Islamism, Government Regulation, and the Ahmadiyah Controversies in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past three decades, Ahmadiyah has been at the center of one of the most significant controversies within the Indonesian Muslim community, particularly after the issuance of MUI’s (Majelis Ulama Indonesia/The Council of Indonesian Ulama) Fatwas in 1980 and 2005 respectively. This paper undertakes a discussion of Ahmadiyah, reviewing its initial contacts with several Muslim organizations such as Muhammadiyah and Syarikat Islam, its roles in disseminating the idea of progressive and modern Islam among Muslim scholars in 1940s to 1960s. The second part will review internal and external factors contributing to the issuance of MUI Fatwa 1980 in the light of preserving orthodoxy within the Indonesian Muslim community. It will also highlight in brief the government response toward the Ahmadiyah’s case. The last part focuses mainly on the Fatwa 2005 and its impact on the more strained relationships within the Muslim community in Indonesia. It will examine socio-political conditions before and after the Fatwa 2005 in light of the steady rise of a new model of Islamism in Indonesia and the conservative shift within the MUI itself, particularly after the downfall of the New Order’s regime in 1998. The arguments ‘pro and contra’ Fatwa 2005, as well as the ‘awkward position’ of the new government on this issue, will be analysed in detail.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".