Discrimination and resistance: A critical discourse analysis of the ahmadiyya sect issue in Indonesia

Abstract

This study investigates how the Ahmadiyya is presented discursively in various texts produced by Indonesian state official institutions, social interest groups, and two Ahmadiyya groups. The issue is examined by identifying the discourse topics created and strategies employed in the spoken and written texts of the groups and institutions mentioned above. The identification is centred upon an assumption that, on the one hand, the Ahmadiyya sect has been allegedly discriminated against through some negative discourse presentations, and that, on the other hand, the sect and its supporters may have argued against the negative presentations. The main question of this study is what is the nature of the two groups of conflicting discourses created by state official institutions, social interest groups, and the two Ahmadiyya groups when addressing the Ahmadiyya sect issue? How and why were they produced? The main question is addressed by finding answers to some subsidiary questions. To answer the questions, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (especially the discriminatory and resistance discourse strategies) is used to examine discourse presentations of Ahmadiyya created in written texts, such as in articles, books, reports, and papers, as well as in spoken texts, such as in speeches, interviews, and personal statements found in television programs. The first part of the study focuses on how state official institutions present the Ahmadiyya sect in their legal proclamations and personal arguments. The second part discusses how social interest groups that have considerable concern about the Ahmadiyya explore the issue. The third part targets how two Ahmadiyya groups (the JAI and the GAI) present themselves while arguing against discourses that may have discredited them. The aim of the research project is to contribute to the body of knowledge about the Ahmadiyya issue in Indonesia and the field of CDA by investigating a relatively new issue in the field, namely the religious minority issue. The research expands the possible applications of CDA approaches to the investigation of the alleged discriminatory discourse practices, and how these practices are responded to through several discourse presentations and strategies. The findings reveal that the Ahmadiyya sect, especially Jemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia (the JAI), has been discursively discriminated against. The discursive discrimination is created by presenting the Ahmadiyya negatively as, for example, 'the troublemaker', 'blasphemer/the actor of defamation','deviant sect', 'the Hijacker of Islam', 'the agent of imperialism', and 'the enemy of Islam'. These discourse topics are created using discourse strategies such as problematisation, collocation, quotation, lexicalisation, scapegoating, metaphor, social distancing, and scare tactics. In order to argue against the negative presentations, the Ahmadiyya groups and their supporters create defensive and offensive resistance discourses. The defensive discourses are 'discourse of democracy', 'discourse of unrestricted freedom of religion', 'discourse of impartiality', 'discourse of victims', 'defenders of Islam', 'public deception', and the 'discourse of peace' and these are reated by both the JAI and the GAI. The offensive discourses are 'discourse of public deception', 'government's negative actions', and 'problematising the government's authority or legitimacy'. These discourses are created using the strategies of nominalisation, re-contextualisation, contrasting, derogated personification, victimisation, positive attribution, positive personification, power delegitimising, negative portraits of misbehaving, and the strategy of social inclusion. In conclusion, both the dominant and the Ahmadiyya groups have been involved in a serious discourse conflict. Each side is entrenched in their respective positions, and adopted strategies to maintain their positions, defend themselves, and at times, attack each other. However, this is not healthy for a peaceful co-existence and living peacefully, because it (the discourse conflict) could lead to further physical attacks as happened in the past. It would be beneficial for both sides and for the nation as a whole, that both sides reflect on and reconsider their positions and search for a common ground. This study could contribute as a source for the reflection and consideration.