the college, and prohibited students not come to the campus without wearing burqa.

The HC observed that the four state principles including secularism, the main spirit of the Liberation War of the republic, have been re-established since the constitution of 1972 has been restored.

Some military rulers had illegally damaged the constitution of 1972 through martial law regulations, which are not recognised now, the judgement said.

The court directed the government to probe the allegations against the principal and take action.

But he should be kept on suspension during probe, it said.

Earlier, responding to the HC rule, the government had informed the court that it had issued a circular asking the authorities concerned not to compel women students to wear religious attire, and made Mozammel an officer on special duty (OSD).

Mozammel appeared before the HC bench yesterday as per its earlier order.

Secretaries to the ministries of home, education, social welfare and women affairs, and the principal have been made respondents to the court verdict.

SC lawyers Mahbub Shafique and KM Hafizul Alam argued before the court against compulsory wearing of religious attires.

Deputy Attorney General Nazrul Islam Talukder represented the government.

URL: www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=157212

Questions for religious affairs minister

READERS FORUM Tue, 09/28/2010 11:05 AM

Letter: Questions for religious affairs minister

Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali said the Jamaah Ahmadiyah faith — who claim to be Muslim — had to be broken up, as these followers violated regulations and were not Muslim (the Post, Aug. 31).

Suryadharma Ali and his group apparently see themselves to be “true” Muslims and Ahmadis not.

Now, my questions are:

• Can any definition of a Muslim be found in the Holy Koran, or was any such definition applied by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) without exception during his lifetime? If there does exist such a definition then what is it?

• Can it be considered legitimate for anyone to propose any definition, in any era, which is in disregard of such a definition found in the Holy Koran, or by the Holy Prophet, a definition that can be shown to have been applied in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet?

• Is it to be considered legitimate to declare someone to be outside the pale of Islam, notwithstanding one’s belie8f in the Five Pillars of Islam, just because one’s interpretation of a few verses of the Holy Koran is unacceptable to some Muslim divines of certain sects?

The Ahmadis believe in the Five Pillars of Islam, Six Pillars of Faith including the Holy Koran as their Holy Book. Their “problem” is that their interpretation of the verse khataman nabiyyin is unacceptable to some Muslims.

The Holy Koran says “[Allah] named you Muslims both before and in this Book,” (Chapter 22: 78)

The words “He named you Muslims before” mean that this name was prophesized a long time ago before Prophet Muhammad. Muslim and Islam as proper names were given from God to the Holy Prophet Muhammad so this name belongs to Allah and He has the patent.

The Holy Prophet Muhammad said “One who observes the same prayer as we do, faces the same direction [in prayer] as we do, and partakes from the animal slaughtered by us, then such a one is a Muslim concerning whom there is a covenant of Allah and His Messenger; so you must not seek to hoodwink Allah in the matter of this Covenant.” from Bukhari, Kitabus-Salat, Baab Fazl Istiqbal il-Qibla.

Can Mr. Suryadharma surpass the authority of defining what is “Islam” and “Muslim” that are defined by God in the Holy Koran and Prophet Muhammad? Do you think the Prophet Muhammad’s definition of Muslim has expired?

The history of religious persecution, as told by the Koran, clearly shows that followers of true religion or true faith did not begin to persecute religious minority groups but they were victims of violence as minority groups.

The Koran gives the example of Noah, Hud, Abraham, Saleh, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and others, who called the people to God by using love, sympathy and humility.

Dildaar Ahmad
Indonesian Muslim Ahmadi
Bogor, West java

URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/09/28/let...fairs-minister.html

Editorial: Religious Freedom Needs the Rule of Law

OPINION

Editorial: Religious Freedom Needs the Rule of Law

September 21, 2010

We emphatically support efforts by both the government and the legislature to formulate a law that would guarantee religious harmony. The issue desperately deserves attention, because the joint ministerial decree has been found by many to be fundamentally flawed and wholly unable to provide a strong foundation for pluralism in the country. (Antara Photo/Yudhi Mahatma)

.

The right to worship freely is clearly enshrined in our Constitution. But to our nation’s chagrin, this guarantee may only exist in theory, and not yet in practice. As the recent spate of violence against religious minorities — such as Christian congregations and the Ahmadiyah sect — has shown, the pluralism that our nation’s founding fathers wisely envisioned has yet to materialize.

In a country as wide and as diverse as ours, ignoring pluralism would mean eliminating the very ties that have been able to bind us together as a nation for so long. It is the recognition of this plurality, and the need for all Indonesians to mutually respect each other’s differences, that has been able to make this nation so strong.

But the latest incidents, including the assault on members of the Batak Christian Protestant Church in Bekasi, have not only sullied the tolerance this nation is known for, but also threaten to endanger our national unity and cohesion.

Many people have blamed these problems on the 2006 joint ministerial decree on the building of houses of worship, issued by the attorney general and the ministers of home affairs and religious affairs.

They say it encourages official discrimination against religious minorities and provides justification for the violence increasingly being directed against these minorities.

That is why recent statements from Djoko Suyanto, the coordinating minister for political, legal and security affairs, have come as such a breath of fresh air.

Djoko initially said the joint ministerial decree could always be reviewed and amended, and on Tuesday he supported calls for a law on religious harmony to replace the decree.

Even more welcome was the decision reached on Tuesday by the House of Representatives and the government to immediately start drafting a law on religious harmony.

Although the House remains divided over whether the law should use the controversial joint ministerial decree as its starting point, the willingness to address the problem and try to overcome it is laudable.

We emphatically support efforts by both the government and the legislature to formulate a law that would guarantee religious harmony.

The issue desperately deserves attention, because the joint ministerial decree has been found by many to be fundamentally flawed and wholly unable to provide a strong foundation for pluralism in the country.

It is not our intention to try and influence or interfere with the work of the government and the House.

But we think it is important for us to remind them that to uphold the Constitution, the laws that protect the rights of religious minorities and provide a secure environment for them must be honored.

The new law must go further than the current ones to protect the religious rights of all members of Indonesia’s ever-changing society.

Copyright 2010 The Jakarta Globe

URL: www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/editorial-religious...e-of-law/397403

Minister for Religion Says No to Calls to Revise Decree

Jakarta

Minister for Religion Says No to Calls to Revise Decree

Camelia Pasandaran & Eras Poke | September 20, 2010

Jakarta. The minister of religious affairs on Monday said there were no plans to revise the joint Ministerial Decree on Houses of Worship despite a chorus of criticism from rights activists and lawmakers against the regulation.

Suryadharma Ali dismissed calls to amend the decree, which have been mounting since an attack on two leaders of a congregation from the Batak Christian Protestant Church (HKBP) Pondok Timur Indah in Bekasi on Sept. 12, in which one church elder was stabbed.

Tensions have been raised in Bekasi for the past few months with some hard-line Muslim groups opposing the building of a church in the Pondok Timur Indah area because it lacks the proper permits.

“This regulation is needed to maintain harmony,” Suryadharma said. “If this regulation didn’t exist, people would be free to do whatever they wanted.”

The decree, issued by both the ministries of religious affairs and home affairs, requires the approval of at least 60 households in the immediate vicinity of new houses of worship before they are granted permits to build or conduct services.

Suryadharma said securing the approval of 60 households was not too much to ask for.

“In the past, the requirement included securing approvals from up to 300 to 400 households. So if every household in that lot included at least three people, that would mean 1,200 approvals. This is just 60 households,” he said.

The decree, however, has been slammed by rights groups for making it nearly impossible for minority faiths to build houses of worship in Muslim-majority areas.

In recent months, the regulation has been cited to justify a spate of attacks against Christians in the Greater Jakarta area by hard-line Muslim groups who say the congregations have no permits to hold religious services.

Some state officials, however, have expressed support for revising the decree.

Constitutional Court Chief Mahfud MD has said he backs revising — but not abolishing — the regulation, arguing it should adapt to changing social conditions.

“A law should be attuned to the times and consider the changes and developments that take place in the society,” he said.

Several lawmakers have also said the decree should be revised, and have even supported calls to draft a new law to support religious harmony.

In addition to securing the approval of 60 households, the decree also states that new houses of worship need recommendations from the local offices of the Religious Affairs Ministry and Interreligious Communication Forum (FKUB).

But Hendardi, who chairs the Setara Institute for Democracy and Peace, has accused the FKUB of regularly “filtering out” permit applications instead of protecting the rights of religious groups.

Meanwhile, hundreds of people from the East Nusa Tenggara People’s Solidarity and Transparency Forum (Somasi) rallied outside the provincial council building in Kupang to protest against the attacks on the HKBP in Bekasi and the ban on its members from worshiping in a vacant lot.

The demonstrators, who included officials from the provincial branch of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), also protested against recent attacks on members of Ahmadiyah, a minority Islamic sect, which Suryadharma has repeatedly called for a ban on, claiming that its followers had “violated regulations” and were “not Muslims.”

Speaking with the East Nusa Tenggara Council speaker, Agustinus Medah, Somasi said the attacks against the HKBP and Ahmadiyah were evidence the state was failing to protect the constitutional right to worship.

“The president should have acted firmly,” said Winston Rondo, a representative of Somasi. “He should do so now and protect his people from violence. He is instead more interested in raising his public image.”

Copyright 2010 The Jakarta Globe

URL: www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/minister-for-religion-says...ise-decree/397179

Disbanding Ahmadiyah costs the freedom of the nation

OPINION Fri, 09/17/2010 10:48 AM

Disbanding Ahmadiyah costs the freedom of the nation

Al Makin, Yogyakarta

By the end of Ramadan, Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali promised to bestow a “controversial gift” on Indonesians, a gift that would displease proponents of tolerance, peace and common sense.

That is, after Idul Fitri he will take serious steps to disband Ahmadiyah. The arguments supporting his statement sound obsolete and unfounded. That is, the group violated a 2008 joint ministerial decree and the outdated 1965 anti-blasphemy law. The public knows where these “weak laws” lead us.

As a politician of the United Development Party (PPP) and a former cooperatives and small and medium enterprises minister, Suryadharma Ali’s maneuver is not mindless. Genuine motivations behind his effort should be explained.

However, as he will unlikely explain what has really provoked him to lash out at the religious minority, we can only guess.

Take a political drive as the first clue to this puzzle.

As a politician, he needs popularity to enhance the number of voters for his party. To become the center of the media’s attention is of great benefit to him. He is now popular. As soon as you type his name into Google, his statement about disbanding Ahmadiyah will appear in various online publications.

As a party that targets conservative voters, the PPP, which was established in the early years of Soeharto’s government, faces the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) as a serious competitor in the political race.

However, the PKS is seemingly building its image as an “open political party” that “makes room” for the values of pluralism and nationalism. This party has seemed to have learned the lesson that Indonesians are not fond of leaning too far to the right. PKS leaders want to swing the party to the middle, at least in the eyes of the public.

The gambit sounds tactical. The PKS also deserves credit, for educating conservative stakeholders to accept the fact that the party needs to increase the number of voters, regardless of their beliefs and ideologies. Politics is about the voters, in front of whom your principles should be disguised.

However, the strategy also yields risks. Indonesian voters with nationalist sentiments may look at the PKS’ move with a measure of skepticism, while loyal voters with conservative and radical minds may leave the party, seeing that the party has betrayed their original ideology.

The PPP, which wants to construct itself as an icon of conservatism, has seized on an opportunity. The Ahmadiyah issue has been chosen to attract potential conservative and radical voters.

If this is the case, short-term political gain has won out over long-term national interest.

Iskandar Zulkarnain, a scholar on Ahmadiyah, wrote that the Islamic sect’s contributions to this country and Indonesian Muslims since even before independence, such as translating the Koran into Javanese and other intellectual endeavors, cannot be belittled. Amien Rais also held Ahmadiyah’s achievements in the world, such as promoting intellectual Islam in Europe, in high regard.

What is obvious is that in the soil of Indonesia, Ahmadiyah has stood for much longer than those who want to eradicate it. Ahmadiyah — like NU (Nahdlatul Ulama), Muhammadiyah, the PGI, Kawali, Parisada Hindu Dharma, and other religious groups that have colored the Indonesian canvas with diversity — has contributed to this country much more than those who want to annihilate it.

Ahmadiyah is part of Indonesia. If its members are not allowed to live in this country, which they love as much as we do, where should they go? Should we just throw them into ocean? Or expel them?

There are rows and rows of Indonesian leaders and intellectuals who will side with the “oppressed” Ahmadiyah, as they know that banning Ahmadiyah comes at the cost of the freedom of all Indonesian people.

If Ahmadiyah is disbanded because its teachings are different from Indonesian Shafi’ite Sunni majority, there are more sects and Islamic groups on the list, including Indonesian Hanbalite Sunni, Hanafite Sunni, Shiite, Tarekat groups (e.g. Naqshabandiyah, Satiriyah, Jalaluddin Rumi groups), numerous Islamic local variants, and so on.

Next, if you follow a religion that is different from those the Religious Affairs Ministry officially acknowledges, be ready to be banned. The same warning rings true for those who embrace different faiths.

Simply put, our fate and freedom is now attached to that of Ahmadiyah. To allow Ahmadiyah to be disbanded means to let us follow the same fate. Here, in Indonesia, we persecute our own brother Muslims.

Let us consult to the speech delivered by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono at Harvard University, in which he challenged Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations”. Agreed Mr. President! Now a question please. What about clashes among Indonesians?

The writer is a lecturer at the State Islamic University Sunan Kalijaga.

URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/09/17/disbanding-a...dom-nation.html

Ahmadiyah Again Faces Minister’s Call for a Ban

Jakarta

Ahmadiyah Again Faces Minister’s Call for a Ban

Camelia Pasandaran | September 08, 2010

Jakarta. Ignoring the outrage of rights activists, the religious affairs minister on Tuesday reiterated his belief that an outright ban on Ahmadiyah would be good for both the country and the sect.

Suryadharma Ali said the government had two options: maintain the restrictions on the group’s activities, or ban Ahmadiyah. A ban, he said, would protect group members from attack and also help bring them into the fold of mainstream Islam.

“The government can let them be or ban them. Both carry risks,” he said. “To let them be is not regulated by our laws, but we can ban them because we have regulations for this.”

The minister, who last week caused an uproar by saying Ahmadiyah should be banned because the group had angered mainstream Muslims, was referring to the 1965 Blasphemy Law and a joint decree issued in 2008 by the religious affairs and home affairs ministries, and the Attorney General’s Office, restricting the group’s religious activities.

The decree stopped short of banning the sect but prohibited Ahmadiyah followers from publicly practicing their faith and from proselytizing.

“Banning Ahmadiyah, in my opinion, is not an act of hatred or enmity, it is an act of love and care for all our brothers across the nation. To ban them is far better than to let them be,” Suryadharma said.

“To outlaw them would mean that we are working hard to stop deviant acts from continuing. It is better for us to take the hard steps now and, God willing, all will be well.”

According to Suryadharma, all Ahmadis want to follow mainstream Islam, and therefore “it is the duty of every Islamic figure to take them in, teach them the correct way of the religion.”

The minister also said that until a ban was enacted, Ahmadiyah followers would continue to be targets for violent attacks by hard-line groups.

“Why don’t you study the reactions toward the Ahmadiyah?” he said. “We believe such harsh reactions are because there are rules that are not being followed.”

Ahmadiyah followers have been the target of numerous attacks by hard-line Muslim groups, with authorities being accused of failing to take steps to protect sect members.

Rights activists have said the minister’s comments could be construed by hard-liners as justification for more attacks on the group. Suryadharma, however, said that, in principle, there should be no violence.

Founded in India in 1889, Ahmadiyah holds that the group’s founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was a prophet — a belief that goes against mainstream Islam, which holds that Muhammad was the last prophet.

Said Aqil Siradj, chairman of Nahdlatul Ulama, the country’s largest Muslim organization with an estimated 40 million members, last week urged caution against banning Ahmadiyah.

“Ahmadiyah has been in Indonesia since 1925. Why is it being made a problem now?” he said. “This is not a local organization, it is present in 102 countries around the globe.”.

Copyright 2010 The Jakarta Globe

URL: www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/ahmadiyah-again...ban/395172

Indonesian Clerics Wary of Moves to Ban ‘Deviant Sect’

Jakarta

Indonesian Clerics Wary of Moves to Ban ‘Deviant Sect’

Nurfika Osman & Candra Malik | September 03, 2010

Jakarta. Indonesia’s largest Islamic organization has warned the government against rushing to outlaw the minority religious sect Ahmadiyah, a day after the proposal sparked a fierce backlash from human rights watchdogs.

Masdar F. Masudi, deputy chairman of Nahdlatul Ulama, said disbanding religious groups was a form of violence.

“If we disband Ahmadiyah, we could anger [its] followers. We do not need to rush in dissolving Ahmadiyah, even if [the NU] is in clear dispute with them on Islamic teachings,” he told the Jakarta Globe on Thursday.

In House of Representatives hearings earlier this week, Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali said Ahmadiyah should be banned because it had angered mainstream Muslims.

If their activities are not banned, he said, the potential for conflict would escalate.

Ahmadiyah, founded in India in 1889, holds that the group’s founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was the last prophet — a belief that contradicts a tenet of Islam that reserves that position for the Prophet Muhammad.

Masudi, however, suggested holding a dialogue with the group to clarify issues.

“We have to conduct dakwah [spreading the word of Islam] wisely. And we believe in conducting dialogue with elegance. Remember, the Koran [says] nothing about the forcible conversion to Islam,” he said.

“If, after we have conducted a dialogue with them and they are still steadfast in their beliefs, [we will] leave them alone. The correct way, after all, is already clearly detailed in the Koran.”

Separately, NU chairman Said Aqil Siradj on Wednesday said any plans to ban the controversial Muslim sect must be studied “absolutely seriously.”

“Ahmadiyah has been in Indonesia since 1925. Why is it being made a problem now? This is not a local organization and is present in 102 countries around the globe,” he said.

According to Said, members of Ahmadiyah should be left alone, but should be “[forbidden] to spread their teachings outside.”

“They should be instead led to follow the right path through dialogue,” he said.

The suggestion to ban Ahmadiyah — declared by the Religious Affairs Ministry, the Home Affairs Ministry and the Attorney General’s Office as a deviant sect in a 2008 decree — drew criticism from several nongovernmental organizations.

Bonar Tigor Naipospos, deputy chairman of the Setara Institute for Peace and Democracy, said on Wednesday that Suryadharma’s comments could easily be used to justify attacks against Ahmadiyah members by hardline Islamic groups.

Meanwhile, Mohamad Guntur Romli, a noted Muslim intellectual and a graduate of Egypt’s Al-Azhar University, said on Thursday that Suryadharma was wrong to suggest banning Ahmadiyah.

“The religious affairs minister should not say things beyond his capacity that rile up the atmosphere,” he said.

“So far, the members of Ahmadiyah have never made problems for Indonesia. They do not undermine the authority of government, or attempt to conduct treason.”

Guntur agreed with the NU’s stance in calling for a peaceful resolution to the issue.

“From the time of [NU’s founder] Hadratus Shaikh Hasyim Asyari to [former President] Abdurrahman Wahid, the NU’s stance has been very clear: defend Ahmadiya’s right to live in accordance with their constitutional rights as Indonesians.”

Copyright 2010 The Jakarta Globe

URL: www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/indonesian-cleric...viant-sect/394334

Religious Affairs Minister Still Insists on Dissolving Ahmadiyah

Religious Affairs Minister Still Insists on Dissolving Ahmadiyah

Thursday, 02 September, 2010 | 16:17 WIB

TEMPO Interactive, Jakarta — The Religious Affairs Minister, Suryadharma Ali, insists on stopping all Ahmadiyah religious activities.

Suryadharma said that their activities still violates the Department of Home Affairs Decree, the Department of Religious Affairs Decree and the Attorney General Ministerial Decree, issued some time ago.

“The thought behind the dissolution were not simple. The choice to let it be and dissolving it have its own risks, but we must refer to the ministerial decree,” said Suryadharma after an Iftar meal at the Vice President’s house, on Tuesday (31/8).

Suryadharma said that the ministerial decree is a legal formal law.

The point is demanding Ahmadiyah to stop spreading its teachings because it is against a religion’s main foundation.

Besides that, Suryadharma also hold onto PNPS Decree no. 1/1965 on religious desecration.

He worried that if the matter is unresolved, it will create a bigger problem.

According to him, it has the potential to cause public friction and is very dangerous.

“If this is left unresolved, it would seem that we let it grow. Moreover, this is quite sensitive and if nothing is done about it, there will be escalation and it could create public friction,” he said.

However, Suryadharma warned that the Ahmyadiyah dissolution should be carried out in stages.

That is the reason he asked all Islamic mass organizations to provide counseling to Ahmadiyah adherents.

But Suryadharma promised that he will coordinate with certain parties to carry out this plan.

“Of course we must coordinate efforts as to resolve the matter.”

EKO ARI WIBOWO

Copyright © 2010 TEMPOinteraktif
URL: www.tempointeractive.com/hg/nasional/2010/09/02/brk,20100902-276005,uk.html