The Constitutional Court has upheld the controversial Blasphemy Law, turning down a request for it to review the 45-year old law. The decision sparked controversy among Islamic organizations and scholars. Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) lawmaking body member Masdar Farid Mas’udi, who voiced an opinion different from his organization’s official position supporting the ruling, talked to The Jakarta Post’s Muhammad Nafik about this issue.
Question: The court ruled to retain the Blasphemy Law, what’s your comment?
Answer: It does not resolve the problem with religious conflicts in the country. The Constitutional Court should have amended the law to provide a solution. It is publicly acknowledged that the law contains loopholes, so why aren’t they plugged?
The court should have come up with recommendations to clarify the definition of religious blasphemy, desecration or heresy. Under the existing definition of the law, many of our Muslim preachers could even, to some extent, be criminalized for their inflammatory and defamatory sermons against teachings of other religions. Everywhere here we find clerics badmouthing and criticizing other religions and this stirs hatred among followers of other faiths. Frankly speaking, it would be fair if the law applies to them, too. There must be consistency in the rule of law and in enforcement.
Isn’t the law against the Constitution since it guarantees freedom of faith and worship?
Yes, because the law forbids interpretations of religious teachings by any individuals or groups which deviates from the principal tenets of the religions recognized in Indonesia. Should religious interpretations differing from the mainstream doctrines be categorized as “blasphemy”, which is subject to criminalization, it would kill the tajdid (renewal) movements, while tajdid is a must in every religion to revitalize its teachings. What is forbidden for us is to change the texts of religious instructions, not their interpretations.
With the law now remaining effective, who should define “heretical” teachings or groups?
It is risky indeed. No state agencies or religious groups have the right to declare heresy towards any other faiths. A faith cannot be ruled or controlled by the state, nor coerced by other groups of different religions so as to embrace their beliefs. Any religion cannot publicly defame, desecrate and profane a different faith, although any faith implicitly may imply heresies for other religions.
How could religious minorities like the Ahmadiyah practice their faith under this law?
There is no theological and constitutional reason to intimidate, persecute and attack any other groups. To deal with Ahmadiyah (which recognizes a prophet after the Prophet Muhammad) and other Islamic sects, what we should do is to show and lead them to the right path with hikmah (wisdom), or through dialogues or debates. If this approach is not successful, just let them take their own ways. It’s their own private business with God. La kum dii nukum waliyadiin (unto you your religion, and unto me my religion).
We make peace with non-Muslims with different concepts of God, why should we oppose Ahmadiyah for its different concept on the prophet?
We don’t need the presence of a new messenger that requires absolute obedience toward him or her after the Prophet Muhammad. As put forward by Muhammad Iqbal (Indian poet and philosopher) the Sunni doctrine on Muhammad as the last prophet is a doctrine on freedom of thought for all religious followers. It means that we are freed from possible arrival of a person who can shackle our minds by claiming absolute truth on his or her part.
We need to live with people of different faiths to measure the truth of our faith. If all of us are followers of Sunni, our faith will never be put to the test. Even Allah allows devils to live until the end of the world, so why should we fight those embracing different faiths from us?
With the law still in force, certain groups may claim legal justification to intimidate minorities; what should be done to prevent such arbitrary actions?
It is the obligation of the state to take firm action against those waging violence against other faiths in the name of religion or God. People cannot be persecuted, harassed or criminalized by the state or mainstream groups because of their faiths.
(http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/04/28/discourse-blasphemy-ruling-%E2%80%98does-not-resolve-problem%E2%80%99.html)
