Interfaith Relations in Indonesia Put to the Litmus Test

July 13, 2010

Endy Bayuni
Chief editor of The Jakarta Post and United Nations Global Expert
Posted: July 13, 2010 10:51 AM

Interfaith Relations in Indonesia Put to the Litmus Test

The tension between Muslims, the dominant religion, and Christians, the largest religious minority group, in Indonesia is coming to the fore with the open accusations by Islamic organizations in Bekasi, a town outside Jakarta, that churches have been aggressively converting Muslims in droves.

The Muslim groups, which include the local branch of the traditionally moderate Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) as well as the militant Front for Islamic Defenders (FPI), declared war against evangelism at the end of their congress in June. They set up a task force empowered to stop “Christianization” of Muslims in the township.

The congress would not have raised so much of an eyebrow if this was an affair involving the usual suspects like the FPI, which have of late been waging a “jihad” against people of other religions, including razing and vandalizing churches, harassing Christian masses, and attacking “misguided” Islamic sects like the Ahmadiyah. Militant, and at times destructive, these groups have never been seen as representing the mainstream Muslims in Indonesia, and most people would applaud if and when police stopped them from their violent behavior.

But the presence of NU representatives in the Bekasi congress, and the virtual silence of its national leaders as well as of other Muslim leaders who have taken part in many interfaith dialogues in the past, suggests their complicity if not of their shared concern about the activities of Christian evangelism in the country.

This could spell trouble for the relations between the religious communities in Indonesia, and raises questions about the effectiveness and sincerity of these interfaith dialogues, which were supposedly designed to build understandings and dispel mutual fears and suspicions between people of different faiths.

One of the criticisms about these dialogues is that they almost always involved the same leaders. Familiarity certainly helps to improve their communication but these dialogues have mostly excluded leaders of the more vocal or radical groups.

But any notion that the dialogues merely serve to preach the converted may also be far-fetching, as the Bekasi episode now shows. What guarantees do we have that those who participated in interfaith dialogues had seriously carried the message of peace when they went back to their flocks?

The Bekasi affair has opened up the Pandora Box of the fierce competition between different religious organizations in the battle for the soul of Indonesians, particularly between Islam and Christianity. With the 1945 Constitution guaranteeing freedom of faith, there isn’t any law that can stop any religious organizations from conducting their propagation activities with the aim of saving human souls.

A government regulation issued in 1978 forbids any attempt to convert people who already have a religion. This virtually limits evangelism in Indonesia to the eastern province of Papua, where Christian missionaries have been most active. But the regulation does not carry weight as it contravenes the constitution and it has been virtually ignored by all religious organizations, Christians and Muslims alike.

Mosques, churches, and to a lesser extent, temples, have seen their share of converting people into their religions without any interference from the state, in Jakarta as in most other cities across the archipelago. There are no statistics to show who is winning the battle, but Muslim groups lately seem bent on stopping the conversion out of their religion. Religious conversions happen for many reasons, whether through the acts of propagation, through daily contacts or marriages, but there is nothing that the state can do about what is constitutionally regarded as the rights of individuals.

Religious propagation is mostly conducted discretely rather than openly, and this allowed the leaders of different religions to remain courteous with one another as they meet in the interfaith dialogues. Leaders of mainstream Islamic organizations were also able to distance themselves from the violent behavior by the likes of the FPI.

But the Bekasi affair, in which the Muslim groups have declared war against Christianity, and the complicity, if not the silence, of the traditionally moderate Muslim organizations, has now raised the stake. The last thing Indonesia needs is a religious war on a larger scale than the one we saw erupting in Maluku 2000.

While dialogue remains the best and probably the only course to avoid a religious confrontation in Indonesia, it is time that these religious leaders start addressing the serious issues and have a hard and serious discussion, instead of avoiding them. It would help if they were also sincere and honest in these dialogues.

URL: www.huffingtonpost.com/endy-bayuni/interfaith-relations-in-i_b_640799.html

Indonesia’s Blasphemy Law: The Regulation of Faith by the State

---Qantara, Germany

Indonesia’s Blasphemy Law
The Regulation of Faith by the State

The Indonesian Constitutional Court has endorsed the country’s controversial blasphemy law, which many liberal politicians and human rights activists regard as a relic of the past that could further exacerbate religious tensions. Christina Schott reports from Jakarta

Targeted by the radical Islamic Defender Front:
Religious minorities like the Ahmadis, who do not
conform to orthodox concepts of Islam, are
particularly affected by the blasphemy law

“Infidel!” “Let us spill his blood!” These were the kind of threats Indonesian director Garin Nugroho had to endure in early April this year.

In his capacity as a cultural expert, he testified before the highest constitutional court of his country that a 45-year-old blasphemy law wholly discouraged Indonesians from discussing religion, as it did not allow them the freedom to hold their own opinions.

“This law is the biggest setback for democracy and pluralism in the history of our nation,” the internationally-acclaimed filmmaker declared. The followers of various radical Islamic organizations, such as the Islamic Defender Front (FPI) or Hizb-ut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI), who were waiting outside the courthouse, were able to follow his testimony on a screen. They were clearly of a different opinion.

Validation for the hardliners

Nugroho got off lightly, however, in that he was only verbally abused. Four other experts were beaten and kicked on their way to court. The judges upheld the disputed paragraphs nonetheless. With only one vote against, the nine-person body decided in April that the old law was not unconstitutional and was “indispensable for religious harmony in the country”.

A coalition of Indonesian human rights groups under the leadership of the Wahid Institute had applied for a legal revision of the blasphemy law. In their opinion, the law, introduced after a coup attempt in 1965, contradicts the Indonesian constitution, which guarantees religious freedom.

Six religions are officially recognized in Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. Followers of minority religions, such as Sikhs or animists, are tolerated, but those who do not profess one of the six official religions cannot hold an identity card or obtain a marriage certificate.

In practice, it is not possible to be an atheist in Indonesian society. Divergent religious orientations within the recognized religions also face difficulties. According to the blasphemy law it is illegal to publish, recommend or even seek public support for non-orthodox interpretations of faith.

As a result, interpretations of Islam that do not accord with either the Sunni or the Shia faiths are subject to legal prosecution – and all too often they are also persecuted outside the law.

Persecution of the Ahmadi

Adherents of the Ahmadiyya movement, who consider themselves Muslims but do not believe that Mohammed was the last prophet, have been particularly badly affected.

Many Ahmadis had to go into hiding after violent attacks by radical Islamists. On the island of Lombok hundreds of families are still living in refugee camps because they daren’t return to their home villages. Instead of punishing the attackers, the government forbade all public activities related to Ahmadiyya Islam.

“Religious freedom will always be restricted, because if it is unrestricted it could compromise the freedom of the majority,” says Saleh Daulay, the secretary for law and human rights of Muhammadiyah, the second-largest Islamic organization in the country. “It is our duty to protect the established belief of a majority from interference. If we didn’t have the blasphemy law, we would no longer have any basis from which to prevent social unrest.”

“The blasphemy law is not going to solve the
religious conflicts in this country!“ - Masdar Farid
Mas’udi, legal expert for the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU)

In practice, the law has primarily been applied in Indonesia to punish offences against the main streams of Islam. As well as sect-like groups like the Ahmadis, individuals have also increasingly been targeted. In May 2006, for example, the Muslim woman governor of Banyuwangi in East Java was nearly ousted from office after being accused of practising a religion other than Islam. The background to this was that she was married to a Hindu.

In December 2008 a Christian primary school teacher was arrested on the Moluccas because she was said to have made disparaging remarks about Islam during class. On the basis of this rumour alone, hundreds of furious Muslims destroyed 67 houses, a church, and a meeting hall. Five people were injured. Only two of the rioters were arrested.

No resolution of religious conflicts

“The blasphemy law is not going to solve the religious conflicts in this country,” stated legal expert Masdar Farid Mas’udi of the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), Indonesia’s largest Islamic organization, in the daily newspaper Jakarta Post.

“The court should have defined the terms blasphemy and heresy more precisely. If you follow the current interpretation, Islamic preachers should in fact also be criminalized for their diatribes against other religions.”

Mas’udi, however, is pretty much alone in his opinion. Both his own organization, the NU, which is regarded as moderate, and Muhammadiyah joined the radical Islamists in speaking out against a repeal of the blasphemy law. The Parisada Hindu Dharma Indonesia (PHDI), Indonesia’s highest Hindu council, and the Indonesian Buddhist Council (Walubi) were also in favour of retaining it.

The only vote against the court’s decision came from constitutional judge Maria Farida Indrati, who one month earlier was also the only one in the body to oppose another highly controversial law, that against pornography.

In her opinion, the blasphemy law is a product of the past and is no longer compatible with today’s constitution – especially in respect of the preservation of human rights and religious freedom.

“Officially, we have religious freedom in Indonesia, but in reality it’s not that free,” says Dwi Nurdianto (not his real name), who works for a social organization in Yogyakarta on Java.

“On paper I am a Muslim, although I am in fact an atheist. But I’m not allowed to be an atheist here. If I don’t belong to any religion, I can’t get official papers. And if certain people came to know my true beliefs, what would happen would be something like the scenes in front of the constitutional court. The state should really be protecting minorities from persecution. Instead, it’s arguing that it has to protect the majority.”

Christina Schott
© Qantara.de 2010
Translated from the German by Charlotte Collins
Editor: Lewis Gropp/Qantara.de

URL: www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1325/i.html

Indonesian Blasphemy Act Restricts Free Religious Expression

---The Huffington Post, USA

April 28, 2010
Asma Uddin
Founder and editor-in-chief, Altmuslimah.com

Posted: April 27, 2010 08:12 PM

Indonesian Blasphemy Act Restricts Free Religious Expression

Last Monday, as I stood in the Indonesian Constitutional Court, the Court released its eight-to-one decision to uphold the Law on the Prevention of Blasphemy and Abuse of Religion, also known as the Blasphemy Act. My colleagues and I at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty had submitted an amicus brief in the case, urging the Court to repeal the Act, which has been used in the past to persecute devout members of a variety of religions. The Court’s decision was deeply disappointing for us and our human rights colleagues in Indonesia and across the world, as it not only failed to repeal a problematic law but also legitimated, if not encouraged, future government incursions into matters of conscience.

The Blasphemy Act makes it unlawful “to, intentionally, in public, communicate, counsel, or solicit public support for an interpretation of a religion … that is similar to the interpretations or activities of an Indonesian religion but deviates from the tenets of that religion.” One of the purposes of the Act is to help the government protect Indonesia’s six recognized religions – Islam, [Protestant] Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism – by punishing those who encourage conversion away from one of these religions or preach “deviant” interpretations of those religions. The six official religions each have government-funded religious bodies who decide what an acceptable belief for that religion is and what is not.

The Act establishes civil and criminal penalties, including up to five years imprisonment, for violators. In the past, it has been used to impose criminal penalties on groups like the Ahmadiyya, which most Muslims do not recognize because they believe it deviates from mainstream Islamic teachings. In 2008, the Indonesian Minister of Religious Affairs, the Attorney General, and the Minister of Interior issued the Joint Decree on the Ahmadiyya, which orders Ahmadiyya adherents “as long as they consider themselves to hold to Islam, to discontinue the promulgation of interpretations and activities that are deviant from the principal teachings of Islam.”

Similarly, in 2009, police arrested the leader of the Sion City of Allah Christian sect and six of his followers for straying from “correct Christian teachings.” Because the Sect is based on only one book of the Bible (the Book of Jeremiah), the government banned it as an unacceptable branch of Christianity and forbade its followers from attending church till 2011.

These cases underscore the problematic nature of the Blasphemy Act. While private citizens and religious groups should be able to decide among themselves what does or does not constitute the essence of a religion, and while they should be able to exclude certain individuals from membership on the basis of such disagreements, the Act appoints the state, with all of its police power, as arbiter of what a particular group believes and what it should be allowed to propagate.

In some cases, the state will deem a group blasphemous even when the allegedly blasphemed group disagrees. For instance, in the Sion City case, the government charged the sect with blaspheming the Timor Evangelical Church, despite the Church’s statements to the contrary. Instead of ceding autonomy to the Church and allowing it to determine religious questions, including blasphemy, for itself, the state stated, “We hope the church will not interfere in the case.”

Religion, regulated as such, is defined by the state and is necessarily politicized by the state’s involvement. The state-approved version of religion often tempers social justice components of faith, especially in the case of authoritarian regimes, which use religion to protect and legitimate their own power. Religious matters in this way become intertwined with questions of national security and public order.

Indeed, the public order argument played a big role in the Court’s decision to uphold the Blasphemy Act. The idea is that blasphemy – real or supposed, intentional or unintentional – would anger adherents of a given religion, who will then cause destruction or otherwise act violently. This is different from regulating incitement to violence because it limits peaceful, not violent, speech. According to the Court, the state has to control potentially blasphemous statements, peacefully expressed, in order to increase societal harmony.

However, the court’s reasoning in this regard is deeply flawed as it protects the wrong party and provides the wrong incentives. The Blasphemy Act appeases rather than controls violent extremists, giving them license to continue bullying religious minorities while the police look the other way. It creates a culture of impunity where increasingly egregious crimes are committed with little or no consequences for the criminals.

Instead of penalizing the speaker in order to prevent violence, the law should compel potentially violent actors to regulate their own behavior – even, indeed especially, in the face of insults. Violence is far more effectively controlled if states enforce those laws which punish criminal behavior.

This sort of legal scheme makes sense not simply because it’s more effective, but also because it protects the fundamental human right to free religious expression. Individuals have the right to not only hold particular beliefs but also to express them openly in public – as long as they are peaceful and do not contravene the rights of others. This works in favor of the larger society rather than against it, as only in a free marketplace of ideas can those ideas with greater utility or persuasive power prevail.

In upholding the Blasphemy Act, the Court affirmed the power of the state to compel individuals to abide by certain beliefs against their own conscience – all for the sake of keeping at bay a presumably uncontrollable public. The decision is both logically and morally flawed, and a major setback for human rights in Indonesia.

URL: www.huffingtonpost.com/asma-uddin/the-indonesian-constituti_b_554463.html

Discourse: Blasphemy law ‘has not prevented conflict’

---The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Headlines | Wed, 04/21/2010 9:03 AM

Discourse: Blasphemy law ‘has not prevented conflict’
Todung Mulya Lubis

The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled Monday to uphold the 45-year-old Blasphemy law after a judicial review request was filed last October by human rights groups and backers of pluralism who said the law violated religious freedom. The Jakarta Post talks to renowned lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis, who said the Court tends to lean “to the right” in certain issues.

Question: What is your comment on the Constitutional Court’s ruling which rejected the judicial review request on the Blasphemy Law?

Answer: I regret the decision because it disregards the diversity and plurality of our nation. We have to respect the court’s authority to conduct a judicial review, but this decision has distorted freedom of worship which is acknowledged as a basic human right.

The law allows ample room for misuse. The court said this law is needed to prevent horizontal and vertical conflicts. Conflicts occur when there are coercive actions (to prohibit someone or a group) from worshipping according to their religion and belief.

If there was no intimdiation against the Ahmadiyah congregation, for instance, they would be free to worship. So the law has been disturbing this and has not prevented conflict.

Coercion which disregards diversity and people’s religious rights cause conflicts. The logic of the court is misleading when it says that the law prevents conflicts.

On the contrary, conflicts happen when there repressive actions by groups which believe that only the state-sanctioned religions (the “standard” forms of Islam, Christianity, Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism) are legal while the others have to be eradicated. Such actions are a source of conflict.

Doesn’t the Blasphemy Law contradict the 2008 Law Prohibiting Racial and Ethnic Discrimination which says nobody can be discriminated against due to his or her religion and belief?

It’s against that law. It’s also against the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. So the Blasphemy Law has fundamentally violated international and national laws.

The Constitutional Court’s ideology tends to the right. Many have expressed concerns about this. When the court faces issues of religion and freedom of speech and expression, it becomes conservative and fundamentalist.

This disregards human rights, pluralism and reform efforts. So we must face the fact that the court is dominated by conservatives and fundamentalists.

We are forced to acknowledged formal religions while we actually have freedom of choice.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling is final but it doesn’t mean we can tolerate its excessive implementation.

However, we don’t know yet how far the implementation will go. But this is obviously a setback.

What are the possible implications of the court’s ruling?

Groups like the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and the Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) will be happy with this.

When new religious groups or thoughts emerge, they can be considered as defaming formal (forms of) religions. FPI and HTI will have legal justification for their coercive actions violating human rights. They act as if they are the private religious police.

What are the further plans of human rights groups to anticipate the impact of the ruling?

We will arrange a meeting to look at the Constitutional Court’s ruling because it potentially could cause divisions. We are going to try to limit its divisive impacts while continuing to promote diversity and pluralism. (rdf)

URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/04/21/disc...E2%80%99.html

Blasphemy law, a shackle to the Indonesian people

---The Jakarta Post, Indonesia

Opinion   Thu, 02/11/2010 11:16 AM

Blasphemy law, a shackle to the Indonesian people

Tobias Basuki, Jakarta

Indonesia, the third-largest democracy in the world, may be facing gloomy days ahead. In December 2009, the late former president Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid led a coalition of civil society organizations in filing a judicial review against the archaic blasphemy law (PNPS No. 1/1965). A move to abolish this problematic law would expectedly further consolidate Indonesia’s democracy, freedom and harmony.

Unfortunately there is strong resistance from the government and several religious and social groups against this move. Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali and Justice and Human Rights Minister Patrialis Akbar officially rejected this judicial review.

On Feb. 4, Suryadharma Ali met with leaders of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) to talk about the judicial review.

This is an unbelievably disappointing move by a government official of his stature.

The FPI is a militant organization and the HTI is a global organization whose aim is to combine all Muslim countries into a unitary Islamic state or caliphate. The HTI is an organization that is even banned and proscribed in many Arab and Islamic countries.

The FPI, and particularly the HTI, should not have a say on matters of the Indonesian people. The HTI does not represent the interests of the Indonesian people and our nation.

The argument proposed by defenders of this blasphemy law, is that the law is meant to maintain harmony and peace among religions. Forgive me for saying this: “It is complete baloney!”

This PNPS No. 1/1965 has been the ground on which the Criminal Code (KUHP), article 156a, rests. This KUHP, instead of maintaining peace and harmony, has been the umbrella under which various militant groups attack, burn and destroy others.

A recent example is the case of Welhelmina Holle in Masohi, Central Maluku, in December 2008. There were accusations and rumors that Holle, an elementary school teacher, had been offensive about a religion in one of his lectures in class.

As a result, a mob ran amok and destroyed 67 houses, a house of worship, and a community building. Hole was put on trial under the pretext of that law.

It is the existence of the blasphemy law that ignites conflict. It does not maintain harmony and peace.

The blasphemy law is just problematic on so many levels. Ironically it appears that many support it.

Newspaper reports regarding the blasphemy law may seem to picture a widespread rejection to the judicial review. But it is important to take this with a grain of salt. Opposition to the judicial review is only proclaimed by heads of institutions and a mob of “radical” groups with loud voices.

Most Indonesians are perhaps rather oblivious or rather ignorant regarding the case. Considering it is not on the headlines and the complicity of jargons used in the case.

However, we can be sure if explained properly, the public will want the abolition of the blasphemy law.

Not only is this law problematic sociologically as illustrated above. It is in direct contradiction to our Constitution.

Indonesia is a unitary state. The highest law of the land is the Constitution (UUD 1945), and all the laws under it should be in line with the Constitution.

On the same token all the lower laws of the land should also not contradict each other.

An important point to note is: our Constitution protects religious freedom to its citizens as individuals, not the freedom for religious groups to bash on others.

Article 28E on freedom of religion clearly states that each person/human/citizen has the right to choose and believe according to their conscience.

In 2008, Indonesia ratified an International Convention on discrimination and passed a law to abolish Racial and Ethnic Discrimination (UU PDRE).

This law rules that no one can be discriminated based on their beliefs, values or rituals that belongs to their group (articles 3, 4).

In short, the antiquated blasphemy law is no longer needed. It violates the Constitution and is also in contradiction to a law of equal stature (UU PDRE).

In 2007, Hudson Institute published a comprehensive study on freedom of religion around the world. The study ranked countries in the same manner as Freedom House’s rankings. A country is ranked from 1 to 7, 1 being most free and 7 not free or repressed. Indonesia was ranked at 5 (partly free).

A surprise and disappointment, particularly considering Malaysia was ranked at 4. At that time I did not agree with the classification given by Hudson Institute.

Regardless of the various horizontal conflicts (cited by Hudson as reason for the low ranking of Indonesia), it did not make sense that Indonesia is less free in terms of religious freedom compared to Malaysia.

But today, I think Hudson Institute was accurate after all.

Although the blasphemy law case has not hit headlines in local newspapers, the International Community observes us closely. For example, the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty has submitted an amicus brief in support of the judicial review to the Constitutional Court.

The deterioration or progress of freedom in Indonesia is important not only to Indonesians but also to the world.

We do not and should no longer live in the Dark Ages where blasphemy laws, inquisitions and burning of heretics are part of society. Indonesia is a religious country based on harmony, peace, multiculturalism and acceptance of differences.

It is important for our leaders to realize that without religious freedom, Indonesia cannot move forward.

Many academic studies show the strong correlation between economic growth and religious freedom. The works of Ilan Alon and Gregory Chase “Religious Freedom and Economic Prosperity” and the extensive studies of Grim and Finke are only a tip of the iceberg of evidences showing that religious freedom is important for a country’s growth and prosperity.

The decision by the Constitutional Court under Mahfud M.D. will be an immensely important one regarding the future of the nation. It will be a very tough decision, considering the amount of political and organizational pressure on the Constitutional Court.

It should have the courage to make a decision based on what is right, rather than submit to pressure. After all Malcolm Muggeridge once said: “only dead fish swim with the current!”

The writer, an alumnus from Northern Illinois University, Department of Political Science, is Director of Research and Studies at Institut Leimena.

URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/02/11/blas...ckle-indonesian-people.html

Court to stage debate on religious freedom

--- The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Headlines    Fri, 02/05/2010 9:22 AM

Court to stage debate on religious freedom

Ary Hermawan, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The Constitutional Court will see one of its longest hearings as it becomes a forum for clerics, activists, pundits and artists to debate whether the country should revoke a 45-year-old blasphemy law to uphold freedom of religion.

The court opened Thursday the first hearing of a judicial review filed by a number of human rights groups against the 1965 Blasphemy Law, which they said was adverse to human rights principles and irrelevant to a democratic Indonesia.

The review has been strongly opposed by the government and major Muslim organizations as well as hardline groups including the Islam Defender’s Front (FPI), whose members staged a rally outside the court Thursday.

The court is set to present 31 experts, including sociologist Imam Prasodjo, poet Emha Ainun Nadjib, novelist Andrea Hirata and filmmaker Garin Nugroho, to share their opinions on the issue.

“The examination will be extensive,” court chief Mahfud M.D said. “We usually hold a hearing every fourteen days, but in this case, we will hold it weekly.” The examination will take at least four months.

The petitioners will present experts including Ahmad Syafii Maarif, Franz Magnis-Suseno, Luthfi Assyaukanie and Cole Durham, professor of law from the US, who will speak at the court via a teleconference.

Syafii will be speaking against his colleagues in Muhammadiyah, which, like Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), officially expressed its opposition to the judicial review. Ten Islamic organizations, including Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, will also be given a say in court.

The government and the House of Representatives are against the judicial review.

In Thursday’s hearing, Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali demanded the court reject the activists’ request on the grounds that no petitioners had their constitutional rights denied because of the law.

“We ask the court to decide if the judicial review request is unacceptable,” the minister said Suryadharma also said the law had for decades served to maintain harmony in religiously diverse Indonesia. “Annulling the law will create conflict, instability and disharmony. It is urgently needed to endorse religious tolerance.”

Justice and Human Rights Minister Patrialis Akbar argued that religious freedom did not mean people could practice their beliefs regardless of existing laws.

Chairuman Harahap, representing the legislators, concurred with Patrialis, saying the law remained relevant though it was created decades ago. “From a sociological perspective, a law should be in line with the will of the people,” he said.

Uli Parulian Sihombing, a lawyer for petitioners, said they were not asking for absolute freedom, but assurance that religious interpretation on certain religious teachings were not subject to prosecution by the state. Uli referred to the case of Jamaah Ahmadiyah, an Islamic sect that has been declared heretical and banned by the government.

In 2008, a pro-Ahmadiyah group called the National Alliance for the Freedom of Faith and Religion, was attacked by FPI and Hizbut Tahrir members, who strongly supported the government’s move to ban Ahmadiyah.

URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/02/05/cour...ligious-freedom.html

Militant groups ready to defend controversial law

--- The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

National   Thu, 02/04/2010 10:15 AM

Militant groups ready to defend controversial law

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) said they would defend the controversial blasphemy law, calling the move to scrap the 45-year-old law as an attempt to “liberalize” and destroy Islam.

The two radical groups have met with Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali to lend their support to the government to fight against the plan of human rights groups to have the law reviewed by the Constitutional Court.

The review is backed by promoters of pluralism, including recipient of the Magsasay Award and Muhammadiyah patron Ahmad Syafii Maarif and the late Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, widely respected in the Nahdlatul Ulama.

FPI lawyer Munarman said the judicial review request had no legal standing because the NGOs are not religious organizations.

The individuals joining the petition were not those whose Constitutional rights had been denied, and therefore had no right to file a judicial review, he said on the group’s website.

HTI spokesman Ismail Yusanto called on Muslims to support the government to defend Islam from any assaults, including the judicial review of the blasphemy law.

The group had appointed the Muslim Lawyers Team, or TPM, as its representative in the hearing at the Constitutional Court, scheduled to commence on Thursday.

They had filed a request at the court to be given a say in the hearing. “The MK has not responded to our request yet,” Mahendradatta of TPM told The Jakarta Post.

The TPM, which also represent a group called the Peace Alliance Against Blasphemy of Islam (ADA API), accused the petitioners of using the slogan of freedom of religion as a cover to discredit religions.

“They are actually seeking ‘freedom to insult religions’,” Mahendradatta said.

He said Hizbut Tahrir members and other Muslim groups will attend the hearings to show their support for the government.

“Thousands of Muslims are apprehensive about the review. They may be curious and want to attend the hearings,” claimed Mahendradtta, who was also a defense lawyer for the Bali bombers.

Uli Parulian Sihombing, a lawyer for the review petitioners, deplored the meeting between the religious minister and the militant groups. “A minister should not conduct such a meeting. The worst thing is, we are also informed that the meeting used state funds,” he told the Post.

Suryadharma Ali said his ministry and the Law and Human Rights Ministry have made preparations to counter the arguments of the rights activists.

He blasted the judicial review request as “irrational”, saying that it would only hurt the existing six officially recognized religions — Islam, Catholicism, Protestanism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism — and create disharmony.

The minister said freedom of religion as guaranteed in the Constitution should be practiced in accordance with the existing regulations, which he said were made to protect other people’s rights to freedom of religion.

The minister took the view that the emergence of religious sects was a form of blasphemy against existing religions.

The government, he said as quoted by Antara, had the responsibility to do whatever it could do to maintain religious harmony.

URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/02/04/m...ready-defend-controversial-law.html