Abstract
This article adds to the literature explaining a rise in the levels of violence and intimidation against the Islamic sect Ahmadiyah in Indonesia. In contrast to approaches which stop at describing the actors or doctrinal differences involved, this article situates the anti-Ahmadiyah discourse in wider processes of maintaining or securing political and social authority. The first section describes the ways in which charges of heresy have historically served to consolidate state and political authorities. It then extends this analysis into the post-Soeharto landscape by showing how the charges of heresy against Ahmadiyah have supported fragments of the New Order state to claw back some of the authority which was lost following the 1998 political transition. The third section then situates this process in the context of increased competition among religious authorities. The implications of using such an approach are that (1) the Indonesian state’s role in the conflict is not just defined by its absence, but also by its active involvement (2) understanding the rise of conservative ulamas as part of a wider process of an increase in many different voices weakens the claim that Indonesia is becoming more religiously conservative. The more general conclusion is that the role of academic writing should be to contextualize contemporary discourses of heresy by revisiting some of the methods used in classic heresiology.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have