Indonesia: State has no right to dictate religion, court hears in Blasphemy Law review

The Blasphemy Law was previously used to officially ban Ahmadiyah, a minority Islamic sect, because it held that its founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was the last [1] prophet of Islam, a claim that contradicts mainstream Muslim beliefs.

Ahmadiyya Times | News Staff | Int'l Desk
Source & Credit: The Jakarta Globe | March 12, 2010
By Camelia Pasandaran

Islamic scholars and religious experts on Friday demanded the Constitutional Court either revise or annul the 1965 Law on Blasphemy, arguing that the outdated law contradicted the democratic principle of freedom of religion.

“Religious bodies, like the MUI [Indonesian Council of Ulema] or PBNU [Nahdlatul Ulama National Board], can issue edicts about whether certain interpretations [of Islam] are misguided or otherwise. This is fine,” said Islamic scholar Ulil Abshar Abdalla, founder of the Liberal Islam Network (JIL), at Friday’s hearing of the judicial review into the 1965 Law on the Prevention of Blasphemy and Abuse of Religion.


“What is not right, however, is if the state is given the power to judge whether interpretations are right or wrong. It’s a problem when what should only be an edict is instead enforced by governments through law,” he added.

“Indonesia is not a country based purely on religion and must remain neutral. I would prefer it if the law was annulled altogether.”

Ulil’s arguments were met with jeers from those watching the proceedings, most of whom were members of conservative Muslim groups.

The review itself was filed by several rights activists and nongovernmental organizations. According to Choirul Anam, a lawyer representing the applicants, the law was unconstitutional because it only recognized six religions: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism.

The law bans people from publicly espousing other religious views or following nonmainstream interpretations of the state-sanctioned religions.

As was the case at the previous day’s hearing, more than 50 people from hardline Muslim groups protested outside the courtroom on Friday, declaring that they were against the judicial review.

Emha Ainun Najib, an Islamic scholar and poet who is also known as Cak Nun, proposed the law be revised but only after discussions involving not only theologians, but also cultural and other religious figures.

“Whether it’s annulled or not, the consequences could end in anarchy or, at least, disturbances in society,” he said. “The solution should not only be left in the hands of the Constitutional Court. We should discuss this first at a theological and cultural level.”

Emha said he trusted someone like Constitutional Court Chief Mahfud MD, who is currently presiding over the judicial review, to initiate the discussions on the issue.

Emha said that Islam preached peace and goodness, which was contrary to the law that he said had been used to threaten and hurt people.

The Blasphemy Law was previously used to officially ban Ahmadiyah, a minority Islamic sect, because it held that its founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was the last[1] prophet of Islam, a claim that contradicts mainstream Muslim beliefs.

During the court recess, the crowd of protesters could be heard calling both Ulil and Emha devils. “Kill them! Slash their necks!” the protesters screamed.

Security guards were forced to escort both men out of the court through a different exit to avoid the raucous crowd.

Mudji Sutrisno, a Catholic priest and lecturer, said it was not necessary for so-called deviant groups to be punished by the law. “The highest authority is God alone,” he said, adding that the 1965 law violated human rights because those who did not follow the state-sanctioned religions were discriminated against by the state.

“In the past, when the government only recognized five religions, Confucian believers were not allowed to celebrate their religious holidays,” Mudji said.

Read the full article here: State Has No Right to Dictate Religion, Court Hears in Blasphemy Law Review

---------------
[1] The statement, as previously noted by Ahmadiyya Times, is erroneous.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian did not make any such claim.