The Bloodwood Tree

Last Monday the Indonesian government issued a joint ministerial decree banning followers of Jamaah Ahmadiyah Indonesia (JAI) from carrying out religious activities. This was a strong action for a government that so widely promotes it’s religious tolerance credentials, but many Muslim organisations believe that it falls short of the mark and ask that the religion be completely disbanded and it’s teachings outlawed.

The issue is a complicated one because it comes down to the whole question of right and wrong. Is there such a thing? In western nations we outlaw certain religions or sects if they contravene certain socially accepted norms. If a new religion promoted violence, polygamy, suppressing the poor or child abuse we would be outraged and demand exactly what the Indonesian Muslim population have - that this “cult” be outlawed. These moral views seem self-evident to us and many in the west can’t understand why anyone would think differently, but what we fail to realise is that the “self evident” morals we profess are largely inherited Christian morals that many other religions don’t share. Whether we are Christians or not, we in the west look at so much of the world through Christian lenses that affect our concepts of justice and what is right. Many of us may not realise that the whole issue of religious freedom is, although common to some other religions, very much a Biblical one based on the teaching that God allows us freedom to choose or reject Him without any compulsion. At no time in the ministry of Jesus did he even attempt to “sell” his way of thinking, he simply presented his teaching in black and white and allowed others to choose without strings attached. He readily healed those with no faith (eg John 5:13), giving practical or moral warnings but exerting no influence to make these into followers.

The issue with JAI (not be confused with Jemaah Islamiyah or JI) is not actions, but theology. JAI followers believe amongst other things, that Jesus returned to earth in spirit in the 14th Islamic century (western 19th century) as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. This directly contradicts the accepted Muslim view of Jesus, but more importantly, allows that Muhammed was not the final prophet in the sense that mainstream Islam understands the Koran (Sura 33:40) to teach. To outsiders this may seem like a small matter, but to Islam the matter of false teaching or apostacy by other professing Muslims is a capital offence. The Koran states:

“Why are ye two parties on the subject of the hypocrites, when God has cast them off for their doings? Desire ye to guide those whom God hath led astray? But for him whom God leadeth astray, thou shalt by no means find a pathway. They desire that ye should be infidels as they are infidels, and that ye should be alike. Take therefore none of them for friends, till they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they turn back, then sieze them, and slay them wherever ye find them; but take none of them as friends or helpers, except those who shall seek an asylum among your allies, and those who come over to you - their hearts forbidding them to make war on you, or to make war on their own people.” Sura 4:91

The decision of the Indonesian Government to censor JAI has received widespread condemnation as an infringement of religious freedom, however we need to recognise that were they not to censor JAI they would have been contravening this basic teaching of mainstream Islam. Far from being a simple matter, the Indonesian government is actually faced with a decision of which religion to censor! In fact, since the majority of Indonesians practice forms of mainstream Islam, censoring JAI may actually be the democratic pathway! Does anyone out there have any wisdom to shed on this?