Academics took to the stand Wednesday in the judicial review of the blasphemy law, as hard-line Islamic groups warned of a violent backlash should the law be revoked.
The two expert witnesses testifying at the Constitutional Court on the day both concurred that several contentious articles in the law needed to be revised.
Prominent Muslim scholar Azyumardi Azra, a professor of history and director at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University’s postgraduate school in Jakarta, said he believed the state should never interfere in theological or doctrinal matters.
“These are the domain and responsibility of religious authorities appointed by followers of the given religions,” he said.
“There is no guarantee, though, that every follower will agree to everything [a religious authority figure says].”
Azra added a law was still needed to regulate blasphemy, but recommended the existing one be revised to provide a clearer definition of what constituted blasphemy.
“We need to define [blasphemy] in a more detailed and distinct way, such that we don’t get vastly different interpretations of blasphemy,” he said.
The other witness, sociology expert Tamrin Amal Tomagola, said he believed regulating blasphemous acts under the Criminal Code was a “contempt against one’s dignity”.
“There’s no need for a special law for blasphemy, but if some people insist on keeping such a law, then certain items in it must be revised,” he said.
| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|