Ahmad Najib Burhani , Jakarta | Thu, 03/18/2010 10:00 AM | Opinion
After the Constitutional Court began the first hearing of a judicial review filed by a number of human rights groups against the 1965 Blasphemy Law, numerous articles, views and interviews have been published in Indonesian news publications.
They see this issue from various perspectives such as political, legal, human rights, peace and violence. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, no one has tried to analyze this issue from a religious perspective. Indeed, this approach should be in first place in order to understand this law appropriately and clearly.
It is true that in the context of a judicial review, the discussion on the Blasphemy Law should be limited to the domain of law. But the core issues of this law are religious matters. Therefore, neglecting the religious perspective is like abandoning its core issue.
The rationale behind the 1965 Blasphemy Law is to maintain religious orthodoxy; to guarantee that the established religious teachings and dogma are secure; to protect religious doctrines from new or different understandings. Any group deviating from the orthodox would be called a “sect” and subject to blasphemy charges and persecution. No religious interpretation would be allowed beyond the orthodox interpretation.
In the current Islamic world, there are two main competing religious orthodoxies: Sunni and Shiite. The former call themselves Ahl Sunnah wal-Jamaah (the People of Tradition and Community), whereas the latter name their group Ahl al-`Isma wal-`Adalah (the People of Infallibility and Justice).
Shiite is the dominant group in Iran and Iraq and has a substantial number in Lebanon, while Sunni dominates the rest of the Muslim world. The concept of khilafa (caliphate), sharia, and umma are among the distinctive concepts in Sunni orthodoxy, whereas Imama (political and religious leaders should be on the hand of the descendant of the Prophet Muhammad) is a unique concept in Shiite thinking besides their distinctive rituals and philosophy.
Historically, and persisting until today, these two groups accuse one another of being an unorthodox or deviant sect. Sunni people often call Shiite people rawafid (people who refuse the true teachings of Islam).
Therefore, it is no wonder that we have often heard that Indonesian Sunni Muslims do not want to accept Shiite Muslims as their brothers in religion. If they believe that a large religious group like the Shiite is a deviant sect, it is not surprising that they consider a smaller religious group like Ahmadiyah a heretical sect as well.
How do they maintain their orthodoxy? One of the common strategies is by collaboration with the government. During the time of the Caliph Al-Makmun in the Abbasid Caliphate, for instance, the Sunni was considered an unorthodox group and subject to persecution by the government. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, one protagonist in Sunni orthodoxy and founder of Hanbali law school, was imprisoned and tortured by the government during the notorious time called mihna (inquisition).
Similar cases happen in Indonesia. During its initial stages, Muhammadiyah was perceived as a deviant sect by some Indonesian Muslims. This movement, which has now become the second-largest organization in Indonesia, was bullied, abused and threatened by many Muslim in the 1910s. It is only because of its ability to prove its orthodoxy and to face any external and internal challenges that Muhammadiyah exists today.
In fact, orthodoxy is not an exclusive concept in Islam. Christianity and other religions have similar ideas on orthodoxy. A number of inquisitions occurred in European Christian history which aimed to suppress heresy against the Catholic Church. At that time, the church worked with the authorities to punish heretics. Almost everyone knows that Protestantism was also considered heresy at that time. Among other things, it was because of the help from German authorities that Protestantism could face the charge of heresy from Catholic Church.
The 1965 Blasphemy Law is a continuation or a modern concept of an inquisition. It has been upheld not only to maintain Islamic orthodoxy, but also Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, and perhaps Confucian orthodoxy. As the case of Protestantism and Shiite, Kebatinan (Javanism) Aliran Kepercayaan (Javanese mysticism) and Lia Eden would not be considered heretical, from a political perspective, if the authorities protected them. They would be seen as an expression of religious freedom. This is, of course, the opposite of a religious perspective, which always perceived them as heretical.
To end this article, I would like to say one more thing: Orthodoxy is actually not only a religious issue. Historiography and linguistics also have their orthodoxies and sometimes their proponents are no less fanatical than the proponents of religious orthodoxy.
The writer is a researcher at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).
No comments:
Post a Comment