Graduate School of Development Studies

A Research Paper presented by:

Dyana Savina HutadjuluIndonesia

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for obtaining the degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

Specialization:Women, Gender, Development

WGD

Members of the examining committee:

Dr Nahda Younis Shehada Loes Keysers

The ‘Other’ Female Tale:An Intersectional Analysis of the

Ahmadiyah Women and Girls’ Experience in Indonesia

The Hague, The NetherlandsNovember, 2009

ii

Disclaimer:This document represents part of the author’s study programme while at the Institute of Social Studies. The views stated therein are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Institute.Research papers are not made available for circulation outside of the Institute.

Inquiries:

Postal address: Institute of Social StudiesP.O. Box 297762502 LT The HagueThe Netherlands

Location: Kortenaerkade 122518 AX The HagueThe Netherlands

Telephone: +31 70 426 0460

Fax: +31 70 426 0799

iii

Contents

List of Tables vList of Maps vAbstract vi

Chapter 17

1.1 Introduction 71.2 A note on the discrepancy 81.3 Research milieu 81.4 Research objective and Research question 10

Research objective 10Research question 11

1.5 Relevance and justification 111.6 Methodology 111.7 Methods 13

Interviewees13

Assembling the data 151.8 Limitations of the research 17

Chapter 2 Analytical framework19

2.1 Introduction 192.2 The concepts 19

Power19

Discrimination 20Otherization

20The politics of identity 21Intersectionality 22Connectivity

232.3 Concluding remarks 25

Chapter 3 The ‘other’ female tale: Narratives of Ahmadiyah women and girls in Bogor, Manis lor and Padang 263.1 Introduction 26

iv

3.2 Ahmadiyah women and girls’ experience in West Java 26Bogor city 26Manis lor village 30

3.3 Ahmadiyah women and girls’ experience in West Sumatera 33Padang city

333.4 Concluding remarks 34

Chapter 4 Debunking intersectionality: Discrimination, protection, or the ordinary fashion 364.1 Introduction 36

Ahmadiyah girls face discrimination 36Ahmadiyah women face discrimination 37Class identity overrides religious belonging 38Ethnic solidarity overrides religious belonging 39Occupational solidarity overrides religious

belonging 394.2 An intersectional analysis of the Ahmadiyah women

and girls’ experience in Bogor and Manis lor (West Java) and Padang (West Sumatera) 40Power and identity politics: who is included and

who is excluded? 41Discrimination at the intersections: otherization 42Connectivity through intersectionality: protection 42

4.3 Concluding remarks 43

Chapter 5 Conclusion44

References 47Appendices 51Maps of Research Locale 51Interview questions 54Main research question : 54a. Religious Belonging 54b. Gender 54c. Ethnic identity 55d. Class belonging 56e. Age group 58

v

List of TablesTable 1 The list of the total Ahmadiyah females

interviewed 14Table 2 The list of the selected Ahmadiyah females

interviewed 15

List of MapsMap 1 “Map of West Java Province” 51Bogor city and Depok city 51Map 2 “Map of West Java Province” 52Manis lor village, Kuningan city 52Map 3 “Map of West Sumatera Province” 53Padang city 53

vi

Abstract

This paper explores the intersectional experiences of different Ahmadiyah females residing in Bogor, Manis lor and Padang (Indonesia), asking whether intersectionality as a theoretical tool can provide us with critical analysis regarding the intersections of multiple identities owned by different Ahmadiyah females. The objective of this research is to make public the different experiences faced by Ahmadiyah females and endeavors to juxtapose it with previous and current universal views concerning their experiences along the lines of their religious belonging. Moreover, through the many group and individual interviews conducted in the fieldwork, I discovered something more nuanced and profound than discrimination, but rather protection. Based on the fieldwork I developed my argument to view that intersectionality not only helped this research to look at the discrimination due to the many layers of Ahmadiyah females’ identity, but also opens the ‘other’ door of intersectionality, which facilitates the explanation regarding their protection.

Relevance to Development StudiesIn regard to the homogeneous perspective regarding Ahmadiyah women, this research paper offers another viewpoint of looking at the different experiences of different Ahmadiyah females. Through intersectionality, this paper aspires to give a new paradigm to the use of intersectionality from another angle, an angle that is common to explain oppression or discrimination. Although discrimination occurred, protection on the basis of identity solidarity also coincides with other different females’ personhood sharing the same religious belongings.

Keywords[keywords: Intersectionality, Ahmadiyah Women, Indonesia, Connectivity, Solidarity, Discrimination, Religious Minority]

vii

Chapter 1

1.1 IntroductionAmong the more recent controversies on the Ahmadiyah1, is the discrimination against their women. But while the discrimination against Ahmadiyah women is present, the discourses regarding them are very rare. The Indonesian National Commission on Violence against Women was one of the first few who initiated an investigative fieldwork and published their report about Ahmadiyah women’s condition in Cianjur, Ciparay and Sukadana (West Java Province) and Lombok (West Nusa Tenggara Province). The Commission’s findings highlight the multiple discriminations faced by Ahmadiyah women due to their religious belonging and particularly their gender. For instance, an Ahmadiyah woman living in Lombok did not only experience deterioration of breadwinning activities and destruction of personal properties, but they also experienced sexual harassments, either in the form of verbal abuse or physical confrontation (e.g. touching, grasping) (The Indonesian National Commission of Violence Against Women 2008: 22-23).

This paper endeavours to take a different approach from the Commission’s undertaking. It tackles Ahmadiyah women without any intention to reduce any degree of respective account to the men and children of the Ahmadiyah community. Instead of looking only at the discrimination, it also explores the protection experienced by the Ahmadiyah women and girls in Bogor city and Manis Lor village (West Java Province) and Padang city (West Sumatera Province). Ergo, this paper engenders an expansion and induces other intersecting points, besides religious belonging and gender, such as: ethnic belonging, class and age, which marked their experiences of either being discriminated or protected.

The subject matter of this research paper is about how the intersectionality of multiple identities produces different consequences to different Ahmadiyah women and girls. Therefore, in order to explore the indicated matter, I went to the field with research questions on hand regarding

1 The Ahmadiyah community is a religious minority group in Indonesia which perceives Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim of prophethood (Horvatich 1997: 188).

8

the intersections of their religious belonging, ethnic identity, age and class. The interviewees consist of different Ahmadiyah women and girls sharing the same gender and religious belonging but differ in terms of ethnic belonging, age, and class. To answer this research question, I adopt concepts such as: power, discrimination, otherization, the politics of identity, intersectionality and connectivity. The methods I used to gain the data were group interviews, 37 individual interviews and telephone interviews. The main argument towards the research question is that different Ahmadiyah women experienced different treatments, depending on their intersectional identities, where one may experience discrimination while the other may receive protection.

1.2 A note on the discrepancyThis research paper began with the assumption that Ah-madiyah women experienced multiple discrimination not only due to their membership in a religious minority group but also on the account of their various identities such as religious belonging, ethnicity, class, age and especially gen-der. Furthermore, due to the specific selections of Ah-madiyah women in Bogor City and Manis Lor Village (West Java Province) and Padang (West Sumatra Province), my pre-conceived notion was even more concentrated. Consid-ering West Sumatra Province is known for its Muslim popu-lated district, Budiman, a former member of Commission D of the West Sumatra parliament, says that Islamic law is ap-propriate for people in Padang and in accordance with Mi-nangkabau (Padangnese) tradition. He quotes a local say-ing, “Adat basandi syarak, syarak basandi kitabullah (tradi-tion based on religion, religion based on the Quran)” (Patung 2006). This established my assumption that the Ah-madiyah residing in Padang will be more discriminated than the ones domiciled in Bogor and Manis Lor (West Java) due to the Padangnese Muslim-majority’s regulative religious tradition.

With notions based on readings from literature, I went to the field under the impression that cases of discrimina-tion intersect against women of younger age, lower income, and of a West Sumatranese (Padang) ethnicity in compari-son with the contrasting features of conditions like older age, higher income, and of a West Javanese (Bogor and Ma-nis lor) ethnicity. My thoughts were shaped by the texts. In the field, I explored something even more profound and nu-

9

anced; the findings showed a dissimilar reality to what I have preliminarily conjectured.

Since then, this research has developed into another framework. Therefore, rather than focusing only on their in-tersecting points of discrimination I discovered that inter-sectionality also serves to facilitate how one is protected by means of ‘connectivity’ (Joseph 1993: 453), through solidar-ity within ethnic belonging and occupational position.

1.3 Research milieuOn the 29th of July 2005, at its seventh National Congress, opened by President Yudhoyono, the Indonesian Ulama Council (MUI)2 issued a fatwa declaring the Ahmadiyah to be ‘outside Islam’ and its members as apostates. Then, on the 9th of June 2008, the Indonesian government announced a joint ministerial decree ‘freezing’ activities of the Ah-madiyah community due to its belief in Mirza Ghulam Ah-mad as the prophet (International Crisis Group 2008: 1 and 3). Both the fatwa and the joint-ministerial decree were used by some Muslim groups to build up tension through lobbying, inflammatory meetings, discrimination and even violence aimed at the Ahmadiyah community, to which the MUI and government institution were supposed to be the mediator and not the provoker (Avonius 2008: 48).

A fatwa is an opinion issued by an individual or group of Ulema who are recognized for their expertise in Islamic law. Muslims are allowed to accept or reject a fatwa depending on their religious thought and rational choice, it is not binding because it does not have any legal authority (Anwar 2009). Endy M. Bayuni rightly argued that no one, not even the MUI, has the right to force or intimidate people to comply otherwise earn God’s wrath (ibid). Which means that Muslims are not obliged to comply with any fatwa (The Jakarta Post 2009). The MUI’s fatwa declared Ahmadiyah teachings to be against the Qur’an (the Islamic religious text) and also forbids the Ahmadiyah to operate their activities. The effects of this fatwa heighten as it is also used to justify violence not only by the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) but also by other groups, called Indonesian Muslim Solidarity (IMS) (Galingging 2005).

Following the announcement of the fatwa is the pronouncement of the joint ministerial decree, which aimed to ‘freeze’ activities of the Ahmadiyah community due to its

2 The MUI was established in 1975 at the initiative of government. The motive was to establish and control the public expression of Islam under state (here, Department of Religion) auspices (Hosen 2004).

10

belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (MGA) as the prophet (International Crisis Group 2008: 1). The Home Affairs Minister, Religious Affairs Minister and the Attorney General signed the joint ministerial decree. The content of the joint ministerial decree is as follows (International Crisis Group 2008: 1-2):

1. Warns and orders all citizens not to speak about, endorse or seek public support for an interpreta-tion of a religion followed in Indonesia, or under-take religious activities that resemble the activi-ties of such a religion, in a way that deviates from the central tenets of that religion;

2. Warns and orders followers, members and/or leaders of the Indonesian Ahmadiyah Congrega-tion (Jemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia, JAI), as long as they claim to be Muslims, to stop dissemination of interpretations that deviate from the main teach-ings of Islam, that is, spreading the understanding that there was a prophet after the Prophet Mo-hammed;

3. Warns that the followers, members and or leaders of JAI who do not heed the warnings and instruc-tions mentioned above may face legal sanctions in accordance with laws and regulations;

4. Warns and orders members of the public to safe-guard and protect religious harmony as well as public order and not undertake actions and/or be-haviour that violate the law against followers, members and or leaders of JAI; and

5. Notes that members of the public who do not heed the warnings outlined in the first and fourth points above can face legal sanctions.

Regarding this decree, the government justified that the decree could prevent communal conflicts triggered by polemics about the sect (Antara 2008). But, reality showed that both decrees were used as valid basis of actions to in-flict mistreatments, such as discrimination, against the Ah-madiyah members.

Prior discriminative conducts consist of issues around economic, social, and political exclusions, not to mention numerous destructive attacks to private and public proper-ties of the Ahmadiyah. These conducts significantly de-prived the Ahmadiyah’s right to livelihood, religious belief and practices (The Indonesian National Commission of Vio-lence against Women 2008: 5-9). Furthermore, the Jakarta

11

Post documented several cases of discrimination against the Ahmadiyah women, for example, an Ahmadiyah woman was banned from marrying a non-Ahmadiyah man (Dewi 2008). Several Ahmadiyah women residing in West-Java, West-Lombok and Central-Lombok experienced threats of rape, sexual harassment, verbal abuse, and threats of being voodooed (The Indonesian National Commission of Violence against Women 2008: 6-21).

Under Article 29, the Constitution of Indonesia guaran-tees "all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion and belief." Despite this constitutional warranty, the Ahmadiyah community in Indonesia continues to experience social exclusion and multiple forms of dis-crimination (Narendra 2008).

That being so, this paper focuses on the experiences of Ahmadiyah women in Bogor, Manis Lor and Padang. By us-ing the method of intersectionality in looking at how differ-ent aspects of oppression shape and add to each other, my understanding is that different women have different expe-riences (Bunch 2002: 114). In this regard, I explored that different Ahmadiyah women not only experienced different forms of discrimination but some did not experience dis-crimination on the basis of religious belonging, but rather protection. Therefore, I shall use intersectionality to ex-plore how the intersections of their multiple identities affect different Ahmadiyah women differently.

The paper is organized into the following sections: Chapter I, comprise of introductory emphasis regarding the substance of the research paper which contains elaboration that includes the note on the discrepancy, research milieu, research objective and research questions, relevance and justification, methodology and method, interviewees, assembling the data, and limitations of the research; Chapter II, defines the analytical framework of the research; Chapter III, explicate the findings through the narratives of different Ahmadiyah women and girls who were conditioned within the intersections of their multiple identities, focusing on three districts in two province: Bogor City and Manis Lor Village (West Java) and Padang (West Sumatera); Chapter IV, analyze the intersectional experiences of the Ahmadiyah women and girls and highlight their different experiences of discrimination or protection; Chapter V, concludes the paper.

12

1.4 Research objective and Research question

Research objectiveThe aim of this research is to highlight the different experi-ences faced by different Ahmadiyah women and girls be-longing to the same religious minority group. This research uses an intersectional analysis due to its flexibility to be ap-plied concretely to understand the dynamism of the Ah-madiyah women and girls’ multiple identities in facing dis-crimination or protection. The objective of this paper is to make public the intersectional dynamism aforementioned, hence taking the Ahmadiyah women and girls out of the ‘box’, which tend to homogenize them as women and girls with similar experiences. The objective also endeavors to contribute to the literature on intersectionality.

Research questionHow does the intersection of religious belonging, ethnic identity, age and class bring about different experiences of Ahmadiyah women and girls sharing the same gender and religious belonging but differ in terms of ethnic belonging, age and class?

1.5 Relevance and justificationMany researches have been conducted in Indonesia and more so on Indonesian women and their gender concerns. However, Ahmadiyah group, let alone Ahmadiyah women, despite being part of the Indonesian citizenry, is far less researched, perhaps due to the sensitivity of the subject or the complexity it involves. Further, even if research is done on Ahmadiyah women, the framework of analysis has often been unitary i.e. researchers have rarely used intersectionality as a framework through which to look at the social reality and daily experience of Ahmadiyah women. By employing intersectionality as an analytical tool, this research will contribute to literatures on intersectionality, gender studies as well as Indonesian studies concerned with minority groups.

1.6 MethodologySandra Harding stated, the best feminist analysis insists the researcher to be placed in the same critical plane as the

13

overt subject matter, thereby recovering the entire re-search process for scrutiny in the results of the research. Therefore, the class, race, culture, and gender assumptions, beliefs and behaviors of the researcher must be placed within the frame of the picture that she/he attempts to paint (Harding 1987: 9). In other words, it is common for a re-searcher to have a preconceived notion that shaped the re-search project. Although it is acceptable to have this notion during the research process, however, this pre-assumption must be open for scrutiny in the results of the research.

Thus, in this way, as a researcher I did not appear as an invisible, anonymous voice of authority, but as a real, his-torical individual with concrete, specific desires and inter-ests. Harding explained that this ‘disclose’ requirement is a significant attempt of recognition that the cultural beliefs and behaviors of a (feminist) researcher shape the results of her analyses (ibid).

Moreover, Harding recommends this ‘subjective’ ele-ment into the analysis because it increases the objectivity of the research and decreases the ‘objectivism’. In other words, to increase objectivity, the pre-assumptions of the researcher must be included in the paper as part of the em-pirical evidence for (or against) the claims advanced in the results of the research. Whereby, this empirical evidence must subsequently be open for critical scrutiny. This is what Harding called as the ‘reflexivity of social science’ (ibid).

The search for ways to operate reflexivity in critical in-quiry is a journey into uncharted territory (Lather 1991: 63). Critical inquiry is a response to the experiences, de-sires and needs of oppressed people (ibid). Central to estab-lishing such understanding is a dialogic research design where respondents are actively involved in the construction and validation of meaning. The purpose of this phase of in-quiry is to provide accounts that are basis for further analy-sis and ‘a corrective to the investigator’s preconceptions re-garding the subjects’ life-world and experiences (ibid). Therefore, critical inquiry is a fundamentally dialogic and mutually educative enterprise (ibid). Taking account the significance of critical inquiry, this research explored the intersectional experiences of Ahmadiyah women in Bogor, Manis Lor and Padang, in order to find out the dynamism of their multiple identities in regard to their encounter of dis-crimination or protection. Series of dialogical method of in-quiries hence provided a mutually educative enterprise for me as the researcher and the overt subject matter.

14

Furthermore, Harding implies that, methodologically, feminist research differs from traditional research for three reasons. It actively seeks to remove the power imbalance between the researcher and the respondents; it is politically motivated and has a major role in changing social inequal-ity; and it begins with the standpoints and experiences of women. Sandra Harding makes similar claims to the defin-ing features of feminist research when she argues that studying women from their perspective, recognizing the re-searcher as part of the research subject and acknowledging that the beliefs of the researcher shape the research is what makes feminist research feminist (Brayton 1997).

In administering the fieldwork research, I conducted a method of several group interviews, 37 individual inter-views, and also telephone interviews. The string of inter-views is needed to gain substantial data and sources of in-formation in regard to the questions I inquire for this re-search. Those several forms of interviews consist of narra-tive information relating to the experiences of Ahmadiyah women and girls, which coincide with an in-depth overview of their life history.

Adopting Harding’s view, the series of interviews was conducted by removing the power imbalance between my-self as the inquirer/researcher and the subject (the Ah-madiyah females); this research and its analysis began with the standpoints and experiences of the Ahmadiyah females as well as my beliefs as a researcher, which Harding imply as what makes a feminist research feminist.

The focused in-depth interviews, or as they are some-times called interviews-as-conversations (Dyson 1994: 21), was conducted to a total of 15 Ahmadiyah females which was divided into two sets of ethnic-belonging, and other classifications such as class, and age.

In characterizing the age category, I categorize the age group of each interviewee according to the Republic of Indonesia Child Protection Law No. 23/2002 definition of child, that is ‘someone with the age not more than 18 years old, and also the ones who are still in the womb’ (Human Rights Watch2009: 14). Therefore, in Indonesia, someone who exceeds the age of 18 is considered to be an adult.

But, characterizing the class category was more compli-cated. Hence, to simplify the criteria, I used the term high-income and low-income. Case and Fair stated that, ‘income is the sum of all the wages, salaries, profits, interests pay-ments, rents and other forms of earnings received in a given period of time’ (Case and Fair 2007: 54). Therefore,

15

in categorizing each subject, I differentiated those with high forms of earnings with the term middle/upper income and those with low forms of earnings with the term low in-come. Since income is a very personal and private matter, to find out each person’s earning received in a given period of time was rather awkward and rude. So I tend to read be-hind the lines, by asking the interviewees’ location of resi-dence, their educational background, their children’s edu-cational condition, and so on and so forth, furthermore I also look at the way they dress and their terms in communi-cation. This is applied to both middle/upper and low-income groups.

1.7 MethodsThe first segment of this section introduces the research interviewees. And further followed by the second section emphasizing the procedures of the data collection process.

IntervieweesAhmadiyah represents a relevant case study in Indonesia ever since the Indonesian government, through the Minister of Judge’s state law No. JA 5/23/13 on 13th March 1953, legally accepted them. It is through this pronouncement that Indonesia formally accepts the freedom of the Ahmadiyah’s rights to religion (Masrur 2008). Yet, legality does not guarantee citizenship right to practice their religion. Disputations regarding the Ahmadiyah’s existence in Indonesia have prevailed for years, especially since The Indonesian Ulama Council’s (MUI) fatwa declaring Ahmadiyah as deviants of Islam in the 1980s (ibid).

Generations of Ahmadiyah members spread all over Indonesia coexisting with other citizens of the Muslim majority. In this research I have the opportunity to interview Ahmadiyah females from two provinces, in West Java and West Sumatra. To obtain samples of interviewees, association like Komnas Perempuan provided me contacts to the Ahmadiyah women’s organization (Lajnah Ima’illah) where they subsequently make available access to interview Ahmadiyah females living in Bogor and Manis Lor (West Java Province) and Padang (West Sumatra Province). These females range between the age of thirteen to seventy two years old, with different ethnicity, class identity, educational background, and occupations.

16

The total amount of interviewees was 37 Ahmadiyah females. They represent the elements of intersectionality, which I intend to analyze further in this paper. Below are the lists of the females interviewed:

Table 1 The list of the total Ahmadiyah females interviewed

Indonesian Ahmadiyah Women and Girls

Ethnicity

West Java (Bogor and Manis Lor)

West Sumatra (Padang)

IncomeMiddle/

UpperLow Middle/

UpperLow

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

9 10 2 4 1 9 *1 1Source: the source of this data was obtained personally from the fieldwork research

Total Interviewees = 37Note:The star sign at the column of the West-Sumatran, low-income, under-eighteen category, refers to a female not directly interviewed but was represented by her mother due to her limited knowledge of communicating.

The total number of interviewees directly interviewed was 36 and as aforementioned, because of limited conditions, an under 18 years old, low-income, Ahmadiyah child’s experience was added but represented through her mother’s interpretation. This is due to her young age and limited capability to speak Indonesian (she speaks the Padangnese local language more fluently). So the final total is 37.

Furthermore, not all of the interviewees above gave the most significant stories but their experience is very much accounted for as supporting data to the interviewees that this research is focused upon.

17

In that case, this research concentrates on the experiences of 15 Ahmadiyah females out of the 37 interviewed. Below are the specifications of each person. Note that the names mentioned in the table below are pseudo-names in order to protect the privacy of each respondent’s identity:

Table 2 The list of the selected Ahmadiyah females interviewed

EthnicityWest Java

(Bogor and Manis Lor)

West Sumatra(Padang)

IncomeMiddle/

UpperLow Middle/

UpperLow

18

18 18

18

18

18

18 18

Arin (13)

Tori(18)

Retna (47)

Mersi (40)

Arief Rahmani (40) Nasratunnisa(40)

Dheseh (14)

Lani (13)

Minah (44)

Muty (37)

Anajmi (18)

Ade (49)

Tamarinah’s child (12)

Tamarinah (44)

Unique case : Muthia (Padangnese, Lives in Java) (21)Source: the source of this data was obtained personally from the fieldwork research

18

Assembling the dataIn conducting the research, I planned to do significant triangulation method, such as focused life history through several attempts of in-depth interviews, which is supported by focus-group discussions. But due to circumstances, the triangulation method was not fully established as intended. In every interview this research tried to operate a depth/unstructured type of questions, it appropriated the interviewees to establish their own way to discuss their experiences. This type of interview proved to be useful in order to help set the research focus and to explore new or sensitive topics in depth, which was carried out in a conversational sphere. I initially prepared templates of standard interview questions, but during the fieldwork, the pre-designed interview questions were not made as strict, but rather use topic areas to gain answers (Laws et al. 2003: 286-298).

Every interview lasted between one hour and thirty minutes and two hours and thirty minutes were not tape-recorded and the analysis relied on the notes taken on the field. Most of the interviews were performed directly but some were carried out by phone, this is because of the situation, which disabled the chance to meet them in person. Drawbacks such as financial and accommodation costs made it difficult for me to be there in person, since the location of their residence is situated in a village of great regional distance. The interviews used open-ended questions attempting to build an informal conversation with the interviewee rather than establishing a rigid formal communication between the researcher and the researched, this method was carried out in order to remove the power imbalance between the researcher and the interviewees (Harding 1987: 9).

Almost all direct interviews were performed in groups since they seemed very cautious about the security of their community and outsiders. Only a couple of interviewees agreed to be interviewed alone. The Ahmadiyah community is a very organized and structured group; the headquarter of its women’s organization (called the Lajnah Ima’illah) is based in the West Java province (in the city of Bogor) where its members are spread all around Indonesia having each province and district its own chief. Series of bureaucratic stages had to be made to obtain appointments for interviews. One must have the permission of the chief women’s organization within the Ahmadiyah community. From then on, they were the ones who organized every

19

interview schedule I need by contacting every region’s chief. We cannot interfere in the process, but to wait for their approval.

In the course of the interviews, initially a rush of anxiety and jittery impression was very much witnessed by the interviewees. This is due to my lack of experience in doing such research. But after several interviews, the orchestration of the conversation was more relaxed, and the interviewees became more friendly and less stiff. It was a pity that most of the interviews must be accompanied by members of the women’s organization, which tends to correct and limit the key informer of giving information. Nevertheless, information gained from other subjects were made clearer after an agreed individual meeting with several other Ahmadiyah females.

The data gathered were from Ahmadiyah females in the West Java Province (Bogor and Manis Lor) and in the West Sumatra Province (Padang). The first interview was with ten Ahmadiyah women in Bogor. I was puzzled at first in grasping my interviews, as I was not able to interview them alone. This is because the headquarters had set me up with ten middle/upper class Ahmadiyah women who were clearly very busy and had only little time to be interviewed. Luckily, I was able to make an agreement with one of the ten women to arrange an unaccompanied interview.

A couple of days later, I was set to interview two upper/middle class women and nine upper/middle class girls. During the interviews, many of the lajnah staffs were present to check in once in a while the on-going discussion I had with the females. They were very cooperative even though their answers seem to be similar with one another. This is the disadvantage of not having them interviewed separately. When I requested such demand, they made an excuse by saying that they can only be interviewed on Friday after the Friday prayer because on weekdays, they are busy at school and weekends are for families.

The following week I went to Padang, it is quite a faraway province from where I am residing. Because I have no relatives and friends there, I decided to spend six days in Padang and told the headquarters that I will be interviewing the women there everyday after working and school hours. It was then an agreeable request. Unfortunately, as I arrived in Padang, the regional head of the lajnah informed me that the interview could only be done in the weekends, as they are busy with work and familial duties. Because the interviewees themselves requested this excuse thus I could not force them to be

20

interviewed within my desired schedule. So, an excess of hotel money and accommodative expenses was laid to waste as I have already booked my hotel and flight for six days.

At the end of the week of my stay (Friday), I finally got to meet and interview the Padangnese Ahmadiyah women which is arranged after their Friday prayer, and again the interview had to be done in groups but I managed to take out a couple of women to be interviewed separately although it had to be conducted in a short limited time. The second interview was on the next day (Saturday) and it was my last day in Padang. This time I interviewed two of the same upper/middle income adult women, one upper/middle income girl, and one lower income adult woman. This interview was much more conducive than the previous interview because the mosque was empty and the lajnah women were not present. Thus, the interviewees have no pressure and burden. Moreover, they felt more acquainted with me after our discussion on the previous interview.

Coming back to Jakarta, I felt that I still needed to interview women and girls of the West Java province which are from the lower income. So I contacted the lajnah, but since they live in a very distant village, the lajnah suggested me to do a phone-interview, as it is cheaper and efficient.

I managed to get a hold of two Ahmadiyah women and girls living in the village of Manis lor. It was quite difficult reaching them because they have to go to the regional head chief’s house to take my phone call, as they do not own any telecommunication device. The signal was also very bad thus the communication was very slow.

1.8 Limitations of the researchDuring the fieldwork, I administered interviews with 37 Ahmadiyah females from Bogor, Manis Lor and Padang. But due to circumstances only 15 people’s interviews are more highlighted and considered as applicable. Without disregarding the other interviewees’ experience, I used their information to support the report of the 15 women and girls chosen. Although these females provide limited information, since the timing of the interviews were so restricted, yet the experiences they informed narrate diverse and significant knowledge, which made it sufficient enough as collected data. Other factors such as time constraints and bureaucracy of the Ahmadiyah women’s organization were also major barriers of the fieldwork.

21

In doing the interviews to Ahmadiyah females in Manis lor, factors such as: language barrier, bad phone signals, distance, financial and timing issues appropriated me to conduct the interviews through telephone, since some of the interviewees live outside my province and I have no acquaintance to spend days to do fieldwork in there.

I am aware of the fact that this research is an explanatory research and not a crime investigation of the discrimination against Ahmadiyah women in Indonesia. Therefore, this research does not represent the condition of all Ahmadiyah women in Bogor, Manis lor and Padang, let alone in Indonesia. But it represents the voice of 15 Ahmadiyah women and girls living in Bogor, Manis Lor and Padang.

The interviewees are only samples of a grand Ahmadiyah population in Indonesia and thus it does not constitute as a representative condition but rather a unique variety of intersectional experiences faced by different Ahmadiyah females of diverse age, ethnicity, and class.

22

Chapter 2 Analytical framework

2.1 IntroductionThis chapter defines the concepts that are used for the analysis of this paper. The chosen concepts were selected as analytical tools to scrutinize how different Ahmadiyah women and girls were treated differently. The concepts con-sist of theoretical terms such as power, discrimination, oth-erization, the politics of identity, intersectionality, connec-tivity, ethnic solidarity and occupational solidarity.

The main argument is that power, as suggested by Foucault, is said to be present everywhere. For instance, it is heterogeneous, in the sense that the Indonesian Muslim Ulamas or the government did not fundamentally exercise power, but it was also exercised by other elements of soci-ety, such as the Muslim majority citizens. The dynamism of power being practiced against the Ahmadiyah was asym-metrical and nonreciprocal. This is caused mainly by usage of identity politics. Interestingly, the intersectionality of some identities may inflict discrimination against Ah-madiyah women and girls who consequently place them as the ‘other’ but some other intersecting identities serves other Ahmadiyah female the benefit of being protected. This is due to their connective relationship with specific Muslim majority members who shared the same ethnic or occupational belongings; hence provide them with ethnic and occupational solidarity.

2.2 The concepts

PowerIn analyzing power, Foucault denies that ‘there is a primary and fundamental principle of power which dominates society down to the smallest detail’. At the same time he claims that power is everywhere. For which he further adds that the social field is a myriad of unstable and heterogeneous relations of power (Sawicki 1986: 25). Foucault explained further that this form of heterogeneity highlights the ambiguous power of difference in modern society where difference can be the source of fragmentation and disunity as well as creative source of resistance and change (Sawicki 1986: 18). Thus, Foucault’s analysis of power is ‘bottom-up’, through which he attempts to show how power relations at the micro level of society make

23

possible certain global effects of domination, such as class power and patriarchy (Sawicki 1986: 23).

Sawicki, (1991: 20) stated that Foucault proposes to think of power outside the confines of state, law, or class. Foucault’s understanding of power is not as a set of institutions and mechanisms that regulate the relation between the state and citizens, or as a mode of subjugation which has the form of rules, or as a general system of domination exerted by one group over another. He regards these as only the terminal forms of power (Shehada 1999: 20).

Foucault’s analysis of power is significantly strategic to reveal the heterogeneous relations of power concerning issues of the Ahmadiyah females. The fact that power is believed to be everywhere and its bottom-up, coincide with the dynamism relating to the power relations against Ahmadiyah females. Since power is not fundamentally institutionalized, thus accommodate the research findings. Where it showed that elements of personal identities such as: ethnic belonging, religious belonging, class, and age group as main intersecting points of power relations, make possible certain effects of domination through mainstream (majority) religious belonging, ethnic and class power, and age group inflicted against some females, while some were protected.

DiscriminationHigh on the agenda of sociology is to understand the origins and consequences of inequality (Reskin 2000: 319). One root of inequality can be explained through the concept of discrimination. The notion of discrimination involves additional concept(s) where personal characteristics are being valued, such personal characteristics as race, ethnic background, and gender have been frequently adduced in this context (Arrow 1971: 1).

Reskin explained discrimination through Krieger’s notion of social cognition theory, which emphasize that people automatically categorize others into in-groups and out-groups. The visibility and cultural importance of gender, ethnicity, religious belonging, age and class and their role as core bases of stratification make them almost automatic bases of categorization which is accompanied by stereotyping and biases (Fiske et al. 1999). These biases are cognitive rather than motivational; in other words, discrimination is not inevitable, they occur independently of

24

decision makers’ group interests or their conscious desire to favor or harm others (Krieger 1995: 1188).

Discrimination is a violation of a person’s identity (Makkonen 2002: 1) can vary in form (direct or indirect), depending on how it is expressed, by whom, and against whom, and can occur in all aspects of life (Saffron et al. 2002: 624). The consequences of discrimination match the severity of the offence: discrimination has a causal link e.g. to stigma, social exclusion, otherization, and so on and so forth (Makkonen 2002: 5). Not only is discrimination experienced in several different contexts, but also it is experienced often together with other expressions of intolerance, such as verbal abuse, threats and violence (ibid).

This research will partly employ some of the various forms of discrimination to explore how personal characteristics such as religious belonging, ethnicity, class and age were being valued and used by the Muslim majority group against the Ahmadiyah women. In regard to the term discrimination, this paper analyzes how the Ahmadiyah women and girls experienced otherization by the Muslim majority group.

OtherizationOtherness is an abstract concept. In some ways, otherness is the end result, the product and the consequence of perceiving someone else as the complete negation of oneself, the perceiver. Peleg also stated that Otherness is a social condition in which certain individuals or groups are perceived, described and treated as fundamentally and irreconcilably different from the reference group (often the majority) (Peleg 1994: 261).

The process of otherization begins with differentiating between people on the basis of ethnic origin, religion, class, gender or any other attribute assumed to be of social significance. The initial differentiation is based on what many people in society would regard as ‘objective’, clear-cut differences among social groups in such areas as physical appearance, religious practices, or language. As the intergroup differentiation deepens, a process that can be influenced by numerous factors, the other is perceived in increasingly negative terms (ibid: 262).

Adopting the concept of otherness or the ‘other,’ which represents negative sanction constructed by (the majority) society through the process of categorizing and

25

differentiating (Lemish 2000: 342), I would like to take into consideration the production of differentiation used by the Muslim majority group which is hostile to the Ahmadiyah community in general and to the Ahmadiyah women and girls in particular. The Ahmadiyah community is categorized and differentiated as the ‘other’. For the Ahmadiyah women, this process of otherness, is therefore created and reinforced through multiplicity of frames, by highlighting mainly on their religious belonging, but other characteristics such as ethnicity, class and age may add their already marginalized identity.

In view of this acknowledged intersections of identities on Ahmadiyah women, I employ the theory of intersectionality in order to explain its dynamics. By acknowledging that there is a salient prevailing issue highlighting the intersections of multiple identities, an exposition regarding its politics is needed, especially when the identities being accentuated intertwines with the concerning by-product of making the Ahmadiyah women as the ‘other’. For that reason, an explanation about the politics of identity will be explained prior to intersectionality.

The politics of identityStuart Hall articulates that identities in late modernity are never unified but are increasingly fragmented. Identities are never singular but are multiply constructed across different discourses, practices and positions. They are the product of historical development and are constantly in process, characterized by change and transformation (Hall 1996: 4). Identities are constructed through difference – it is only through a relation to the ‘other’, a relation to what is not and to what is lacking, that identity can be constructed. Thus, identities in this sense are the outcome of the production of difference and exclusion rather than symbols of ‘identical, naturally-constituted unity’ (ibid). Identities should not be conceptualized as ‘natural’ and ‘essentialist’ but rather should be reconceptualised as always relational, incomplete and in the process of becoming, i.e. there is a continual process of ‘identification’ (Hall 1987: 130).

Hall also argues that identities emerge within the play of specific modalities of power (Hall 1996: 4). The power of representation in constructing national and cultural identity, including the power to define who is included and who is excluded, usually lies in the hands of policy makers. Some power holders take an essentialist view, claiming that

26

identity is fixed and unchanging. Sometimes these claims are based on ‘nature’ or ‘biology’ – for example, ‘race/ethnicities’. But often the claims are based on an essentialist version of history and of the past, where history is constructed or represented as an unchanging truth (Woodward 1997: 12 and 15).

The essentialist view of the Ahmadiyah community as a deviant and sinful ‘group’ has been adopted by successive Indonesian Muslim Ulemas (MUI) and Indonesian governments which succeeded to influence a significant number of the Muslim majority public to also identify the Ahmadiyah as a deviant religious minority community (Zulkarnain 2008). The construction of identity difference is adapted by the Muslim majority members and refers the Ahmadiyah Community as the ‘other’. This production of identity politics lies in the hands of the powerful representatives (MUI and the Indonesian government) that produced exclusion and discrimination through their fatwa and decree, which defines the Ahmadiyah community as the excluded and the Majority Muslims as the included.

However, politics of identity may signify conducts that produce discrimination but to a certain extent, it may also facilitate protection due to associated consequence owned by different Ahmadiyah women and girls through their multiple identities. Hence, it is considered accordingly to incorporate intersectionality to emphasize the dynamics.

IntersectionalitySince critics first alleged that feminism claimed to speak universally for all women, feminist researchers have been acutely aware of the limitations of gender as a single analytical category (McCall 2005: 1771). Today, it is unimaginable that any women’s studies program would only focus on gender. Textbooks and anthologies in the field cannot afford to neglect difference and diversity among women (Davis 2007: 3). Hence, the emergence of the term intersectionality as a major paradigm becomes the most important theoretical contribution in women’s studies (McCall 2005: 1771).

The term ‘intersectionality’ is somewhat new in human rights circles, but the reality they describe is not (Bunch 2002: 118). The methodology of intersectionality – of looking at how different aspects of oppression shape and add to each other – enriches another fundamental human rights concept: Indivisibility (Ibid: 114).

27

Originally coined by Kimberle Crenshaw, intersectionality was intended to address the fact that the experiences and struggles of women of colour fell between the cracks of both feminist and anti-racist discourse. Crenshaw argue that theorists need to take both gender and race on board and show how they interact to shape the multiple dimensions of black women’s experience (Davis 2007: 2). In other words, an intersectional analysis involves an analysis of a situation from a perspective based on the understanding that we all have shifting and multiple identities (Abeysekera in Bartolomei et al. 2003: 90). This includes an understanding that, at different times, different aspects of our identity are to the fore and do not react uniformly with different forms of discrimination and oppression (ibid).

To explore the complexity of intersectionality, Leslie McCall introduced several approaches. But, this research will only use one of the approach, as it is most relevant to the topic being researched -The Intercategorical Complexity (McCall 2005: 1773). This approach begins with the observation that there are relationships of inequality among already constituted social groups, as imperfect and ever changing as they are, and takes those relationships as the centre of analysis. The main task of this approach is to explicate those relationships and treat categories (gender, ethnicity, class, age) as ‘anchor’ points (ibid: 1785).

The categorical approach focuses on the complexity of relationships among multiple social groups within and across analytical categories and not on complexities within single social groups, single categories, or both. The subject is multi-group, and the method is systematically comparative (ibid: 1786).

By referencing the intersectional categorical approach, I will try to apply its content to incorporate multiple categories such as: gender, religious belongings, ethnicity, class, and age, owned by different Ahmadiyah women to locate the comparative complexities of their identity. Thus, I will explore both advantage and disadvantage explicitly and simultaneously. The aim is not the intersection of gender, religious belongings, ethnicity, class, and age in a single social group that is of interest (the Ahmadiyah community) but the relationship among the social groups (between the Muslim majority group and the Ahmadiyah community) defined by the entire set of groups constituting each category (ibid: 1787).

28

Davis stated that intersectionality promises an almost universal applicability, useful for understanding and analyzing any social practice, any individual or group experience, any structural arrangement, and any cultural configuration (Davis 2007: 9). By virtue of this notion, I will try to explore whether intersectionality is also applicable for understanding the discrimination experienced by the Ahmadiyah women.

While it is recognized that the Ahmadiyah women’s intersectionality may partially inflict them with various forms of discrimination, on the other hand, fieldwork materials indicate that intersectionality may also provide them with security and protection, depending on which of their intersections were put to the fore. Acknowledging this fact, it is therefore imperative to also mention the concept of connectivity through solidarity grounds such as: ethnic solidarity and occupational solidarity, where women of the Ahmadiyah were protected due to their other identities.

ConnectivityConnectivity was central to the intersectional dynamics of the Ahmadiyah women living in the outskirts of Manis Lor (West Java), Padang (West Sumatra), and a special case in Depok (West Java). I use the term connectivity because it serves this paper an explanation regarding connective rela-tionship as a style of interaction, which necessitates neither gender specific nor religious belonging (Joseph 1993: 453). Suad Joseph introduced the term connectivity to mean psy-chodynamic processes by which one person comes to see him/herself as part of another (Joseph 1994: 55). By con-nectivity, she means relationships in which a person’s boundaries are relatively fluid so that persons feel a part of significant others (Joseph 1993: 452). This connective rela-tionship linked one’s sense of self with the self of another such that the security, identity, integrity, dignity and self-worth where one is tied to the actions of the other. In this regard, Suad Joseph uses the term connective to indicate an activity or intention rather than a state of being (Joseph 1994: 55).

For the Ahmadiyah women living in the outskirts of Manis Lor (West Java) and Padang (West Sumatra), also of Padangnese ethnicity living in Depok (West Java), con-nectivity functioned to produce persons linked to, respons-ible to, and prioritizing the community (Joseph 1993: 479), in this case, along the lines of ethnic and occupation com-

29

munity. Connectivity reinforced community solidarity where solidarity was necessary for protection. This paper uses the term connectivity as the foundation of ethnic and occupa-tional solidarity as part of social solidarity.

Social solidarity is defined as the extent to which people participate in organized groups and are objectively and sub-jectively attached to their community. There are two meas-ures of solidarity, they are: one, ‘group participation’, meas-ures a respondent’s participation in various group activit-ies; and second, ‘community attachment’, measures a re-spondent’s bonds with his or her community (Bert 1980: 369). This paper will focus on the latter index of solidarity.

As previously mentioned, the research on this paper re-cognizes two significant solidarities during its fieldwork. They are, ethnic solidarity and occupational solidarity :

a. Ethnic solidarityThis paper focuses on two ethnic group, the Javanese and the Padangnese. The Javanese mentioned in this paper are those living in the West Java Province particularly in the city of Bogor and a village called Manis Lor; while the Padangnese mentioned are those living in Padang (West Sumatra Province), and those who are of Padangnese descent living in Depok (West Java). Solidarity in the context of ethnicity has been used in a variety of senses in the literature, the dictionary definition consider it as a “community of interests, feelings, purposes, etc.” A specific of ethnic solidarity that is empirically practical requires two elements (Nielsen 1985: 136):

% The formulation of specific goals or claims defined on the membership of the ethnic group as opposed to, or in contradistinction with, other groups in the society;

% A degree of ideological and organizational mobilization of group membership for the implementation of these claims.

b. Occupational solidarityOccupational solidarity is a type of solidarity, which involves a solidarity gesture within a given professional grouping and recommends a system of social protection funded through insurance contributions and offering earnings related benefits. Moreover, occupational solidarity distributes income within a professional group and aims at the maintenance of income (Beland and Hansen 2000: 51).

In sum, connectivity facilitates certain Ahmadiyah women and girls belonging to specific communities

30

(Padangnese ethnicity and farmer’s community) to experience beneficial condition like solidarity. This paper reveals how communities along the lines of ethnicity and occupation provide ethnic and occupational solidarity to ensure protection.

2.3 Concluding remarksThis chapter introduced the eight conceptions, which will be used to analyze the findings. The concepts intend to fa-cilitate the intersectional experiences faced by different Ah-madiyah females differently. Accordingly, the next chapter will present the narratives of 15 different Ahmadiyah fe-males, which endeavors to reveal the dynamism of their multiple identities in regard to the antipathy sentiment against their religious belonging.

31

Chapter 3 The ‘other’ female tale: Narratives of Ahmadiyah women and girls in Bogor, Manis lor and Padang

3.1 IntroductionThis chapter is called the ‘other’ female tale because it reveals narratives of selected Ahmadiyah women and girls as informants of this research. Their narratives will also disclose various dynamics of power relations, which were differently experienced by different Ahmadiyah women in Bogor, Manis lor, Padang, and a special case in Depok (West Java Province).

The total numbers of focused-interviewees are 15 Ahmadiyah women and girls, which consists of 13 individual interviews, one represented interview, and one unique-case interview. The latter is described as a unique sample because she is a Padangnese Ahmadiyah living in West Java, thus the uniqueness of her case represented elements signified by both area of fieldwork.

This chapter is organized in four sections. Section one introduces the readers with the statement the ‘other’ female tale and its linkages to the different experiences of Ahmadiyah women and girls’; section two describes the experiences of six Ahmadiyah women and girls living in Bogor city (West Java), four Ahmadiyah women and girls living in Manis lor village, and one girl living in Depok. The need to incorporate the girl’s experience in Depok is due to its significance to support the following section; section three retells the narratives of four Ahmadiyah women and girls in Padang. And lastly, section four concludes this chapter.

3.2 Ahmadiyah women and girls’ experience in West Java

Bogor cityI went five times to Bogor and conducted several interviews with the women and children of Ahmadiyah from various different background. But because some of the interviews had to be performed collectively, the answers were mostly common and similar. Nonetheless, I managed to single out

32

some of the unique experiences of the interviewees, which then becomes the focus of this research.

The amount of focused-interviewees conducted in Bogor was 25 people, consisting of Ahmadiyah women and girls from different backgrounds. But, due to difficult circumstances only ten interviewees in Bogor were made centre, and with the addition of one special case from Depok (West Java). However, the other 15 Ahmadiyah women and girls are still considered valid but their experiences are used as a supporting data.

Firstly, I will describe the experiences of the middle/upper class, under 18 years old Ahmadiyah girls. The first one is Arin, she is thirteen years old and goes to a public school in Bogor. In regard to her identity as an Ahmadiyah girl, she emphasized the fact that her religious belonging affected her social relationship in school. People mostly talk about her behind her back. But some of her classmates, not to mention teachers were blatantly confrontational. Although she receives no physical or sexual hostilities, the types of encounters she faced came suddenly after the announcement of the decree, which consequently made her friends started to be very distant from her, for instance, they will cut-off any study-group which includes her. Her religion education school teacher would also marginalize her in the class, preaching about Ahmadiyah being a devilish belief system, and would even conduct a sermon on her individually in order to persuade her to leave Ahmadiyah. There was no differential behavioral conduct in comparison to her male-Ahmadiyah friend, who also receives the same negative experience. When asked about the experience of her mother or grandmother, she replied that they were rarely confronted by such hostilities. She justifies the assumption that less antagonistic behavior was received by her older family because the perpetrators still feels a sense of respect to the seniors; but because Arin is young, hence the verbal hostilities continues. Arin explained,

“When the decree was announced, suddenly my friends and teachers highlighted the fact that I am an Ahmadiyah. They seemed surprised and gradually became distant towards me. My friends would call me names (weirdo, creep) and my teachers would be more frontal, at times they would be so mean in class and preached that Ahmadiyah is a deviant belief, therefore succeeded to influenced my classmates in believing that I am a deviant girl with a devilish religion. One teacher even tried to persuade me into leaving Ahmadiyah.”

33

Arin added, “….But my mom and my grandmother did not experience the same direct verbal hostilitie., This is because there is still this feeling of inhibition or respect towards the elderly within the society in Bogor, because they are older than me therefore the respect does not apply…Besides having to go to school daily increases the intensity factor because I see this people everyday.”

Another story of a middle/upper class, Ahmadiyah girl is Tori. She is 18 years old and attends the prestigious university called Bogor Agricultural University (IPB). Tori’s experience was very much similar to Arin’s. The fact that she is an Ahmadiyah and her close friends in the University are mostly Ahmadiyah believers too; the Muslim majority students would rather scorn her. If Arin receives verbal abuse through her teachers and school-mates, Tori encounters an additional severe loathe that is directed upon her and her Ahmadiyah friends. The student body council in the university often make a public oration regarding their hatred and antipathy, the speeches include words like “banish”, “exclude”, “ban” and even “Halal to hurt Ahmadiyah”. Encounters like these that made Tori’s life in her campus a living hell. Tori shared that,

“No matter what your social status and ethnicity, if you are an Ahmadiyah attending the University moreover living in Bogor, you are bound to be discriminated against, or at the least frowned upon. One of my dorm neighbor moved out because she found out that I was an Ahmadiyah. I was surprised how our friendship ended just because I am an Ahmadiyah, before knowing my religious belonging we were good friends, we are both Sundanese3 and we love to study together.”

Secondly, I will describe the experiences of the middle/upper class, adult Ahmadiyah women. They are Mrs. Retna, Mrs. Mersi, Mrs. Nasratunnisa and Yanthi; whereas, there is also Mrs. Rahmani, a middle-class school teacher, and lastly Muthia, of a middle class Padangnese origin domiciled in Java. Except for Muthia all are Sundanese women living in Bogor, West Java region.

3 A term to define a person of a West-Javanese ethnicity.

34

Muthia is considered a unique sample as she is of a Padangnese origin (West Sumatera) but her discrimination experience was encountered during her stay in Depok (an area also within the West Java region). Muthia’s experience was very noteworthy, it is felt needed for the importance of the intersectional analysis.

Mrs. Retna is one of the main officials in the structural organization of the Ahmadiyah women’s community in the West Java region. She is positioned as head of public relations. Her socio-economic status is considered high. This is recognized by my observation by noticing that she has a car driven by a chauffeur, is well-dressed, and her educational background supports the terms she used in her sentences. She has two children, whereas one is currently studying her master’s abroad and the other is in a private college in Indonesia. She stated that she had never experienced antagonism in regard to her religious belonging. Mrs. Retna used to work for the Indonesian national government where she had a quite high position, but now has resigned. She confessed that her colleagues were all very decent and that the fuss of the state and religious decree did not have any effect towards her social life.

Mrs. Retna clarified, “All my life, I have never been faced with any negative experience nor discriminated regarding my belief as an Ahmadiyah. I live in an environment of educated people, thus personal matter such as religious belonging is not an issue. My colleagues at work were also nice and friendly, their behaviour have never changed even after the decree was announced.”

Mrs. Mersi also used to work for the Indonesian national government at a high position and like Mrs. Retna, is also a retired upper-class woman. Mrs. Mersi also has children studying abroad. She lives in a cluster complex where all her neighbours are from the Muslim majority and she is the only Ahmadiyah. Although she is the only Ahmadiyah there, she was never marginalized nor discriminated in any sort. People are kind and pleasant to her at all times. When asked about her family and their experience, she explained thoroughly how her family get along very well with the community and their religious belonging as an Ahmadiyah had never been any obstacle to socialize in any way. For Mrs. Mersi, the only negativity she had experienced was when she heard rumours about how she as an Ahmadiyah

35

pray differently than the Muslim majority. She notified that the rumour disappeared after some of her friends (Muslim majority) defended her. Mrs . Mersi added,

“As the only Ahmadiyah living in a Muslim-Majority complex, I have never experienced any hostility or discrimination, I love my neighbours and my neighbours loves me. I get along very fondly with them. Furthermore, regarding the decree, my colleagues at work also behaved as normal, they were nice before and after the decree and fatwa was announced.”

Meanwhile, Mrs. Nasratunnisa (40 years old), a middle class Ahmadiyah woman, experienced a contrary condition compared to the aforementioned upper class women. She also worked for the Indonesian national government but of a lower position than Mrs. Retna and Mersi. Mrs. Nasratunnisa explained,

“Ever since the announcement of the fatwa and the decree, I am not included anymore in the neighbourhood’s social organization. I would hear people gossiping about me and even cornering me with all these prejudicial questions and assumptions. What is more sickening, is the fact that my uncle’s graveyard was dug out by the cemetery workers and forced us to remove my uncle’s corpse to another cemetery ground due to our belief as Ahmadiyah.”

Another disadvantaged story is of Mrs. Rahmani’s, a 40 years old middle-class, school teacher. She worked in one of the most prestigious Islamic4 Boarding School in West Java before she was fired. For years she had been working peacefully in that school with good evaluations by also being very discreet about her religious belonging. She commented,

“I don’t feel the need to inform anyone about my religious belonging, and so no one knew that I was an Ahmadiyah.”

Until the 2008 state decree was publicized, her upper-colleague started to question her religious belonging and her associations with the students and found out that Mrs. Rahmani was actually an Ahmadiyah. This is because one of her competitive colleagues reported her religious belonging to the principal. Furthermore, since one of the students is from another province, she sometimes stayed at Mrs. Rahmani’s house in the weekends. That student was then examined and questioned by the higher structural

4 This Islamic boarding school refers to the Islamic ideology of the Muslim majority.

36

school officials with a prejudicial assumption that Mrs. Rahmani might force her into joining the Ahmadiyah. After several prejudicial gestures, Mrs. Rahmani was then fired by the school with no substantial reason. It is apparent that it had something to do with her religious belonging. Mrs. Rahmani is now working in a less strict public school, still being discreet about her religious belonging.

“I was so shocked when I was dismissed by the board. It was too sudden and questionable. They said that my position as the dorm manager of the boarding school will threaten the school’s image. The fact that I am an Ahmadiyah was considered a threat to the prestige of the school. Moreover, I have no history of bad evaluations which upsets me the most, this is an utterly despicable act of discrimination towards my belief.”

Lastly, is the unique case of Muthia (20 years old), of a middle class Padangnese origin domiciled in Depok, West Java. Her discrimination experience started when she criticized a key note speaker in a seminar about religion which included topics about Ahmadiyah. The facilitator and everyone in the seminar disagreed with her which consequently put her in the spotlight all throughout the seminar. Afterwards, words started to spread on the issue of her religious belonging. People started talking behind her back but most were antagonizing her directly and somewhat confrontationally. Muthia was excluded from campus activities (student body, student senate, and so on and so forth), her college peers kept their distance towards her, threatened her, terrorize her through prank phone calls, her college lecturers cornered her in classrooms and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, in her campus, there is an organization called The Minangkabau Student Union, which consists of students of Padangnese origin attending the university. They were the only people who stayed associated, kept being friends, and protected her. She asked the chief of the union why they were being nice to her, the chief replied it is because they came from the same ethnicity, and Padangnese ethnicity obliged them to take care of their kind. Muthia asked if also one of her Ahmadiyah friend can have the same privilege as her, but because her friend is not Padangnese, the union refused to care for her as the union is strictly Padangnese only. Muthia recalled,

“Everyone was so mean to me, some of them would call me names like “devil’, “deviant”, “weirdo”, and some of them would threaten me through phone calls. It was so

37

terrible. My teachers would also marginalize and corner me at class by preaching negative stuff about Ahmadiyah. I think they sabotage my grades also as I am a straight A student, but after my disclosure I suddenly have Bs. I don’t mean to assume such negativity but it is such a coincidence that my grades suddenly flopped. I was greatly helped by my fellow Padangnese peers who surprisingly were not Ahmadiyah, to go through with my studies and just gave me support. But, it is a shame that they did not want to help my Javanese-Ahmadiyah friend. They said this help is because we came from the same ethnicity.”

Manis lor villageI conducted additional research in Manis lor village regarding Ahmadiyah women and girls of a lower-income status. I interviewed four females through telephone due to distance and financial barriers. Firstly, I will describe the experiences of the adult Ahmadiyah women. They are Minah (44 years old) and Muty (37 years old), and will continue with the description given by the under 18 years old Ahmadiyah girls -- Dheseh (14 years old) and Lani (13 years old).

Mrs. Minah is a farmer and a farmer’s wife and had lived in Manis lor village all her life and had been an Ahmadiyah member for quite a long time. When asked about the difficulties about her religious belonging, taking into account the series of attacks Manis lor village received for the past years, uniquely she answered that she is very much safe and not affected by the attack. This is due to certain reasons, one was because her house is located within the in-skirts of the village, where it is known as the part of the village with the most Ahmadiyah citizen (75% of all Manis lor population)5, two because being a member of the farmers community (which consists of Ahmadi and non-Ahmadi people) grants her the privilege of occupational solidarity, where religious belonging is not considered an issue. Apparently her family were never at all antagonized by reason of their religious belonging. She points out that the farmers’ community in her environment are very solid and harmonious, and no one was ever discriminated by anything regarding religious belief. Her relationship with fellow non-Ahmadiyah farmers is cooperative because the value of cooperation and integration is very high in order to support each other. Mrs. Minah mentioned,

5 Statistics was informed by the lajnah head-district of the Kuningan region, West Java.

38

“I am quite blessed because I live in the inskirts of Manis Lor where the majority of the population is Ahmadiyah (75 %) and the farmer’s community are so solid, they don’t care about religious belongings issue.”

On the contrary, Mrs. Muty’s experience was highly dissimilar than Mrs. Minah’s condition. Mrs. Muty is a housewife, her husband was rarely home because he works in Jakarta (the capital city). She lives alone with her daughter in a house which is located near the outskirts of the Manis lor village where less Ahmadiyah members are domiciled. Hence, her living conditions were much more hazardous than Mrs. Minah. Mrs. Muty stated that,

“The area where I live has lesser Ahmadiyah people and more non-Ahmadiyah, and it is located near the border gate, therefore the chance and tendency to be attacked was higher.”

In terms of discrimination experience, Mrs. Muty received mountains of it. Several of which, her house was destroyed heavily by attackers of anti-Ahmadiyah mob (in 2003), not to mention unsafe neighbourhood who always verbally abuse her whenever she passes a gang of non-Ahmadiyah men in the streets, and sometimes women too. Mrs. Muty recalled that some have even gathered in front of her house and wear masks and bring weapons. As the outcome of the attacks, her house was completely destroyed and uninhabitable so she moved to stay at her parent’s house which is close to her house. Little did she know, the attackers came to her parents’ house this time and started to break in. Mrs. Muty and her family hid inside a closet. Because the attackers were armed with knives and shouted foul things, Mrs. Muty’s mother collapsed for fear of being killed. Fortunately, the attackers did not find them but the trauma remains until this day. Mrs Muty tried to report to the police about this, yet the police seemed uninterested and careless. So she redeemed her loss and hoped there will never be such an attack ever again. Regarding direct hostilities, Mrs. Muty added that the men receive more physical violence than the female. She mentioned,

“Although I have fears, but I am glad I am not a man, because the men are more subjected to violence, my male-relative was beaten-up and stabbed as he passed by a gang of Muslim-Majority men in the street.”

Furthermore, Mrs. Muty’s daughter also receives several discrimination abuses at her school. Mrs. Muty

39

specifically noted that in comparison with her daughter, she encounters lesser abuse (verbally).

I had the opportunity to interview two Ahmadiyah girls, one was Mrs. Muthiah’s daughter, Lani and the other is Dheseh. According to the interview, Dheseh’s life as an Ahmadiyah teenager was not that difficult. It is possibly because she lives at the inskirts of the Manis lor village. There were times when her family was highlighted because of the decree but nothing significant was inflicted upon them. Since then, the decree issue just washed away and she still gets along with her non-Ahmadiyah friends and neighbours and live quite normally. Dheseh stated that,

“As an Ahmadiyah, I have never experienced negativity let alone hostility regarding my religious belonging. Yes, people were talking about us when the decree was announced, but that’s about it, nothing further. I still have friends who are non-Ahmadiyah and also my family still are close with their non-Ahmadiyah friends. The decree did not affect our friends.”

On the contrary, Lani who lived at the outskirts, suffered great traumatic experience. Although there were never any sexual or physical abuse, Lani encountered heavy discrimination from her friends, her teachers, and gang members outside her school, she had to face them every single day. Lani had to go through series of mocking and verbal abuse everyday, not only going to but also after school and not to mention at the school. Her school peers and teachers were most likely to make her life miserable in school until she decided that she needed to transfer to a different school. Although quite far from her house, at least she feels comfortable and safe. Lani commented,

“Going to school and being in school was very uncomfortable for me, until I transferred to my current school, which is located near the inskirts of the village. My school peers would mock me all the time, not to mention the amount of sermons and preaching I got from my teachers. Moreover, walking back from school was also hard as I would encounter several gangs of Muslim majority men, who continuously abused me with hostile verbal-remarks. I cannot cope living like that so I asked my mom to transfer me to another school.”

Other than verbal mockery, she also experienced the fact that her house was bombarded with anti-Ahmadiyah men with knives and witnessed her house being destroyed. Lani stated,

40

“Living in the outskirts of the village was very much threatening. We have the high-risk to be attacked by non-Ahmadis from outside the village. It is possibly because our area is nearest to reach than the people living in the in-skirts where more Ahmadiyah are domiciled. My house was attacked and destroyed. Masked men came into our house with knives, threatened to kill us but we hid inside mom’s closet. We were lucky.”

3.3 Ahmadiyah women and girls’ experience in West Sumatera

Padang cityWithin the duration of two days I managed to do four sets of interviews in Padang. During those two days, I interviewed 11 Ahmadiyah women and girls. The interviewees are: Anajmi, Ade and Tamarinah, and an additional represented interview of a 12-year old girl-child performed by her mother (Tamarinah).

Anajmi is an 18 years old, middle class, college freshman. She lived in a respectable residential complex where her father is known as the head of the neighbourhood community. Regarding her experience as an Ahmadiyah, she explained thoroughly how she has never been a victim of antagonism due to her religious belonging, not in school, social environment or elsewhere. In fact, in her residential complex, her family is considered the most respectable family where her father is treated as the “ninik mamak” or in Padangnese culture known as the elderly, where people ask for wise advice and consult their problematic issues. She also mentioned that she has lots of non-Ahmadiyah close friends. Being an Ahmadiyah was never an obstacle for her social life. Anajmi noted something very substantial, where she reasoned the cause of her well advantaged condition as an Ahmadiyah in West Sumatra than her sisters in West Java. She mentioned,

“In Padang, people do not really care about your religious belonging; it is your character and the spirit of ethnic familial bond which unify the civilians of Padangnese ethnicity. So, no matter what your religion is, as long as you are of a Padangnese origin there shall be no antipathy. Ethnic solidarity is very much a norm here.”

Similar to Anajmi, Ade is a middle class, entrepreneur, living in Solok (West Sumatera), a district outside Padang. Although Ade lives in a district smaller than Padang, the

41

civilians living there are also well open-minded. She also stated that she has never experienced any negativity due to her religious belonging. She was an Ahmadiyah living in Solok since she was born and until now no substantial negative vibe had ever been inflicted upon her. Ade point out,

“In here Ahmadiyah people are safe. This is possibly because of our Mayor’s solidarity gesture which set a great example to the society by doing his Friday prayers at our mosque, and instructed for the people in Padang particularly and West Sumatera generally, to be harmonious with each other regardless their religious sects.”

Another interview was with Tamarinah, the mubalig’s (the imam) wife. In this case she is considered living in a lesser socio-economic status than Anajmi and Ade’s Family, as her source of living is dependent through the community and her residential place was always behind the mosque. Moreover, the imam (her husband) cannot perform any other job outside the mosque. Therefore, they cannot earn extra money and depended just of the community’s payment. When asked about the experiences of being an Ahmadiyah and the degree of the impact upon the declaration of the state and religious decree, she felt she was not affected at all. She received pleasant vibes and maintains civilized social relations with her non-Ahmadi neighbours and acquaintances. Also, unlike cases in West Java, Tamarinah received no such antipathy when picking up her kids at school. There is no differential way of behaviour among non-Ahmadi towards the Ahmadi. Tamarinah stated,

“I have never experienced any negative gesture regarding my religious belonging. The people in my daughter’s school were very nice; they never ask or mention anything about my religion. I think Padangnese put a high value on ethnicity bond. They know I am a Padangnese, therefore I am part of their family.”

Because the lajnah in Padang did not provide me any under-aged, low-income interviewee, I settled instead to interview Tamarinah’s daughter. However, her daughter seemed really insecure of answering my questions so she was represented by her mother. As Tamarinah previously mentioned, their family along with the experiences of her daughter, were never faced with any negativity or any such harmful attitude regarding their religious belonging. Whether in school or any social environment, her daughter

42

has a stable and pleasant relationship with her non-Ahmadiyah friends and teachers.

3.4 Concluding remarksThe above narratives showed significant contrasts, between provinces (West Java and West Sumatera), across cities (Bogor, Depok and Padang) and within villages (inskirts and outskirts of Manis lor). My main argument for this chapter is that the women and girls’ intersectional identity reveals that it does not always inflict them with discrimination (otherization) but it also may give them protection. In other words, the elements of ethnicity, occupation, class, and age may be the ingredient of discrimination for some but not necessarily an essential constituent for others. This statement shall be elaborated below.

The condition in Bogor, revealed that Ahmadiyah girls were more discriminated than the upper/middle class women, regardless their class and ethnicity. And, middle class women were more discriminated than the upper class ones. Which signify that upper class women were not discriminated on the basis of their religion, but instead were protected due to their class identity. Whereas, the condition in Manis lor still showed that girls were discriminated more than the women, but only to those living in the outskirts area. Because, on the contrary, all Ahmadiyah females living in the inskirts (regardless their age and class) were not discriminated due to their religion. But, instead of class identity, the latter Ahmadiyah females were protected due to their occupational identity. And similarly, the condition in Padang showed that the interviewed Ahmadiyah females also did not face discrimination on the basis of religious belonging. But instead of occupation, their protection was on the basis of ethnic solidarity.

Factors such as: young age and middle/low class status became the acknowledged pivotal points of intersectional discrimination in Bogor and outskirts of Manis lor. While factors such as occupational identity and ethnic belonging were the pivotal points of protection for those living in Padang and in the inskirts of Manis lor. The next chapter will bring together the findings and use the concepts and theoretical tools to shed light on their significance.

43

Chapter 4 Debunking intersectionality: Discrimination, protection, or the ordinary fashion

4.1 IntroductionThis chapter brings together the findings and use the concepts and theoretical tools to analyze the intersectional experience of Ahmadiyah women and girls in Bogor and Manis lor (West Java) and Padang (West Sumatera). It will begin by elaborating four intersectional identities (age, class, ethnic identity and occupational kinship) through which will either inflict them with discrimination or provide them with protection.

Furthermore, the chapter then will respond to section I.3 in order to show that not all Ahmadiyah women and girls were affected by both the religious and state decrees. In regard to the dynamism of the decrees, some may experience discrimination, some may receive protection, but others may undergo the standard ordinary fashion in which some women or girls were not affected at all. This is due to the fact that, discrimination has many levels; it is subject to the encounter between the Ahmadiyah and the rest of the community. Therefore, it depends on how it is expressed, by whom, and against whom (Saffron et al. 2002: 624). It is not only depends on who is from the Ahmadiyah, but also who is from the Muslim Majority.

Ahmadiyah girls face discriminationAccording to the six Ahmadiyah girls interviewed, there were three girls that expressed their anxiety of being discriminated due to their membership as an Ahmadiyah. Uniquely, all three girls reside in the West Java Province, where two of them: Arin and Tori reside in Bogor City and Lani in the outskirts of Manis lor.

The reason I congregate Arin and Tori’s description, is because all three have the same pattern of episodes. They are middle class children living in Bogor whereby they all attend public prestigious school with other Muslim majority children. They all stated that they were mostly discriminated while attending school or university. The declaration of both decrees highlighted their religious belonging through which effected their social life, and consequently singled them out of peer-socialization.

44

Although the two of them confessed that there were no physical or sexual assault, they received other forms of discrimination. Arin receives preaches from her religious education teacher and which persuaded her to leave Ahmadiyah. And Tori experienced the hostility conveyed by the Student Body Council which frequently made public oration to prejudicially label them as “haram” and made open threats to “banish” them. Having to receive such foul antipathy, all their friends kept their distance, moreover, some may even threatened them with prank calls. It is unfortunate that these girls were previously good friends with their so-called current enemies. And, the fact that they are all of the same ethnicity with their ex-friends did not perceive to do any good at all. But, fascinatingly enough their male Ahmadiyah friends also receive the same loathe, thus the discrimination is equal to male and female.

Lani is a slightly different story. She lives at the outskirts of Manis Lor Village, where the risk of being attacked is high. Furthermore, the fact that less Ahmadiyah members resides in her address made her life as an Ahmadiyah more tough. Compared to Arin and Tori, the hostilities that Lani experienced was more severe. Due to the frequent intensities of verbal abuse, not only from school teachers and fellow school peers, but her neighbors and social environment often gave her a hard time.

What is intriguing is the fact that all three children admit that their mother or grandmother did not receive the same intense verbal abuse as what they have experienced. They all agreed that this is due to the inhibition of respect that the society in West Java still reserves for the elderly.

This discrimination against the Ahmadiyah youth in Bogor and outskirts of Manis lor indicates that there is a power dynamic which is owned by the majority and inflicted upon them as the minority, which not only refers to religious belonging but most significantly age wise. Foucault mentioned that power is everywhere down to the smallest detail, this reflects significantly as to what the three girls experienced. The people who attack or verbally abused them were Muslim majority civilians and ranged from all ages, youth to adults, and of different personhood.

But, moreover the fact that adult Muslim majority seemed more intensely discriminating the Ahmadiyah youth than to the older Ahmadiyah women, signifies that there is a noteworthy power relation regarding age factor, where the adult Muslim majority may exercise their power more to the youngsters instead to older Ahmadiyah women due to ‘respect’. Which connote, that respect is only

45

applied to older people and less applied to the young. Furthermore, gender and ethnicity was not regarded as significant, in view of the fact that there were no differential reaction between Ahmadiyah male-child to the female ones. And, the fact that they all came from the same ethnicity did not submit the Ahmadiyah girls to any ethnic-advantage of mercy.

Ahmadiyah women face discrimination Another set of Ahmadiyah female which receives discriminations are the adults, they are Rahmani and Nasratunnisa from Bogor city and Muty from the outskirts of Manis lor village. Rahmani and Nasratunnisa are both middle income women living in Bogor City and Muty is of a lower income, and all of them came from the same ethnicity. Although Rahmani and Nasratunnisa are considered in a more advantaged social economy position than Muty, but all receive discrimination regardless, although Muty encountered a more severe form.

For Mrs. Nasratunnisa, she experienced being excluded from social organization activities in her neighbourhood, this happened after the decree was announced. In addition to that, shockingly her uncle’s grave was forced to be dug out by the cemetery guard, due to their belief as Ahmadiyah.

Similarly, Mrs. Rahmani also was faced with a sense of discrimination. She was fired from her previous job, as a dorm manager in a Muslim majority boarding school due to her belief as an Ahmadiyah. Her dismissal was enacted not long after the decree was announced. Her employer’s justification stated that they were afraid her employment in the school would ruin the school’s image, hence they need to dismiss her for prestige reasons. This is most definitely unfair, owing to the fact that Mrs. Rahmani’s work ethics evaluations was always above average.

Basically, Mrs. Muty’s experience was almost the same as Lani’s experience, this is because Mrs. Muty is Lani’s mother. Although Mrs. Muty encounter several types of discrimination, such as: property destruction, verbal abuse, and so on and so forth, she mentioned that the intensity of her discrimination is not as severe as what Lani had experienced. She added that she was glad of the fact that she is a woman. This is because the male Ahmadiyah in the outskirts of Manis lor receives more physical violence than the female.

46

These form of discrimination escalates to something beyond loathing, it is what Peleg may call as otherization. Mrs. Nasratunnisa, Mrs. Rahmani and Mrs. Muty were otherized by Muslim majority civilians who were greatly influenced by the statements issued in both decrees.

If the aforementioned Ahmadiyah girls suffered from power relations due to their age, Mrs. Rahmani was subjected to power relations in the work place, whereby her employment was forced to be sacrificed in order to maintain the school’s image. While, Mrs. Nasratunnisa was deliberately otherize and socially excluded from peer-community (neighbourhood) as well as public-community (the right to use social space, i.e burial ground).

Class identity overrides religious belongingRetna and Mersi both live in Bogor city and are both women of the upper class status. Like Mrs. Nasratunnisa, they also worked for the government but of a much higher position than her. Interestingly, when asked about experience of discrimination, both replied that they have never experienced direct negativity regarding their religious belonging. The only negativity they have encountered, for example, Mrs. Retna heard that the Imam in the mosque at her complex was preaching bad comments to her neighbours. While, Mrs. Mersi heard that one of her neighbour thought she prayed differently than any other Muslim, when her friends heard this they defended Mrs. Mersi, although they are non-Ahmadiyahs. But, overall they expressed that there was no differential points of behaviour at all regarding pre and post the decrees. There were never discriminated before and they stayed in that manner even after both decrees was highlighted everywhere. They were good friends with their fellow non-Ahmadiyah before and they are still good friends with them now.

Mrs. Retna and Mersi said that the possible reason of this advantaged condition is due to their asset of coming from a more educated and elitist crowd of environment, where they respect you beyond the identity of your religious belonging. These women are one of the few Ahmadiyah women living in Bogor who undergo the standard ordinary fashion where they were not effected at all by both decrees. This experience signifies how upper class overrides religious belonging. Due to their identity as an upper class escaped them from being discriminated.

47

Ethnic solidarity overrides religious belongingFollowing the narrative experience of Retna and Mersi as one the few fortunate Ahmadiyah women who are free from discrimination, the women and girls living in Padang (West Sumatera) also shares the same advantage. But the reason of their desirable condition is due to the ethnic solidarity that the people of West Sumatera must abide by. It was mentioned repeatedly by Anajmi, Ade, Tamarinah and Muthia about this norm of solidarity that must be applied to all Padangnese. This ethnic bonding is like familial bonding, and serves them to take care of each other, therefore disregard everything that may disturb the bonding and treat each other good, for the perseverance of the ethnic bonding.

Anajmi, Ade and Tamarinah are Ahmadiyah women and girls that currently live in Padang. But, for Muthia, she is a special case. She is a Padangnese living in Depok (West Java) due to educational purpose. Muthia’s case is unique, because she was discriminated by her fellow Muslim majority friends and professors at her University after the announcement of the decree. But, fortunately she was protected and even comforted by her fellow Padangnese peers, from the Minangkabau Student Union. They protected and helped Muthia in the spirit of ethnic solidarity, even though they are non-Ahmadiyah. This bonding and solidarity is highly exclusive, in the sense that when Muthia requested the student union to also give protection to her fellow Javanese Ahmadiyah friend they refuse and said that this bonding is applied to Padangnese only.

This narrative highlights a definite style of interaction where connectivity is highly exercised. Suad Joseph mentioned that connectivity produce relationships where persons would feel a part of significant others (Joseph 1994: 55), in this case, a part of an ethnic kinship. This process of connectivity functioned to produce persons linked to, responsible to and prioritizing the community (Joseph 1993: 479), in this sense, the Minangkabau Student Union functioned to be responsible to give support regarding Muthia’s condition and prioritize Muthia as part of the Padangnese community regardless her religious belonging. Connectivity, thus, reinforced solidarity where it was necessary for the protection of Muthia. This then proves that ethnic solidarity overrides religious belonging.

48

Occupational solidarity overrides religious belonging

Mrs. Minah and Dheseh are mother and daughter living at the inskirts of Manis lor. Unlike Mrs. Muty and Lani, their experience was quite the contrary. Due to their fortunate living condition, where they are located in a place of 75% Ahmadiyah residential compound, they were discharge of any forms of attacks as experienced by fellow Ahmadiyah living at the outskirts of the village. In addition to that, Mrs. Minah mentioned about her farming communities which is also her occupational community, she noted that although this community consists of non-Ahmadiyah women and men, yet all her life she and her family had never been mistreated nor discriminated in regard to their religious belonging. She explained that the occupational bonding is so tight that solidarity is one of its focal points. Mrs. Minah added that her relationship with fellow non-Ahmadiyah farmers is cooperative because the value of cooperation and integration is very valuable in order to support each other in the farming system.

This is also an example of a social interaction where connectivity is exercised, through which produce relationship where Mrs. Minah and her family (including Dheseh) feels a part of significant others (Joseph 1994: 55), in this case, a part of an occupational kinship. Similar like the aforementioned ethnic kinship, there is also a process of connectivity functioned by the farmer’s community which prioritize the importance of occupational kinship (Joseph 1993: 479) which overirdes the religious belonging owned by Mrs. Minah (and her family). This is due to Mrs Minah’s statement which mentioned the importance of the farming kinship, due to the value of cooperation and integration which is valued very highly in order to support each other within the farmer’s community. Connectivity, thus, reinforced an occupational solidarity where a solidarity gesture is considered necessary due to Mrs. Minah’s functional position within the given professional group. Thus to ‘lose’ her resource might jeopardize the whole farming system.

I have argued in this section that different Ahmadiyah women encountered different types of experiences. I showed it through emphasis regarding the intersectionality of their identity. Therefore concludes that some Ahmadiyah women were inflicted with discrimination due to religious belonging, they are middle class women and girls living in Bogor and low class women and girls living in the outskirts

49

of Manis lor. Contrastly, some were provided with protection due to ethnic belonging and occupational identity. They are all Ahmadiyah women and girls in Padang, of Padangnese descend and those who live in the inskirts of Manis lor. And lastly, some just undergo the same orderly fashion, they are the upper class women living Bogor. These women did not face any behavioural changes acted towards them either pre or post the decrees due to their class belonging.

4.2 An intersectional analysis of the Ahmadiyah women and girls’ experience in Bogor and Manis lor (West Java) and Padang (West Sumatera)

This section expands the homogenized perception of discrimination against Ahmadiyah women. Although previous investigation conducted by the National Commission give evidence of several gender-based abuses (verbal and sexual) against Ahmadiyah women in West Nusa Tenggara, yet, this research proves that not all Ahmadiyah women experienced sexual abuses. Furthermore this research explored the different experiences of Ahmadiyah women and girls’ in Bogor and outskirts of Manis lor (West Java) regarding discrimination and experiences of Ahmadiyah women and girls in Padang (West Sumatera) and inskirts of Manis lor (West Java) regarding protection. The disparity between these areas showed that there are substantial different experiences of different Ahmadiyah women based on each individual’s personhood.

The race, class, gender perspective represents a rapidly emerging area of scholarship that attempts to address social problems and to represent the interests and voices of a vast array of marginalized people (Sokoloff and Dupont 2005: 39). This paper endeavours to inscribe such social problems and attempt to represent the voices of the ‘other’ female experiences within an already marginalized group, in this case among the Ahmadiyah women themselves.

Moreover this research paper signifies its statement of social problem represented by the intersectionality of different Ahmadiyah women. This perspective indicates five facets of the Ahmadiyah women’s personal identity which address their intersecting points of discrimination or protection, they are: religious belonging, ethnic identity, age, gender, and class.

50

My preconceived notion assumes that all Ahmadiyah women and girls experienced discrimination. In terms of ethnic belonging, Ahmadiyah women and girls residing in Padang will be more discriminated than the ones domiciled in Bogor and Manis Lor (West Java) due to the Muslim majority’s regulative religious tradition in Padang. In regard to age, younger Ahmadiyah women will be more discriminated than the older ones. Also, Ahmadiyah women will tend to receive multiple types of discrimination than the Ahmadiyah men, specifically sexual harassments (The Indonesian National Commission of Violence against Women 2008: 10). And lastly, Ahmadiyah women of a higher-income will be less discriminated than the ones of a lower-income. However, the empirical findings disclose some contrasting unique actuality unlike the initial premise aforementioned and assumed. Below are more emphasis of the findings through which shall be analyzed accordingly.

Power and identity politics: who is included and who is excluded?

This section attempts to elaborate the relationship between power and identity politics. In regard to this paper, power is exercised by several actors in which certain identities are interplayed. This responds to Foucault’s understanding that power is everywhere, therefore denies that ‘there is a primary and fundamental principle of power which dominates society down to the smallest detail’ (Sawicki 1986: 25). In regard to the findings, specific exemplifications of heterogeneous power relations go along the lines of personal identities, such as: religious belonging, class status, age group, ethnic identity and occupation. Which confirmed Hall’s argument that identities emerge within the play of specific modalities of power (Hall 1996: 4). These modalities of power are owned by the Muslim majority and exercised against the Ahmadiyah group as the religious minority.

The several ‘powerful’ actors ranged between macro level society (MUI and state government) to the micro level society (Muslim majority members, upper class citizen, adults, persons of certain ethnicity and occupation). These actors construct specific identities to define whether a person is included or excluded. According to the findings, inclusion in this regard benefits certain persons to the advantage of being protected. And, exclusion will cause to inflict discrimination. The data gathered showed that, protection and less discrimination was more provided to

51

Ahmadiyah female of an upper class status, a Padangnese ethnicity, an older age (above 18), and belonging to the farmers community.

Discrimination at the intersections: otherizationAnalyzing the situation of Ahmadiyah women and girls from an intersectional perspective one must acknowledge that we all have shifting and multiple identities (Abeysekera in Bartolomei et al. 2003: 90). Through which, at different times, different aspects of personal identities are put to the fore and do not react uniformly with different forms of discrimination (Bartolomei et al. 2003: 90).

Due to the complexity of intersectionality, this research focused on one of Leslie McCall’s approach, she introduced the intercategorical complexity (McCall 2005: 1773) to show that there are relationships of inequality among already constituted social groups. The main task of this approach is to explicate those relationships and treat categories (religious belonging, gender, ethnicity, class and age) as ‘anchor’ points (Ibid: 1785).

The findings revealed that discrimination were present to some Ahmadiyah females. They are the middle income Ahmadiyah women and girls living in Bogor and low income Ahmadiyah woman and girl living in the outskirts of Manis lor. The girls in Bogor and outskirts of Manis lor encountered discrimination due to their religious belonging and age group. While the adult Ahmadiyah women in Bogor experienced discrimination due to religious belonging and rank position within their occupation. For the woman in Manis lor, discrimination was inflicted also due to religious belonging.

Anchor points such as class status intersects only to the middle income women in Bogor, where they are either dismissed from their profession or was being scorned and cornered during working hours. While, age was a significant factor for all girls in Bogor and Manis lor. However, the intersectionality of gender and ethnic identity was not put to the fore, the girls admit that the Ahmadiyah boys experienced the same discrimination as them, thus gender is not an issue here. Interestingly, the women in Manis lor stated that physical violence in the outskirts of Manis lor targeted only to Ahmadiyah males, hence the femaleness of women is not significant to discrimination. Ethnic identity as local Sundanese6 was also ignored, considering the fact that the Ahmadiyah women and girls

6 Local term for West Javanese

52

were of the same ethnicity as the Muslim majority which discriminated them. The complexity of intersectionality provide different dynamism to different Ahmadiyah women, some may be otherized as elaborated above, but some may be protected as further explained below.

Connectivity through intersectionality: protectionThe term intersectionality has always been associated with discrimination, otherization and oppression. Originally coined by Kimberle Crenshaw, intersectionality was intended to address the multiple dimension’s of a black women’s experiences and struggles (Davis 2007: 2). The methodology of intersectionality is currently known to look at how different aspects of identity contributes to shape and add to the oppression of women (Bunch 2002: 114).

Recognizing that different Ahmadiyah women and girls in Bogor, Manis lor and Padang also have shifting and multiple identities, serves them similar intersectional reactions which some encounters as discrimination, however, for some Ahmadiyah women and girls living in Padang (West Sumatera) and in the inskirts of Manis lor, they encountered something of the contrary. The findings reveal that Ahmadiyah women and girls in Padang (and of Padangnese descend) were not subjected to any form of discrimination based on their religion. The interviewees stated that the reason for this is due to ethnic solidarity among the Padangnese which comply the Padangnese citizens to prioritize ethnic kinship above other factors. Therefore, unlike them in Bogor and outskirts of Manis lor, the Padangnese Ahmadiyah women and girls benefit protection due to ethnic solidarity. Similarly, an Ahmadiyah woman living in the inskirts of Manis lor receive the same treatment of solidarity but in the form of occupational solidarity through her profession as a farmer. This is due to the importance of her significant value of resource to support the cooperation and integration of the farmer’s community.

This solidarity style of interaction necessitates neither gender specific nor religious belonging (Joseph 1993: 453). The intercategorical complexity of intersectionality which constitutes the women’s multiple identities (religious belonging, gender, class, and age) were not treated as specific anchor points of discrimination. Rather, their other categorical identity was put to the fore (ethnicity and occupation), hence facilitate them with the advantage of being protected from discrimination.

53

In sum, connective relationship was established due to the Ahmadiyah women’s intersecting identities of either being a Padangnese or a farmer. This connective relationship linked one’s sense of self with the self of another such that the security, identity, integrity, dignity and self-worth where one is tied to the actions of the other (Joseph 1994: 55).

4.3 Concluding remarksI have argued in this chapter that not all Ahmadiyah women and girls were discriminated against on the basis of their religion, let alone affected by the fatwa or the state decree. The analysis showed that age and class along with religious belonging were sources of discrimination. While ethnic identity react differently depending on each ethnicity, in this case, the Padangnese benefited more protection on the basis of solidarity while Ahmadiyah women living in Bogor and in the outskirts of Manis lor were more discriminated. Also, another form of solidarity on the basis of occupation contributes to the conception of connective relationship for Ahmadiyah females in the inskirts of Manis lor.

In sum, the interplay between power and identity poli-tics facilitated the behavior of inclusion and exclusion. In-clusion in this matter refers to connective relationships in which it produced protection, and exclusion refers to dis-criminative conducts that produced otherization.

54

Chapter 5 Conclusion

Researches regarding Ahmadiyah females are rare. Furthermore, even if researched, it has often been published in homogeneous reports about their discrimination on the basis of religious belonging and gender with unitary framework of analysis. Juxtaposing the aforementioned existing research about Ahmadiyah females, this paper explored Ahmadiyah women and girls from Bogor and Manis lor (West Java Province) and Padang (West Sumatera Province) with a different approach. Instead of focusing only on their discrimination along the lines of religious belonging and gender, this research has induced other intersecting points such as: ethnic belonging, class and age. But, while some experienced discrimination, this research elucidated that some experienced protection. Recognizing this social reality, the research highlighted the different experiences faced by different Ahmadiyah women and girls belonging to the same religious minority group. Therefore, the paper’s subject matter in scrutinizing the intersectionality of multiple identities owned by different Ahmadiyah females was established, which produced different consequences.

The research explored the indicated matter, by going to the field equipped with several research sub-questions under an umbrella question which inquired into the ways the intersection of religious belonging, ethnic identity, age and class bring about different experiences of Ahmadiyah women and girls sharing the same gender and religious belonging but differs in terms of ethnic belonging, age and class. I answered the umbrella research question by using selected concepts as analytical tools. The concepts are power, discrimination, otherization, politics of identity, intersectionality, connectivity, ethnic solidarity and occupational solidarity. These conceptions were used to analyze the findings through which the paper’s intention to reveal the intersectional experiences faced by different Ahmadiyah females differently were facilitated.

The methods I used to assemble the data were a dialogic group and 37 individual interviews, with the addition of telephone interviews. The series of interviews were conducted through critical inquiries by using open-ended questions. These types of interviews not only help determined the research focus but also contributed to exploring a new topic in depth (Laws et al. 2003: 286-298) –

55

‘connectivity’ (Joseph 1993: 453). Administering the interviews was not smooth sailing, factors such as: time constraints, bureaucracy, distant locations, financial issues, language barrier, clash of schedules, and so on and so forth were present as significant obstacles. However, despite the difficult circumstances aforementioned, I managed to obtain significant information through 15 Ahmadiyah females out of the 37 being interviewed.

Based on the findings, the fieldwork revealed that all Ahmadiyah women and girls do not consistently face discrimination on the basis of religious belonging. The intersections of their multiple identities coincide with various dynamics of power relations, including the power to define who is included and who is excluded. This construction of identity difference is the production of identity politics exercised by the powerful representatives of the Muslim majority group (MUI, the government, and other Muslim majority citizens). On that account, the intersectional dynamism of identity politics subjected some Ahmadiyah females to exclusion in terms of discrimination, although some were treated with inclusion in terms of protection.

According to the narratives, in Bogor, Ahmadiyah girls experienced more direct verbal discrimination than the upper/middle class Ahmadiyah women, regardless of their class and ethnicity. According to the girls’ narration, this is due to the inhibition of respect that the society in West Java still reserves for the elderly. Additionally, middle class Ahmadiyah women were more discriminated against than the upper class ones (in working environments). Therefore, the upper class Ahmadiyah women were the only interviewees who did not experience discrimination on the basis of religion. Protection to the latter Ahmadiyah females was due to their class identity. In sum, the Bogor case study showed that class identity for the adult Ahmadiyah females played a role in discrimination, whereas age group played a role for the younger Ahmadiyah members.

Similarly, cases of discrimination in the outskirts of Manis lor was more direct for the girls, although overall, discriminative conducts was significantly more severe in comparison to the Ahmadiyah in Bogor. Because narration of the interviewees living in the outskirts of Manis lor stated that, not only were they verbally abused, but armed attacks and murder threats also occurred, which were not experienced by Ahmadiyah women in Bogor. On the contrary, those living in the inskirts of Manis lor were not discriminated against due to their religious belonging.

56

Instead of class identity, they received protection through occupational solidarity as part of the farming community.

The same condition was also experienced by the Ahmadiyah women in Padang. The Padangnese Ahmadiyah women reported that they never experienced discrimination on the basis of religion, but instead on class identity or occupational belonging. The women in Padang received protection due to the Padangnese traditional norm of ethnic solidarity. This form of solidarity was also confirmed by one of the unique sample interviewees, who lives in Depok (West Java) but is of a Padangnese descend, where she was protected by her fellow Padangnese Muslim majority peers, while being discriminated by Muslim majority of a different ethnicity.

The use of intersectionality helps the analysis of this research to look at the Ahmadiyah women as different individual beings with different personhood, although sharing the same gender and religious belonging. Intersectionality in this regard extends the homogenized perception, which assumes all Ahmadiyah women experienced discrimination. Furthermore, intersectionality also facilitates the analysis of the findings to dissociate from the common perspective that is fixated to equalize the Ahamdiyah females as potential targets or victims of sexual mistreatments. On that account, the findings showed that not all Ahmadiyah females were discriminated, and according to the narratives gathered, none experienced sexual mistreatments.

My main argument is that, while intersectionality may explain the discrimination experienced by some Ahmadiyah females, it also provides an explanation to the protection received by other Ahmadiyah females. In terms of discrimination on the base of religion, the findings showed that not all Ahmadiyah females experienced it. Points of discrimination were more intense for those from a West Javanese ethnicity and those living in the outskirts of Manis lor, middle/lower class, 18 or under 18 years old, and working in an individualist occupational environment. While, points of protection were given to those who shared the same ethnic identity or occupational belonging, regardless of their class, age, gender and religious belonging. The relationship between power and the politics of identity facilitates modalities to inflict discrimination, and thus placed the females discriminated against as the ‘other’. While, connective relationships through occupational and ethnic solidarity, accommodates Ahmadiyah females in the inskirts of Manis lor and Padang

57

to the privilege of being protected from discrimination based on religion.

In sum, this research has focused on how different Ahmadiyah females experienced discrimination or protection differently. The fieldwork and theoretical framework has provided the paper significantly, and thus helped the analysis to be more critical. Interviewing different groups of Ahmadiyah females from different background and personhood helped me open the ‘box’ of Ahmadiyah women and discharge them of being homogenized. Releasing them from uniformity, therefore recognizes them as a fragmented group along the lines of ethnic belonging, class position, and age group. The information gathered from different Ahmadiyah females enables one to understand a more nuanced social reality and experiences of different Ahmadiyah females, where this paper significantly showed that intersectional experiences does not always inflict discrimination but also protection. Hence this paper contributes to a theoretically sound understanding of the social reality and experiences of different Ahmadiyah females, therefore achieved to produce a theoretical innovation in regard to the employment of the concept of intersectionality.

58

References

Antara. (2008). “Govt Hopes to End Contention by Recently Issued Joint Decree.” Retrieved 26th October, 2009, from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/06/10/govt-hopes-end-contention-recently-issued-joint-decree.html.

Anwar, M. Syafi'i. (2009). “Conservatism and Politics of Fatwa.” Retrieved 26th October, 2009, from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/02/13/conservatism-and-politics-fatwa.html.

Avonius, Leena. (2008). “The Ahmadiyya & Freedom of Religion in Indonesia.” ISIM Review 22: 48-49.

Bartolomei, Linda and Pittaway, Elizabeth Emma (2003). “Who Am I? Identity and citizenship in Kakuma refugee camp in northern Kenya.” Society for International Development 46(3): 87-93.

Beland, Daniel and Randall Hansen. (2000). “Reforming the French Welfare State: Solidarity, Social Exclusion, and the Three Crises of Citizenship.” West European Politics 23 (1) pp. 51.

Brayton, J. (1997). “What Makes Feminist Research Feminist? The Structure of Feminist Research within the Social Sciences.” Retrieved 24th May, 2009, from http://www.unb.ca/PAR-L/win/feminmethod.htm.

Bunch, Charlotte. (2002). “Human Rights at the Intersection of Race and Gender.” in Women at the Intersection - Indivisible Rights, Identities and Oppressions. Centre for Women’s Global Leadership. pp.111-119.

Case, K. & Fair, R. (2007). “Principles of Economics.” Retrieved 24th May, October, 2009 from http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/9021.

Davis, Kathy. (2007). “Intersectionality as a Buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful.” Feminist Theory, pp.1-15.

Dewi, Mariani. (2008). “Ahmadiyah Women Share Ordeal.” Retrieved 6th October, 2009, from

59

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/05/07/ahmadiyah-women-share-ordeal.html.

Dyson, S. (1994). “Interviewing by Conversation.” Sociology Review 3 (4): 21.

Fiske, Susan T., Monica Lin, and Steven L. Neuberg. (1999). “The Continuum Model: Ten Years Later.” Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. Shelly Chaiken and Yaakov Trope (eds). New York. Guilford Press. pp. 37-72.

Hall, Stuart. (1996). “Who Needs an Identity?” Questions of Cultural Identity. Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay (eds). London. SAGE Publications. pp.1-17.

Hall, Stuart. (1987). “Politics of Identity, in Culture, Identity and Politics: Ethnic Minorities in Britiain.” Terence Ranger, Yunas Samad and Ossie Stuart (eds). Aldershot. Avebury. pp.129-135.

Harding, Sandra. (1987). “Introduction: Is There A Feminist Method?” Indiana. University Press. pp. 9.

Horvatich, Patricia. (1997). “The Ahmadiyya Movement in Simunul: Islamic Reform in One Remote and Unlikely Places.” Islam in an Era of Nation State: Politics and Religious Renewal in Muslim Southeast Asia. Robert W. Hefner and Patricia Horvatich (eds.). USA. University of Hawaii Press. pp.188.

Hosen, Nadirsyah. (2004). “Behind the scenes: Fatwas of majelis ulama Indonesia (1975-1998).” Journal of Islamic Studies 15 (2): 147.

Human Rights Watch. (2009). “Pekerja di dalam Bayang-Bayang Pelecehan dan Eksploitasi terhadap Pekerja Rumah Tangga Anak Indonesia di Indonesia.” New York. Human Rights Watch. pp. 14.

International Crisis Group. (2008). “Indonesia: Implications of The Ahmadiyah Decree.” Crisis Group Asia Briefing 78. Jakarta/Brussels. pp. 1-3.

Joseph, Suad. (1993). “Connectivity and Patriarchy among Urban Working-Class Arab Families in Lebanon.” Ethos 21 (4). Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association. pp. 452-479.

60

Joseph, Suad. (1994). “Brother/Sister Realtionships: Connectivity, Love, and Power in the Reproduction of Patriarchy in Lebanon.” American Ethnologist 21 (1). Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association. pp. 55.

Karlsen, Saffron and James Y. Nazroo. (2002). “Relation Between Racial Discrimination, Social Class, and Health Among Ethnic Minority Groups.” American Journal of Public Health 92 (4). pp. 624.

Kenneth J. Arrow. (1971). “The Theory of Discrimination.” Industrial Relations Sector. Working Paper 30A. Princeton University. pp.1.

Krieger, Linda Hamilton. (1995). “The Content of Our Categories: A Cognitive Bias Approach to Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity.” Stanford Law Review 47 (6). pp. 1188.

Lather, Patricia Ann. (1991). “Getting smart: feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern.” New York. Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc. pp. 63.

Laws, Sophie, Caroline Harper & Rachel Marcus. (2003). “Introduction: Why Use Research in Development Work?” Research for Development: A Practical Guide Ch. 1 pp. 3-24. London. Sage & Save the Children. pp. 286-298.

Lemish, Dafna. (2002). “The Whore and The Other: Israeli Images of Female Immigrants from the Former USSR.” Gender and Society 14 (2): 333-349.

Makkonen, Timo. (2002). “Multiple, Compound and

Intersectional Discrimination: Bringing the experiences of the most marginalized to the fore.” Institute for Human Rights. Åbo Akademi University. pp. 1–5.

Masrur, Masad. (2008). “Ahmadiyah dan Problem Kebebasan Beragama.” Personal Blog. Retrieved 4th September, 2009, from http://masadmasrur.blog.co.uk/2008/07/04/ahmadiyah-dan-problem-kebebasan-beragama-4401262/.

McCall, Leslie. (2005). “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30 (3). The University of Chicago. pp. 1771-1787.

61

Narendra, CH. (2008). “Indonesia: Religious Intolerance and Discrimination an Ongoing Concern.” Retrieved 17th May, 2009, from http://www.mynews.in/fullstory.aspx?storyid=2489.

Nielsen, Francois. (1985). “Toward a Theory of Ethnic Solidarity in Modern Societies.” American Sociological Review 50 (2): 135-136.

Patung. (2006). “Islamic Laws in Padang.” Retrieved 24th September, 2009, from http://www.indonesiamatters.com/824/islamic-laws-in-padang/.

Peleg, Ilan. (1994). “Otherness and Israel’s Arab Dilemma.” The

Other in Jewish thought and history: constructions of Jewish culture and identity. Laurence Jay Silberstein, Robert L. Cohn (eds). New York. NYU Press.

Reskin, Barbara F. (2000). “The Proximate Causes of Employment Discrimination.” Contemporary Sociology 29 (2): 319.

Ridarson Galingging. (2005). “MUI Fatwa Negates Freedom of Religion, Human Rights.” Retrieved 26th October, 2009, from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2005/08/12/mui-fatwa-negates-freedom-religion-human-rights.html.

Sawicki, Jana. (1986). “Foucault and Feminism: Toward a Politics

of Difference, Hypatia.” Motherhood and Sexuality 1(2): 18-25.

Sawicki, Jana. (1991). “Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power and the Body.” New York. Routledge, Chapman and Hill, Inc. pp. 20.

Shehada, Nahda. (1999). “Gender and Politics in Palestine: Discourse Analysis of the Palestinian Authority & Islamists.” Working Paper Series (307). The Hague. Institute of Social Studies. pp. 20.

Sokoloff, Natalie J. and Ida Dupont. (2005). “Domestic Violence at the Intersections of Race, Class, and Gender: Challenges and Contributions to Understanding Violence Against Marginalized Women in Diverse Communities.” Retrieved 2nd November, 2009, from http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/1/38.

62

The Indonesian National Commission of Violence Against Women. (2008). "Peluncuran Laporan Kondisi HAM Perempuan Ahmadiyah." Jakarta. Komnas Perempuan. pp. 5-23.

The Jakarta Post. (2009). “MUI’s Fatwa Encourage Use of Violence.” Retrieved 26th October, 2009, from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2005/08/01/mui039s-fatwa-encourage-use-violence.html.

Useem, Bert. (1980). “Solidarity Model, Breakdown Model, and

the Boston Anti-Busing Movement.” American Sociological Review 45 (3). American Sociological Association. pp. 357-369.

Woodward, Kathryn. (1997). “Concepts of Identity and Difference.” Identity and Difference: Culture, Media and Identities. Kathryn Woodward (ed.). London. SAGE Publications. pp.8-61.

Zulkarnain, Iskandar. (2008). “Ahmadiyah could be ‘tarekat’.” Retrieved 2nd September, 2009, from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/05/30/ahmadiyah-could-be-039tarekat039.html.

Appendices

Maps of Research Locale

Map 1 “Map of West Java Province”

Bogor city and Depok city

63

Map 2 “Map of West Java Province”

Manis lor village, Kuningan city

64

Map 3 “Map of West Sumatera Province”

Padang city

65

66

Interview questionsThis section will give knowledge to the reader regarding

the interview questions used to acquire information from 37 interviewees living in Bogor, Manis lor, (West Java) and Padang (West Sumatera). This section begins with the main research question, and followed by sub-sections representing the five intersectional element (religious belonging, gender, ethnic identity, class belonging, and age group) of the interviewees.

Main research question :How does the intersection of religious belonging, ethnic

identity, class belonging, and age group bring about different experiences of Ahmadiyah women and girls sharing the same gender and religious belonging but differ in terms of ethnic identity, age group and class belonging?

a. Religious BelongingResearch sub-question:How Ahmadiyah women experience different/similar social exclusion/discrimination from Muslim Majority women?

Interviews questions:a. Do feel offended by the religious and state decree

about Ahmadiyah?b. Do you feel different than the Muslim majority be-

liefs/group?c. How do you feel about the Muslim majority be-

liefs/group?d. Have you conduct any interactions with the

Muslim majority beliefs/group?e. How have those interactions been? Good or bad?f. Do you live in a mixed environment, with other

Muslim majority civilians?g. Do you have a good relationship with them?h. Have you ever been treated differently because

you are an Ahmadiyah?i. How do you think the Muslim majority group view

Ahmadiyah?j. Have you suffered any hostile implications regard-

ing the declaration of the two decrees?k. Who do you think is most responsible for attacks

agains your religious belongings?

67

l. As an Ahmadiyah women, have you ever experi-enced a different treatment in comparison to Muslim majority women?

m. As an Ahmadiyah women, have you ever experi-enced a different treatment in comparison to Muslim majority men?

b. GenderResearch sub-question:How Ahmadiyah women experience different/similar social exclusion/discrimination from Ahmadiyah men?

Interviews questions:a. In your point of view, how do the Muslim majority

men view women?b. Do you think you receive more dis/advantages of

being a woman?c. As a woman, have you ever experienced a different

treatment in comparison to the Ahmadiyah males?d. As a woman, have you ever experienced a different

treatment in comparison to the Muslim majority males?

e. How do Ahmadiyah males treat you?f. How do Muslim majority males, females or women

in your community treat you?g. Have you ever experience difficulty to socialize/in

employment/etc because of your gender?h. Or, is your gender identity led you to a more easy-

going life than the males?

c. Ethnic identityResearch sub-question:Whether/how Ahmadiyah women from Bogor (West Java) experience social exclusion/discrimination? How it is different/similar from Ahmadiyah women from Padang (West Sumatra)?

Interviews questions:a. Do you like being from Y ethnicity or do you wish

you were born as Z ethnicity?b. How do you view your ethnicity?c. How do your ethnic community view other ethni-

city?d. How do other ethnicity view your ethnicity?

68

e. How is your relationship with other Ahmadiyah coming from the same ethnicity?

f. Do you get along with the Muslim majority mem-bers coming from the same ethnicity?

g. Does your ethnicity give you great influence in be-ing included at society?

h. Or, does your ethnicity rather exclude you from in-tegrating with society?

i. How does the muslim majority, same ethnicity, men treat you

j. How does the muslim majority, same ethnicity, women treat you

k. How does the muslim majority, different ethnicity, men treat you

l. How does the muslim majority, different ethnicity, women treat you

m. How does the Ahmadiyah, same ethnicity, men being treated?

n. How does the Ahmadiyah, different ethnicity, men being treated?

o. How does the Ahmadiyah, different ethnicity, wo-men being treated?

p. Does muslim majority, same ethnicity, women re-ceived different treatment than you?

q. Does muslim majority, different ethnicity, women received different treatment than you?

r. Does muslim majority, same ethnicity, men re-ceived different treatment than you?

s. Does muslim majority, different ethnicity, men re-ceived different treatment than you?

d. Class belongingResearch sub-question:Whether/how low-income Ahmadiyah women experi-ence social exclusion/discrimination? How it is differ-ent/similar from the high-income Ahmadiyah women?

Interviews questions:

1. If you are a single adult working female: 1. Where do you work?2. How do you go to work? (private transportations

or public transportation?3. Do you consider being paid well there?4. How do you spend your leisure time?5. Do you live by yourself?

69

6. Are wages and salaries your only form of income?7. Are you in any way effected by the state and reli-

gious decrees?8. Have you ever experience discrimination due to

your religious belonging/gender/ethnicity/age? (at workplace, public space, etc)

9. How do single /married Ahmadiyah male from the same and different class/neighborhood/working place treat you?

10. How do single/married Ahmadiyah female from the same and different class/neighborhood/work-ing place treat you?

11. How do single/married muslim majority female from the same and different class/neighborhood/working place treat you?

12. How do single/married muslim majority male from the same and different class/neighborhood/working place treat you?

13. Do you consider yourself in a better position in comparison with other female (muslim majority, ahmadiyah, not working, married, etc)? how?

14. Do you consider yourself in a less favorable pos-ition in comparison with other female (muslim ma-jority, ahmadiyah, not working, married, etc)? how?

2. If you are a single adult not working female1. Where do you live?2. How do you support yourself financially?3. How do you spend your leisure time?4. Are you in any way effected by the state and reli-

gious decrees?5. Have you ever experience discrimination due to

your religious belonging/gender/ethnicity/age? (at workplace, public space, etc)

6. How do single/married Ahmadiyah male from the same and different class and neighborhood treat you?

7. How do single/married Ahmadiyah female from the same and different class and neighborhood treat you?

8. How do single/married Muslim majority female from the same and different class and neighbor-hood treat you?

9. How do single/married Muslim majority male from the same and different class and neighborhood treat you?

70

10. Do you consider yourself in a better position in comparison with other female (Muslim majority, Ahmadiyah, working, married, etc)? how?

11. Do you consider yourself in a less favorable pos-ition in comparison with other female (Muslim ma-jority, Ahmadiyah, working, married, etc)? how?

3. If you are a married adult working female1. Where do you work?2. How do you go to work? (private transportations

or public transportation?3. Do you consider being paid well there?4. How do you spend your leisure time?5. Where does your husband work?6. Are wages and salaries your only form of income?7. Are you in any way personally effected by the state

and religious decrees?8. Have you ever experience discrimination in any

other form of reasoning? (at workplace, public space, etc)

9. How do single/married Ahmadiyah male from the same and different class/neighborhood/working place treat you?

10. How do single/married Ahmadiyah female from the same and different class/neighborhood/work-ing place treat you?

11. How do single/married Muslim majority female from the same and different class/neighborhood/working place treat you?

12. How do single/married Muslim majority male from the same and different class/neighborhood/working place treat you?

13. Do you consider yourself in a better position in comparison with other women (Muslim majority, Ahmadiyah, not working, unmarried, etc)? why?

14. Do you consider yourself in a less favorable pos-ition in comparison with other women (Muslim majority, Ahmadiyah, not working, unmarried, etc)? why?

4. If you are a married adult not working female1. Where do you live?2. How do you support yourself financially?3. How do you spend your leisure time?4. Does your husband work5. where does he work

71

6. Is your husband’s wages and salaries your only form of income?

7. Are you in any way effected by the state and reli-gious decrees?

8. Have you ever experience discrimination in any other form of reasoning?

9. How do single/married Ahmadiyah male from the same and different class and neighborhood treat you?

10. How do single/married Ahmadiyah female from the same and different class and neighborhood treat you?

11. How do single/married Muslim majority female from the same and different class and neighbor-hood treat you?

12. How do single/married Muslim majority male from the same and different class and neighbor-hood treat you?

13. Do you consider yourself in a better position in comparison with other women (Muslim majority, Ahmadiyah, working, unmarried, etc)? why?

14. Do you consider yourself in a less favorable pos-ition in comparison with other women (Muslim majority, Ahmadiyah, working, unmarried, etc)? why?

5. If you are an Ahmadiyah girl-child1. Are you attending any form of schooling?

Higher-education?2. Are you taking any form of extra curricular

activities?3. Where do you go to school/University?4. How do you go to school? (public/private trans-

portations?5. Do you receive allowances from your parents?

How much?6. Do you do any part-time jobs?7. Are you aware that there’s a decree to ban your

religious belonging? How do you feel about that?

8. Have you ever wish you were a Muslim majority rather than an Ahmadiyah girl? Why?

9. Do you wish you come from X ethnicity instead of Z ethnicity?

10. Do you think you get more disadvantages/advantages through your age?

72

11. Do you receive different treatment from girls/boys coming from the Muslim majority group?

12. Do you receive different treatment from girls/boys coming from a different class?

13. Do you receive different treatment from girls/boys coming from different ethnicity?

14. Do you receive different treatment from male/female coming from different age?

e. Age groupResearch sub-question:Whether/how young Ahmadiyah women experience so-cial exclusion/discrimination? How it is different/simi-lar from the Adult Ahmadiyah women?

Interviews questions:

Child (a person who is 18 years old and below)1.Being young at age, do you think you are treated

differently?2.Have you experienced any form of discrimination

in relation to your young age?3.How do Ahmadiyah adults (men/women) treat

you?4.How do Ahmadiyah teenagers (girls/boys) treat

you?5.How do Muslim majority adults (men/women)

treat you?6.How do Muslim majority teenagers (men/women)

treat you?7.Was there ever any different of treatment between

you and other teenagers from the Muslim majority group?

8.Was there ever any different of treatment between you and the adults from the Muslim majority group?

9.Was there ever any different of treatment between you and other teenagers from the Ahmadiyah group?

10. Was there ever any different of treatment between you and other teenagers from the Ah-madiyah group?

11. Do you think you are disadvantaged in some way due to your young age?

73

12. Or, you are most likely advantaged in some way due to your young age?

Adult (a person who is above 18 years old)1. Being an adult, do you think you are treated differ-

ently?2. Have you experienced any form of discrimination

in relation to your age?3. How do Ahmadiyah adults (men/women) treat

you?4. How do Ahmadiyah teenagers (girls/boys) treat

you?5. How do Muslim majority adults (men/women)

treat you?6. How do Muslim majority teenagers (men/women)

treat you?7. Was there ever any different of treatment between

you and other teenagers from the Muslim majority group?

8. Was there ever any different of treatment between you and the adults from the Muslim majority group?

9. Was there ever any different of treatment between you and other teenagers from the Ahmadiyah group?

10. Was there ever any different of treatment be-tween you and other teenagers from the Ah-madiyah group?

11. Do you think you are disadvantaged in some way due to your age?

12. Or, you are most likely advantaged in some way due to your age?

74

75