Indonesia took a regressive step from democracy this week with the implementation of it’s new blasphemy laws. I always looked to Indonesia as the better example of religious democracy in South East Asia. It was certainly miles ahead of Malaysia in terms of religious freedom. According to this news however, Indonesia will now uphold the ‘1965 law, which allows for criminal penalties and bans on people or groups that “distort” the central tenets of six officially recognized religions, was in line with the constitution and was vital to religious harmony.

This law , in my opinion, is a mockery of the religious freedom promised by Indonesia and worse still, an obstacle against the process of democratisation in the country. What is worse however is the logic involved in formulating such a law which utterly obfuscates the processual nature of religion itself.

Minister of Religious Affairs Suryadharma Ali said that ‘The law should be upheld because if it is annulled … Islam and the Quran could be interpreted at will and people and figures could declare new prophets and establish new religions’. Let us examine what he says part by part.

He says that ‘Islam and the Quran could be interpreted at will’. Presumably the opposite of ‘interpreted at will’ is ‘interpreted in accordance with the proper method or guidelines’. I will assume that Minister Ali is a Sunni Muslim who then upholds the Sunni methodology of exegesis. If so, does he know that this methodology has little or no agreement even among its own proponents? Simply ask the Sunni exegetes how many verses are abrogated and you will find no agreement between them. Is this not ‘interpreted at will’? Why is this approved and other opinions not?

Minister Ali is also against the advent of new prophets and new religions. By what benchmark is he fixing the definition of ‘new’ here? If he was living say 1500 years ago, his definition would include Prophet Muhammad himself! Prophet Muhammad who lived slightly less than 1500 years ago faced serious opposition to his message but thank God he didn’t have to face Minister Ali who would have banned him and chucked him in jail! My point is, religions evolve whether we like it or not. People receive (or think they receive) revelations whether we like it or not. Islam actually had its first schism 30 years after the passing of Prophet Muhammad. At one point, there were over 500 schools of law. Indonesia itself was Islamised by virtue of the Wali Songo, the sufi masters whose legend has it practised some very questionable mysticism which orthodox sunnism would doubtless find heretical.

Furthermore, does Minister Ali know that within the traditions of Catholicism, Protestanism, Buddhhism, Confucianism and Hinduism, sub traditions evolve all the time. While Catholicism doesn’t officially acknowledge divergent sub-traditions (one which became the Protestant movement!) , it doesn’t attempt to ban these traditions either. Protestanism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Hinduism are actually in the spirit of diversity. New movements within these traditions spring up and dissolve all the time and no one bats an eyelid. Even within Islam, there are always movements being born and dying. They mostly don’t call themselves ‘prophets’ but rather shiekhs or pirs. This is a natural process with all religions basically.

Analysing this event, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that this move by the Indonesian government isn’t about ‘safeguarding’ any religion but rather a move to appease certain Sunni groups. Already in 2008 the notorious Ahmediyyah movement was banned. This present move, perhaps a consolidation of that ban will further move Indonesia along a slippery path towards a fascist regime. Critics of this law have said that extremists would seize upon this law as a justification to attack minorities. A pity really, given Indonesia’s previously pluralist position. Religions should never be controlled in a secular system or it would rob the people of their basic freedom.