In 2007 the MUI (Majelis Ulama Indonesia/Indonesian Ulama Council) issued a fatwa
on the criteria of aliran sesat (deviant sects). The fatwa contains ten major principles to
prohibit any actions, teachings and movements that have ‘exceeded the bounds’ of legitimate dissent and have entered the realm of offence against the sacred according to Islamic
doctrines. This legal statement was issued in response to certain attitudes and actions of
individuals and groups who were seen to cross the boundary lines of acceptability of Islamic
doctrines or to violate the sanctity of the Prophet Muhammad. For many, this MUI’s legal
statement on those issues represents the prolonged contestation between orthodoxy and heterodoxy in Indonesia.
On the surface, the distinction between the two domains in Islamic scholarship in general
seems clear and simple. Various studies, however, have shown that the division is in fact not
as it seems. In this article, the two opposing words are meant as follows: orthodoxy has to do
with the notion of following mainstream doctrines, and heterodoxy has to do with any schism
divorcing ‘deviated’ doctrines from those of the mainstream. The issue of authority who has
the right to consider themselves as the mainstream–and thus constituting the orthodox–and
those as the minority to be labelled as the heterodox, may be a point that involves multiple
perspectives.
Throughout Indonesia’s long history, contestation between orthodoxy and heterodoxy
has had its strong roots. Unfortunately, historical records on the issue are scarce while it is
really important to see the fluctuation of religious tensions in Indonesia. Since the coming of
Islam in the archipelago in the thirteenth century, cases on the matter have occurred quite
frequently. The works of Hamzah Fansuri, a prominent ulama and the judge during the reign
of Sultan Iskandar Muda of Aceh Darussalam kingdom, were accused by his successor,
Nuruddin al-Raniri, of having disgraced the majesty of Islam. The latter suggested that all of
the works of Fansuri be burnt in public. Elsewhere, in the history of the Islamization of Java,
the story turns even more tragic. Siti Jenar was found guilty by Wali Songo (the Commission
of Nine Saints) led by Sunan Giri, as the former taught ‘real knowledge’ to laymen. Siti Jenarended up being executed. Despite the fact that many scholars have questioned its historical
reliability, the story of Siti Jenar vis-à-vis the commission of the Javanese saints represents
the mild tension between the mainstream and the peripheral doctrines.1
The issuance of the above MUI fatwa in recent time, in conjunction with other controversial fatwas on the Shiite group, the Ahmadiyah, and secularism, pluralism and liberalism has
risen some questions such as: what constitutes offence not only against the sacred in Islamic
law but also against orthodoxy? What is its background? It is purely theological or political?
Is the contestation between the orthodox vis-à-vis the heterodox? Do some works by Muslim
scholars that discuss heterodox and non-Muslim groups contribute in paving the ground of
suspicion so as to perceive the other as the one who falsified the truth and who splinted from
the community?
Putting more precisely in the Indonesian context, questions as to whether Indonesian
Muslims have experienced such religious division and what it takes for this division to
become a real category of state-sanctioned exclusion would be of importance for further
discussion surrounding the rise of groups or aliran-aliran considered as deviant or sesat in
contemporary Indonesia.