Religious freedom and blasphemy

Nurrohman ,  Bandung   |  Fri, 02/22/2008 5:00 PM  |  Opinion

All religious followers may agree that freedom of religion or freedom of expression cannot be used to undermine others. Yet, how can we actually categorize words, acts and expressions as insulting of religion? How can we settle this problem?

Furthermore, can blasphemy still be considered a crime by Indonesian law when religious freedom and freedom of expression are also guaranteed by the Constitution. The answers to these questions are not easy and here is why.

Words and expressions often have many meanings and the exact intended meaning can only be acquired if we ask the person who uttered them.

When eight Catholic organizations went to Tempo magazine's office to protest over an edition's cover depicting a satirical version of The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci, Thariq Hadad, the magazine's chief editor, said he was surprised by the harsh reaction. "We had no intention at all of hurting Catholics. What we did was adapt the painting's artistic composition, not the meaning of the event," he said, adding that his editors had different interpretations of the magazine's cover.

In addition, the degree of outrage was different from one person to another. Even in Catholic and Christian communities, few shared the same sentiment regarding the picture.

Media observer Ignatius Haryanto from the Institute for Press and Development Studies said "We are talking about an illustration on a magazine cover which has multiple interpretations. It can either be appreciated or protested against depending on people's perceptions." Ignatius said the cover, which depicted the late former president Soeharto having dinner with his six children, did not offend him as a Catholic. "The painting itself isn't part of Christian doctrine. There have been many satirical versions of the painting." he said in The Jakarta Post's Feb. 11, 2008 edition.

When Denmark newspaper Jyllands Posten published a satirical cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad in September 2005, it sparked outrage among Muslims worldwide, but not all Muslim scholars agreed with this response.

French Muslim Soheib Bencheikh, former Grand Mufti in Marseilles, was one scholar who thought the response was excessive. "Muslims were wrong to protest against Danes when cartoonists lampooned the Prophet. This is what freedom of expression means. Even if people mock, at least they're showing an interest in Islam and starting to recognize it as part of society" he said.

Even though Islam has been presumed upon me by birthright, I have no regrets at all. I still believe Islam is the best religion for me. It is the basis for my belief and conviction. Therefore, when Islam is harassed or insulted there exists sadness in my heart.

But, Insya Allah (God Willing), I will restrain myself from irrational response. In my mind, Islam is a noble religion, it cannot be undermined by the hatred of any person. If there is someone who dislikes or attacks Islam by words or by other means, the best response that can be taken is to emulate the actions of the Prophet.

Instead of taking revenge, the prophet prays and asks God to give guidance to the prosecutors because their acts actually resulted from their ignorance of Islam. Criticism of Islam can be contemplated by a Muslim during introspection. However, not all Muslims or even non-Muslims agree with such an attitude. Some of them would perhaps accuse me of having weak faith.

Blasphemy is cited in Article 156a of the Criminal Code. In this article it is stated that someone can be sentenced to five years in prison if he or she intentionally in public utters feelings or performs activities deemed to incite hatred, abuse or blaspheme against religions officially recognized in Indonesia.

Although the words "intentionally in public" may be difficult to define in court, they are very important. A person accused of undermining religion often has no intention of insulting others.

In addition, the number of religious principles protected from any insulting act might be different according to some scholars.

For instance, can using Arabic when performing regular prayer be categorized as a principle of religion? Can a person performing prayer in Arabic and Indonesian, like Yusman Roy, be deemed a blasphemer?

Unfortunately, while accusations of blasphemy against Yusman Roy could not be justified in court, Yusman Roy was still imprisoned, but not for breaking Article 156a. He was imprisoned under another article and, it seems, by the result of public pressure.

It is the duty of our government to protect all religious believers and not to intervene in matters of belief. If there is outrage originating from opposing religious interpretations, the dispute should be settled through dialogue.

The rule of law must be implemented through negotiation and prevailing evidence in court and not by public pressure and incomprehensive opinions.

The writer is a lecturer at State Islamic University (UIN), Bandung. He can be reached at nsyarif2006@yahoo.co.id

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.