Friday, August 8, 2025
Miftah H. Yusufpati Previously, he was the Managing Editor of SINDOWeekly (2010-2019). He started his career in journalism in 1987 at the Economic Daily Neraca (1987-1998). He served as Editor-in-Chief of DewanRakyat Magazine (2004), Deputy Editor-in-Chief of ProAksi Daily (2005), and Editor-in-Chief of LiraNews (2018-2024). Currently, in addition to Jakartamu.com, he is also the General Manager of Forum News Network, fnn.co.Id, and Deputy Editor-in-Chief of FORUM KEADILAN Magazine.
JAKARTAMU.COM | The success achieved by the Ahmadiyya in various Muslim regions of the world, including Indonesia, has sparked unease among religious scholars since the early 20th century. The movement, founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was considered late in its development, yet it has pushed to the forefront.
As noted in the book Ahmadiyah Telanjang Bulat di Panggung Sejarah by Abdullah Hasan Alhadar (1980), “the areas they cleared were no longer forests,” indicating that Ahmadiyah were not pioneers, but rather claimants of intellectual land that had been previously cultivated by other Islamic movements.
The scholars’ suspicions were not without reason. The emergence of the Ahmadiyya in Qadian, India, in the late 19th century created a contradictory knot in the history of modern Islamic reform. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a mujaddid (reformer), Mahdi, and even an incarnation of Jesus Christ. However, the substance of his teachings, which rejected armed jihad and emphasized loyalty to Britain, raised questions: who was this movement truly serving?
Great scholars such as Muhammad Iqbal, as quoted in Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal , called Ahmadiyya “a strange mystical sect, embracing Semitic and Aryan mysticism.” For Iqbal, Ahmadiyya was a reaction to the Aligarh movement led by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, an Indian rationalist who pioneered Western education for Muslims. “Spiritual revivalism” within Ahmadiyya, Iqbal said, “is no longer about purifying the soul, but about satisfying the masses by presenting a Messiah.”
It is this connection with Sir Syed Ahmad Khan that is the crucial thread. Maryam Jameelah, a Muslim writer who was a strong critic of Islamic modernism, said that Mirza Ghulam “took all of Sir Syed’s steps and ideas and carried them to their extreme conclusions.” ( Islam and Modernism , 1968, p. 54).
Meanwhile, Prof. HAR Gibb, a renowned orientalist from England, considers Ahmadiyah as a “syncretic movement” that emerged from disappointment with old Islam and as a “reaction to the Aligarh movement” ( Islam in the Trajectory of History , p. 153).
Sir Syed’s legacy is clearly visible in the Ahmadiyya’s political stance. Both figures rejected jihad in the form of war against the British. Sir Syed viewed colonialism as a catalyst for progress, and Mirza Ghulam further considered jihad against the British a “cursable crime.” This reinforces the assessment that the Ahmadiyya not only copied Aligarh but also became an extreme wing of the colonial project of Islamic modernization.
But the problem doesn’t stop there. The name “Ahmadiyah” itself is not original. In Al-Khutbatu Al-Ahmadiyah (1842), Sir Syed had already used the term to formulate his religious views. In fact, 600 years earlier, Sheikh Ahmad al-Bedawi had founded a religious order called the Ahmadiyah (or Bedawiyah).
In this case, the name “Ahmadiyah” is more of a branding strategy than a spiritual heritage. Some, as quoted by Saleh A. Nahdi ( Ahmadiyah Rebuts Wahid Bakry’s Accusations , p. 88), even suggest that the movement should be called “Mirzaiyah” or “Qadianiyah,” in keeping with its origins, but these terms are shunned by its followers.
This rejection demonstrates the awkward identity struggle within the Ahmadiyya community. They desire to present themselves as Muslims, yet simultaneously reject traditional Islamic boundaries. They wear religious clothing but sew it with colonial threads. They speak of revelations but in a tone of resignation to British imperial rule.
This pattern is not without precedent. In the Christian world, syncretic movements that blend ancient doctrines with modern reinterpretations, such as Unitarianism or Theosophy, have also emerged in the context of a time of confusion in the search for spiritual meaning. But in Islam, where religious legitimacy is closely tied to the authority of revelation, this kind of blending is often considered heretical or even kufr (disbelief). It’s no wonder that many clerics and mainstream Islamic organizations, such as Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, refuse to recognize the Ahmadiyya as part of the Muslim community.
The impact is clear. On the one hand, the Ahmadiyya have successfully built a global network, managed sophisticated missionary missions, and established mosques in Western countries. On the other hand, they live in social isolation and face recurrent conflicts in many Muslim-majority countries, including Pakistan, which officially excluded them from Islam in 1974.
In Indonesia, debates surrounding the status of the Ahmadiyah frequently arise in the public sphere, particularly when horizontal conflicts arise. The government is hesitant. While the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) and civil society groups promote tolerance, some Islamic organizations call for its disbandment. This dilemma demonstrates that the Ahmadiyah community is not merely a theological issue, but also a matter of identity and politics. To what extent can the state guarantee the rights of minority groups without harming the majority, or, conversely, defend the majority without sacrificing pluralism?
Returning to its historical roots, we see that the Ahmadiyya did not emerge in a vacuum. It is part of a mosaic of Muslim responses to colonial pressures, the shocks of modernity, and the crisis of religious authority. However, as Alhadar notes in his book, understanding “who and what the Ahmadiyya is” requires more than mere quotation. It must be traced back to its “kitchen door,” to the heart of its ideology, where “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s cooking was prepared.”
That’s the ideological kitchen that’s still steaming with an aroma that not everyone can stomach. (*)
source https://www.jakartamu.com/ahmadiyah-dan-jejak-sir-syed-jubah-baru-di-tubuh-lama-19370