Indonesian Government Weighs Options Against Hard-Liners

By Kenneth Conboy

Last Sunday, the paramilitary Islamic Defender’s Front (Front Pembela Islam, or FPI) led a brazen attack against a gathering to promote religious tolerance at Jakarta’s National Monument. Dozens were wounded, including critical injuries inflicted to a leading human rights advocate.

The background to the attack is as follows. For the past few months, several conservative Muslim groups across Indonesia have been demanding that the government ban the Ahmadiyah sect. This sect was founded in the late nineteenth century by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, an Indian of Persian ethnic origins who largely based his teachings on Islam, but claimed that there were prophets after Mohammad. He also professed that Jesus Christ survived crucifixion and later died in the Kashmir.

In the main, the Ahmadiyah creed is exceedingly peaceful. In addition, Ahmadiyah practitioners have been in Indonesia for decades and have not stirred any controversy until very recently. Last weekend’s gathering was sponsored by Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), which is Indonesia’s largest Muslim grassroots organization. NU strongly supports religious co-existence, and not surprisingly has taken a soft line toward Ahmadiyah.

All of which has infuriated hard-liners in the FPI. The FPI itself has a council of leaders at the national level, though it is actually a loose coalition of groups that are largely autonomous at the provincial level. For much of the year, its Jakarta chapter is renowned for organizing mobs for street demonstrations, only some of which touch on religious issues. But it is during the Ramadhan fasting month that it is most notorious for conducting raids against restaurants, billiard halls, and other nightspots.

Now one week after the attack in downtown Jakarta, the government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has responded with several half-measures. Thus far eight FPI members have been detained, with an ongoing manhunt for at least one other high-profile figure. But the authorities have thus far resisted calls to force the disbandment of the FPI.

Cynics have noted that even if the government does disband the FPI, the effects will only be fleeting. This is because there are any number of similar paramilitary groups that will absorb its members. And whether they go by FPI or some other name, the group’s brand of intimidation is likely to be in greater demand ahead of next year’s general elections.

TrackBack