Interpreting our Constitution.
Mar 4th, 2011, in Opinion, by Guest WriterInterpreting the Indonesian constitution
It is either deep confusion or lack of bravery (which then seems to manifest into idiocy) that our government is brilliant at when it comes to finding a viable and enduring solution towards the on going case of Ahmadiyah. One example of such idiocy is an opinion tragically & thoughtlessly uttered by a member of Commission VIII of the People’s Representative Council (DPR), HM Busro (Ahmadis should live on isolated island: Legislator – The Jakarta Post, 02/17/2011) .
He simply proposed to move the Ahmadis to one of our 17.000 inhabited islands, away from modern civilization, away from any form of adequate infrastructure and perhaps away from any form of contact with any other human being other than the Ahmadis themselves. It is as if the Ahmadis are dangerous, wild, brainless animals that must be secluded from the rest of our society in order to fulfill the notion of “for the good of our society.”
This foolish, inhumane idea if indeed becomes a reality is nothing but a sick interpretation by a member of our government on how to preserve our fragile domestic national security whilst trying to fulfill our constitution, it is but a foolish attempt towards trying to balance the two.
Easily put, he is saying, “oh yes let us acknowledge and uphold religious freedom/pluralism by placing the minority in a secluded island far from society”, such absurdity.
This idea and other already materialized laws such as the joint decree of the three ministers, have shown us two probabilities. One, is the immense fear within our government towards taking the necessary steps in fully implementing our constitution or two, our government basically does not have a strong stance on what our constitution should imply. I on the other hand, personally see it at as a mixture of both.
Our government is witless to actually define a clear interpretation of our constitution, which in fact it urgently needs to formulate a clear policy in tackling critical social issues such as religious disputes. A clear policy that reflects our government’s main stance in solving these sort of critical matters.
Basically what I am questioning here is simple, is our government secular or does it base it’s policy making towards a certain religion?
It certainly cannot be both for our governments attempt to finding a balance between the two has resulted in confusions in constructing the much needed policies. Policies which needs a clear definition of our constitution on which the policies are literally based on.
Without first answering and realizing this crucial question our government will constantly fashion policies that has a muddled fundamental basis to it. Resulting in policies that has only raised more questions than answers.
Laws ranging from the infamous blasphemy law to the joint decree of the three ministers are prime examples of this recklessness. With these laws the government is now able to penetrate the personal lives of its citizens thereby to a major extent controlling on what we should or should not believe in. They are slowly without doubt steering our perception on major personal issues, issues such as the case of Ahmadiyah. It is but a discreet form of brainwashing if I may add.
With the blessings from our government in the form letting the Ahmadis suffer for the past recent years, our society will then gradually follow this act of negligence.
And since blasphemy seems to be such a crucial issue amongst many Indonesians due to religion having a major role in our society’s identity, wide spread discomfort may form and when there is discomfort, conflict may arise much easily. This is all due not solely because of the incorrect interpretation of our laws such as the joint decree of the three ministers but it goes much deeper which is because of out government not having a single strong stance towards this critical case. Which again it is because they do not have a clear interpretation of our constitution.
Churning policies only to satisfy the wants of the people but not their needs will only be a temporal solution of the issue at hand. We need a long term solution towards this case and it can only construct a long term solution once it has strong basis for that solution.
Our society may become the most religiously diverse society and even become the most religious and spiritual society the world has ever seen but our government must never have a religion. It needs secularity to maintain it’s neutrality and this is what we do not have.
Our current government has meddled too much in our personal lives. It is far from being neutral. How far actually is our government’s authority in defining a certain belief as blasphemy? Is it not clearly stated in our constitution that we as Indonesians have the freedom and rights to choose on what ever we choose to believe in? If we are only allowed to express something that does not offend, then where is the freedom? What is left for freedom in Indonesia is limited to the fear that we are afraid to offend an individual or a collective of individuals.
Blasphemy is only to be decided not by the government but amongst the conflicting parties themselves. State neutrality must be upheld, our government’s role must be neutral meaning that it must protect and ensure the safety of both conflicting parties and without a hint of doubt punish those who uses violence to instill their beliefs. Furthermore, as long as Ahmadiyah does not preach of hatred, our government should not limit its movement. Indonesia is not Pakistan that due to its constitution can define on what Ahmadiyah is.
Sadly in the end, the solution for Ahmadiyah comes down to on how our government interprets our constitution. A constitution which to my known knowledge has shown a high appreciation for religious pluralism. Rather opposite seeing the recent events don’t you think?
60 Comments on “Interpreting our Constitution.”
-
Patrick says:
@Oigal – Presidential decree seems to be in force in Indonesia. I believe in the West we would refer to this as an amendment to the constitution. Facts are facts 🙂
-
@Patrick – Perhaps in your west, Patrick. Yes although the presidential decree has to a major extent been enforced in our society yet Indonesia’s constitution has not undergone any form of amendment regarding this particular issue. It does not state in our constitution that we are only limited towards 6 religions. The presidential decree has, sadly, superseded our constitution. Sad and rather idiotic yet undeniably true. But this merely shows that it is the law enforcers and law makers that are to blame not the constitution itself.
If you indeed find a clause in Indonesia’s constitution that states otherwise, please do let me know. It would be a rather interesting and absurd subject to ponder over.
-
No Patrick we would not, anymore than we would refer to a law signed off by Obama as a change to the US constitution.
-
What is the point of a constitution if it is not followed and can be superceded? Many of us are asking that very same question here in the good ole USA?
-
That’s what many Indonesians have been asking these past few years, Patrick. If you look at Aceh and it’s syariah(Islamic) laws, the recent laws enacted by many of our provincial governors concerning the Ahmadis and even some city ordinances they all have shown that the constitution plays no role what so ever in constructing these laws. All of them has some way or the other superseded our constitution.
For our government, the constitution just seems to be words written on a piece of paper. The implementation of it is highly questionable. It is as if the government is slowly but sure letting religious fundamentalism creep in. Hey I think I should write about this.
-
nobody says:
The constitution does not say a lot of other things. How many pages will it be if you include all details in it.
-
The constitution does not say a lot of other things. How many pages will it be if you include all details in it.
However at least it is written down and is clear on intent. Can you provide us with a similar document in regards to Sharia in the interests of transparency?
-
ET says:
Patrick
What is the point of a constitution if it is not followed and can be superceded? Many of us are asking that very same question here in the good ole USA?
Just a question. How many votes are needed to amend or abrogate an amendment in the USA?
-
true, but laws must be based on the constitution. for if it isn’t then what use is the constitution?
-
Yes. All those presidential decrees, SKB and other laws and regulations you are complaining about are based on and merely elaborating the constitution. What is wrong with them?
-
Islamic law is pretty straight forward. the basics is in the Qur’an and the Sunna. Everybody can read it. Even the more detailed explanation in fiqh kitabs are also freely available for everyone to read. Indonesian students study the basics in highschool, so nobody can claim ignorance.
-
@ET – in the USA any amendment to the constitution must have 2/3 of the vote of both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives. Further it must have 3/4 of the 50 states also vote for any amendment so it is a very difficult and long process.
-
I must agree with Oigal’s position (as unusual as that may be :), of the importance of a constitution to any nation as it is the blueprint for how that nation develops. As an example, it is often referred to as the Supreme Law of the USA. Any civilized nation must have a system of laws that all should follow and be held accountable. When individulas or groups circumvent the constitution of their country, then they work outside the framework of the country’s founders and the blueprint of the nation. All of a sudden the country being built bears no likeness to the nation that was intended by the founders. This is exactly what is happening in Indonesia and to a certain extent in the USA.
-
Even the more detailed explanation in fiqh kitabs are also freely available for everyone to read.
What fiqh kitabare freely available for everyone to read? Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Ja’fari, Zaidi, Zahiri, Sufian Al’thawree, Sufian bin O’yayna, Layth bin Sa’ad, Tabari, etc?
Pretty straightforward indeed.
-
Odinius says:
Broadly speaking, yes you’re right, it’s not the same as the strict secularism and religious neutrality of the state in the United States. But your characterization of religion in Indonesia is not quite accurately, Patrick. First of all, a factual quibble: the Indonesian Constitution has been amended to recognize six, not five, official religions.
More importantly, some analytical quibbles: this “official, discrete pluralism” means that these six religions each get official recognition, and support, from the state. It also means that the state regulates certain aspects of religious life, and delegates certain portions of authority to religious authorities (i.e. over family law). It does not, however, mean that other religious groups are automatically illegal. Nor does it mean that the Department of Religion can unilaterally outlaw or ban a given sect. They can’t, and if they could, the Ahmadiyah would already be illegal. So, probably, would a whole raft of fundamentalist, proselytizing Muslim and Protestant groups deemed “deviant” by the various desks at the Departmen Agama. To date, I am not aware of a single religious group that has been banned in Indonesia. This is one reason why the Ahmadiyah issue is so much bigger than just what happens to the Ahmadiyah. If one “deviant” group can be outlawed on the basis of the Blasphemy Law, then others will surely follow.
The other part that’s missing from your statement is that the Indonesian Constitutions also explicitly enshrines the principle of religious freedom. This is why outlawing the idea of being Ahmadiyah would be unconstitutional.
-
Are you joking? I sure hope so.
Islamic law is anything but straight forward. What are you basing it on? Quran? Quran and Sunnah? Quran, Sunnah and commentary? What do you do with passages or hadiths that seem to contradict other ones? Which hadiths are more important than which? Based on what logic? Each mazhab has a different way of determining this, as do each of the reform movements. By their age? By the closeness of the salaf involved? By the way they relate to Quranic passages? Based on medieval commentary? Some combination of all of these? Some even reject the whole idea of the Sunnah, as they argue it’s a bunch of second-hand stuff of dubious reliability and not directly transmitted by God. Others point to passages in the Quran that, they argue, justify the idea of the Sunnah as a “guide” and supercede the Quranist objections to it.
Then there’s often very little agreement on what Islamic Law recommends. Does Islam support the idea of a clerisy, as in Shia Islam? Does Islam support the idea of an autonomous ulama, as in Sunni Islam? Does Islam support representative institutions like the majelis, shura, etc.? Or does it support autocratic power? What does awrah mean? Your head? Your genitalia and cleavage? Your whole body? How about jihad? Is inner struggle more important than physical struggle? Can physical jihad ever be offensive, or can it only be defensive? What is even meant by defense? Defense of the ummah, or limited to defense against attacks that are explicitly targeting the religion?
These are all claims that have been made, backed by selections from the Quran and Sunnah, by various people at various times. These are all, moreover, bones of contention AMONG MUSLIMS TODAY.
-
Any law material will require highly trained lawyers to be able to parse and discuss through it’s more detailed parts, just like the American Constitution, or Indonesia’s.
You are bein unfair, because if you pull up your lens a bit up, at the level of normal person’s material, even you agreed that for example, generally a defensive war is permitted in the Qur’an. Your delving further into the subtle differences of several nuances of every words will ofcourse make it seems complicated, as it will be with any law book you can find.
People has debated the same surah and hadith for 14centuries, picking on every single words, so if every body are not in a general agreement on a matter today, they are agreeing to disagree. Common text book usually frank about this and tell the casual reader that there are multiple opinions on the matter, maybe some opinions will be pointed out as a more “safe” positions, but most of the time it will be left to the reader’s decision on which to follow. People on the street usually knows on which matters there are multiple acceptable opinions, on which there is a strict single answers. Standard example for Indonesia is the qunut prayer difference between Muhammadiyah and NU.
-
You can find any of them in a bookstore, or even amazon.com
-
People has debated the same surah and hadith for 14centuries, picking on every single words, so if every body are not in a general agreement on a matter today, they are agreeing to disagree.
If after 14 centuries they only can agree to disagree then maybe it’s time to move on and look for other, more adapted ways to guide ones existence than the concept of one set of rules laid out by the ‘seal of the prophets’ for all people and all times.
Compared to the 7th century life has become a bit too diverse and complicated to be left in the hands of religious so-called scholars. -
realest says:
“alternative options have made peace following jungle rules”
broadly referring to those who could afford to get out and launch a career/business somewhere.
“Keeping mum” – it’s difficult enough to make a business profitable without getting harassed by the local bully, squeezed by territorial premans/police for inter-island expeditions or whatever crap fault they find on you in priok, taxing on total revenue without regard for overhead, throngs of corrupt officials and a ton of red tape for any kind of permits and loads of other crap …… without having to stick our nose into some dipshit bunch of nutheads who ignore everything about the local way of life and still has the audacity to refuse any sort of concessions. -
I always thought the “Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa” refers to one omnipotent God. i might be wrong, can someone qualified affirm this?
-
you know what im pretty tired of this ahmadiyah fiasco. as a non-muslim pork eating minority citizen, i would say “kill them all and get this over with” and move on to other more important issues such as education and maybe nurdin halid.
-
Haha, we’re Indonesians. There’s always something wrong with us. haha
-
Your humor sucks realest
-
What did I say that put the neo-liberals here to want to change the subject and go in retreat? “Must have something to do with realizing that you can’t have your cake and eat it too”
-
Hi Ben, I think this is not a matter of Indonesian officials did not understand our constitution. This is a problem they’re dizzy between the constitution and political interests. Cannot denying own constitution but at the same time also cannot denying hard-line pressure.
-
Bigmo says:
With the collapse of Ja’far Al Sadiq’s empire in Iran and Ibn Hanbal’s slow demise in Saudi Arabia, the tide is turning and the fictitous sects that emerged during the Abbasid Empire knows as the Sunni and Shia sects and others who follow man made revelations known as hadiths are slowly collapsing. Malik’s Empire in Sudan is collapsing and Abu Hanifa’s Empire in Pakistan is turning upside down. The so called Islamic states have proven to be ideologically obsolete and in the wrong side of history. The sects are on life support and the Koranist will take over. So who are the Koranist?
The Koranist believe only the Koran should speak for Islam.
WHAT IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAM AND TODAY’S PRACTICES?
In comparing the teachings of Islam as derived from the Book of God to the practices taught and enforced by the popular Sunni and Shia faiths (1.2 Bn followers), we find that the list is quite extensive, with some of the highlights as follows:
In Islam, the requirement to be a Muslim is to simply accept and live according to the ?Straight Path? (6:151-153), Vs. the Sunni or Shia 5-pillars which come from unauthorized books?
In Islam, abolishing Slavery is taught to be an act of righteousness (90:12-13), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which encourages slavery under war?
In Islam, women are never forbidden from praying or fasting during Menstruation (2:222), nor is there a specific dress code (i.e. the Headscarf) imposed on them beyond modesty, Vs. the Sunni and Shia which teach the undermining of women and forcing them to cover their hair and avoid praying or fasting at certain times…
In Islam, a man or women may leave a Will, after settlement of debt (4:12), Vs. Sunnis who refuse to accept wills if there are any direct descendants…
In Islam, Monogamy is the basis for normal relationships, while polygamy is only allowed in cases involving marrying the mothers of orphans under the man?s guardianship (4:3), Vs. Sunnis where a man may be a polygamist simply if he can afford to, and Shia which allow sex for pleasure (Mut?a)…
In Islam, Divorce is enforceable only after a two-phase period, and it may be made nullified if the couple reconcile before the end of this period (65:1, 65:4), Vs. Sunni teachings that destroy families by allowing a divorce to occur on the spot with no waiting period and no nullification…
In Islam, Thieves do not have their hands cut-off, but are made to work until they return that which is stolen (12:76), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which brutally amputate the hands causing disability…
In Islam, no one is allowed to be killed or Stoned for adultery (24:2), Vs. Sunni and Shia laws of stoning married adulterers to death…
In Islam, absolute Freedom of Faith is allowed (2:256, 10:99; 18:29; 88:21-22), Vs. Sunni and Shia requiring apostates to be killed and rejecting the practice of other faiths…
In Islam, people are acknowledged as being diverse and each is to be respected for his/her level of spiritual growth. A Submitter ?Muslim? must work to attain the status of Faithful ?Mumin? (49:14), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings that all followers of their religion must think, act, and even look the same (cult syndrome)…
In Islam, War can only be declared in cases of self-defence – no offensives (2:190), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings allowing raids and attacks on any people who are considered non-Muslim by their standards…
In Islam, Pilgrimage is a centre for gathering of nations and for all to witness the benefits of being together (22:27-28), Vs. Sunni and Shia bringing in polytheistic rituals and superstition (touching of black stone, circling 7 times, etc..)…
In Islam, a Year is a luni-solar count made of 365-days (17:12, 9:36), with all the seasons fitting-in-place Vs. Sunnis teaching it to be a lunar one based on 354 days which creates confusion of seasons and time?
In Islam, males and females are not required to be Circumcised (32:7), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings requiring all males to be circumcised and females in some cases…
In Islam, music, statues, gold and silk are all Lawful(7:32-33, 16:116), Vs. Sunni beliefs forbidding silk & gold for men, and forbidding music & statues for all…
In Islam, rule of Government is under the constitution of the Qur’an through consultation and free-speech (5:48, 42:38). Vs. Sunni teachings which allow the rise of dictators or monarchs, and Shia teachings which uphold self-appointed religious leaders based on genealogy.
-
syonan says:
As a Muslim myself, I don’t feel threatened by the Ahmadis, the most important thing is that our iman my be strong. Yang penting, kekuatan iman kita. I personally feel that the Ahmadis should be left along, to me they are harmless. Indonesian Muslims should let them be as they are.
-
Sammy says:
Really liked what you had to say in your post, interpreting our constitution. | The Indonesian, thanks for the good read!
— Sammy
Comment on “Interpreting our Constitution.”.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
Oigal
If so then I offer my sincere apologies.