Blasphemy In Indonesia...

The Indonesian Criminal Code defines blasphemy in Article 156. The article is often used to control "deviant" sects and cults. Generally, deviant is any practices that do not conform to an accepted norm. Some of these sects or cults are just plain bizarre, but the more interesting part is probably that they attract followers or believers.

One such cult is the Satria Piningit Weteng Buwono or the Chosen Warriors from the Belly of the Earth. Agus Noro (aka Agus Imam Solihin) was found guilty of blasphemy by the South Jakarta District Court. The gist of the charges set out that the Noro led sermons in his underwear and required all his followers to participate in orgies. Noro had managed to gather some 35 people as followers of his faith.

However, the blasphemy charges related to his blaspheming of Islam. It seems that the biggest crime that Noro committed was to instruct his Muslim followers not to fast and pray at the times required under the tenets of the Islamic faith.

Ultimately, Noro was sentenced to two years and six months in jail. The presiding judge in the case, Judge Haryanto, said that the sentence was less than the five years demanded by public prosecutors because Noro had retracted his statement that he was the incarnation of God (or refused to accept the charge as laid out by the public prosecutors). This knowledge, or spiritual guidance, allegedly came to him in a dream. The dream or vision was provided by Indonesia's first president, Soekarno, back in 1999.

A meagre 35 followers hardly seems like a threat to the established base of Islam in Indonesia. The fact that in one of the world's largest democracies that people are still being jailed for their beliefs and the manner in which they believe in their god or gods shows that Indonesia still has some way to go. The expectation is not perfection, there are no states in the world that are perfect in this regard. However, considering the myriad of other problems afflicting Indonesia, it just seems that the resources dedicated to putting Noro in jail could be better used elsewhere.

Where the religious practices of organizing orgies and allowing minors to either participate or watch are breaches of the law, then it would have been possible to arrest, prosecute, and ultimately, jail, Noro without having to resort to the blasphemy card.

Interestingly, Noro chose to represent himself and without the assistance of counsel.

Blasphemy in Indonesia

Blasphemy is an issue that is always interesting to write about as the possibilities are endless, at least in terms of the hypotheticals - the what ifs? This is even more so the case in Indonesia where even the slightest hint of blasphemy leads to violence and the destruction of private property and the desecration of religious property in some instances, it is fair to say there is nothing funny about blasphemy in Indonesia.

Indonesia is still not at the point of trying, as Malaysia has, to ban the use of certain words and restrict their usage only to Muslims. Malaysia decided that "Allah" was a Muslim term to refer to God and because it was a Muslim term then no other religions had a right to refer to their God as Allah. I would guess that to do so would amount to blasphemy.

Nevertheless, Indonesians, at least in some instances, have voiced extreme opinions on the issue of apostasy. The demand is for death for all apostates. The issue has come to the fore yet again as the government is set to continue its pursuit, some might say persecution, of Lia Eden, the leader of a messianic cult, who by all accounts is as mad as a two bob watch, for blasphemy. The most recent arrest is hot on the heels of the arrest of a teacher for supposedly scorning the Prophet. For some background on the Eden cult you can go here, here, and here.

The teacher, Welhelmina Holle, sparked a violent protest that led to the burning of churches and homes on Seram Island in the Moluccas. It remains unclear exactly what she said but obviously for some it did not matter. The fact that the allegation was made was enough for some to set out on a violent protest.

The actual law on blasphemy was a Presidential Decree that was enacted into law in 1965 (No. 1/PNPS/1965) and the key elements have in essence been extracted and included in the current Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana / KUHP) as Article 156(a). The combination of these laws is designed to prevent "deviant interpretations" or any challenge to the long-standing norms particularly with respect to Islam, and to prevent any public discourse on religion by outlawing any utterances that can conceivably be deemed hostile or abusive or insulting of any particular religion.

This is problematic in a secular state as it gives the government or its appointed proxies the power to make subjective interpretations of what constitutes blasphemy or heresy. In many ways the power is a similar one to what has been seen before, as granted to the Roman Catholic Church during the Inquisitions. For many this might be a difficult concept to digest. However, it is as simple as recognizing that there is not the same separation of Church and State or in this case Mosque and State that many of us from a Western democratic tradition would recognize.

Yet, there is some separation in Indonesia as the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulema Indonesia / MUI) has the power to issue fatwas (edicts) on all things Islam but these fatwas are not legally binding. In that sense it is a toothless tiger whose growl is much bigger than its bite. Although, it is a brave government that aligns itself against the MUI as to do so would expose it to charges of being anti-Islam or not sensitive to Muslim issues and needs.

I guess the point of this little musing was that on a personal level I have a real problem with people being jailed for their non-violent religious beliefs no matter how crazy and left or right of mainstream they might be. For example, if a shaven-headed woman wants to claim that she is the Archangel Gabriel and people want to believe that and follow her then so be it. Similarly, if someone wants to claim that there was another prophet after Muhammad and there are people prepared to belief that then so be it.

I leave you with these random thoughts.

If God sends his only son, Jesus Christ, to earth to die for our sins, then doesn't this suggest that Jesus is the most likely candidate to have been the last prophet (at least until the second coming of Christ)? And, therefore, would it be blasphemy to suggest that God got it wrong by sending his only son and decided to have another go at getting it right by selecting some random fella, who in this case just happens to be a fella named Muhammad, to be his final prophet on earth and to bring Islam to the world?

Then, if it is to be accepted that Muhammad followed Jesus as a prophet, then why is it not possible that God could have had second or third thoughts and decided that another prophet was necessary in order to perfect any imperfections that may have arisen?

Would it be blasphemy to suggest that Buddha never really reached enlightenment by suggesting that the Buddha has been reincarnated for another stint back in the real world?

Oh well! As Uncle Ned once said, "such is life"!

Religious Freedom in Indonesia

Religious freedom in Indonesia or more specifically the lack of it is about to garner some attention at the United Nations Human Rights Council Plenary session currently underway in Geneva. I have written on religious freedom and intolerance in Indonesia previously so feel free to search through the blog to find these postings (if you're interested). However, it is clear that the issue of religious freedom is going to be an issue that at some point in time the Indonesian government is going to have to address. If for no other reason than maintaining social harmony or more specifically to be true to the national motto of "unity in diversity".

Simply, this concept of unity in diversity that is enshrined in the State ideology of 'Pancasila' or the Five Principles is not something that the Indonesian government seems to give much weight to. The first of these principles is the belief in a supreme God. Too bad for any animist tree or mountain or big stone worshippers. Unless of course you can characterize a tree as a supreme God -- good question! The first principle here seems to be tailor-made for the development and expansion of sects with slightly different sets of beliefs.

One of the bigger religious tolerance or intolerance issues to arise has been with regard to the Ahmadiyah sect. This is an Islamic sect that had slightly different interpretations regarding who was in fact the last prophet of Islam. Obviously, this is sure to be controversial but as the Indonesian Council of Ulemas (MUI) also determined in a fatwa it issued, ultimately heretical! The issue of the fatwa led to some outbursts of communal violence and attacks against sect members.

The issue here is whether or not the Indonesian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The simple answer here is that it does -- yes! Although arguments can be made that despite the guarantee there are no real protective mechanisms built into ensure that this freedom to practice one's faith is maintained in a practical sense. So, despite the probable repercussions of the action it must take, the State needs to come out and say that with all due respect to the MUI (usually translated as no respect at all) that Ahmadiyah and its followers have a constitutional right to practice their faith. However, and somewhat unfortunately, the government decided to accept the MUI interpretation and called in the attack dogs and put the sect under surveillance.

Heresy is a crime in Indonesia, at least in the sense that a creative interpretation of the Criminal Code provisions, Article 156(a) for example, would allow cases to be brought before courts where a different interpretation of the faith is developed and practiced.

Bottom line -- When will the government stand up and be counted on this argument is any one's guess. But the most likely scenario would be not before there was much more widespread violence involved and a real risk to the stability of the broader Indonesian community.

When it is all said and done Indonesia is still a country that burns textbooks that offer a different view of accepted national history, such as the 1965 coup attempt, so if you cannot face your past the ability to face your future is also in question! But, alas, this is a post for another time.