Revelations and Arguments Exceed Problems Regarding the Ahmadiyya Jama'ah

One of the problems behind the controversy regarding the Ahmadiyya Jama'ah is how to know and understand the revelations, when someone feels they have received them.

According to the Koran, Allah has indeed given revelations to many people in human history. There are many prophets in this world. Apart from the prophets whose names are mentioned in the Quran, there are still many that are not mentioned. This belief also makes some even suspect the wise men in history such as Plato and Socrates might also be categorized as prophets.

When all or at least, most Muslims believe that the prophet Muhammad is the last prophet, then the question is whether revelation also ends?

All Islamic scholars, at least as far as I know, admit that revelations still continue. But they no longer call it revelation but inspiration (inspiration). Separating revelation from inspiration becomes important in Islamic theological discourse, because they believe that revelation is a high level of revelation that comes from God, while inspiration may be a good thing that comes from angels or bad inspiration comes from Satan. In other words, revelation is always good while inspiration can sometimes be good and sometimes bad.

How can we distinguish between revelation and inspiration? Is what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received really a revelation or just inspiration? Difficult to answer, because each recipient has the same feeling, in the sense that he feels told by a source outside himself.

Iranian scholar Abdulkarim Soroush said that in modern times, we can understand revelation by using the metaphor of poetry. As a Muslim philosopher said: Revelation is a greater poem. Poetry is a tool of knowledge that works differently from science or philosophy. The poet actually feels that he was told by a source outside himself; that he received something.

However, Soroush's explanation seems to fail to clearly distinguish the difference between revelation and inspiration. No one can verify the claim of revelation. So it depends on people whether they believe their confession or not. When it comes to trust, it's actually God's territory. Therefore, true believers do not only depend on the text or sentence that is reportedly obtained from revelation. Revelation must be ready to be confronted with reason. Religious texts must be ready to be studied critically. Independent reasoning (ijtihad) is highly respected in Islam.

In the case of Ahmadiyah there are three main problems. The first problem is related to the belief of the Ahmadiyya community that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet because he received a revelation. The second is a matter related to terminology, such as whether the matter that Ghulam Ahmad claimed to receive from Allah is indeed a revelation, and can his followers be called Muslims? The third problem concerns blasphemy accusations pinned against Ahmadiyah followers.

Since all Muslims in principle agree that revelation or rather inspiration from Allah still continues, the difference between Ahmadis and other Muslims is probably only a semantic problem. The Ahmadiyya called the inspiration Ghulam Ahmad received as a revelation and regarded him as a prophet, while other Muslims would call it inspiration and said Ghulam Ahmad was only a reformer or religious leader.

Then, should followers of Ahamadiyah be called non-Muslims? Before answering this question, another question must be asked first: Can people who believe in the six pillars of the faith and who are committed to the five pillars of Islam be said to be non-Muslims? Judgment by the MUI through its fatwa that Ahmadiyah followers are not Muslim, in my opinion is a blunder.

Because if they are deemed not Islamic, they will be prohibited from praying every day like other Muslims, or they will be prohibited from confessing two confessions of faith that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. If they are allowed to do this, they automatically become Muslims in practice. Even if they pretend to be Muslim, that is none of our business; that's their business with God.

So, I agree with the opinion that Ahmadiyah is still within the limits of Islam.

If Ahmadiyah is to be examined further, the best way is through their teachings and deeds. Does Ahmadiyya teach something that incites hatred to others? Are they doing something that will physically harm others or endanger this country? Regarding the accusations of blasphemy and whether they have violated Article 156a of the Criminal Code, the best way to resolve them is in court.

In human relations, Muslims are asked to look for common ground or common ground with other religious communities. Then why can't we look for common ground and common ground between us and members of the Ahmadiyya Community?

Author: Dr. Nurrohman Syarif (lecturer at UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung).