SHARIAsource

This fatwa states that the Islam Jama'ah sect commenced in Indonesia in the 1970s. As its teachings were misled and misleading, and led to disquiet among Indonesian society, its interpretation of Islam was prohibited by the government in 1971. Islam Jama'ah, however, continued to operate under different names, which continued to change until 1977-78. The philosophy of Islam Jama'ah was that there were 72 categories of Muslims who were not part of Islam Jama'ah and would, therefore, be directed to hell.

The sect believed it had to appoint a Leader of Believers (Amirul Mukminin) as its central leadership; a leader who must be obeyed. Adherents had to pledge allegiance to this Leader in order to be guaranteed passage to heaven, and the only rightful and permissible Islamic teachings came from ther Leader. Adherents of the sect also had to cut off ties with persons from these other categories, even if those people were their parents; they were not allowed to pray behind people who were not adherents of Islam Jama'ah; they were not allowed to wear clothing for prayers that had been touched by people who were not adherents unless it had been cleansed; husbands even had to endeavour to make their wives join the sect, and if their wives refused, they would have to divorce them. A legitimate marriage was one officiated by the sect's leader, and for a sermon to be legitimate it would have to be conducted in Arabic.

This fatwa states that Islam Jama'ah, Darul Hadits (or whatever other pseudonym the sect may have adopted), is contrary to the teachings of Islam, and that its dissemination is designed to destablise the state. It implores Muslims to avoid its teachings and to return to the pure teachings of Islam with the intent and desire to similarly save those who have already chosen Islam as their religion from the wrath of Allah. It also implores people to report to their local public prosecutor any evidence of activities conducted by Islam Jama'ah.

This joint decree stipulates that regional heads are to permit religious dissemination and worship, provided that such activities do not contradict current laws and do not disrupt public order.

This statute exalted the hierarchical status of Indonesian Presidential Determination No. 1 of 1965 on the Prevention of Abuse and/or Defamation of Religion from presidential regulation (peraturan presiden) to statute (undang-undang).

This gubernatorial regulation prohibits the Millata Abraham sect. Specifically, society is prohibited from carrying out anarchic behaviour and/or illegal conduct that relates to activities of the adherents, members, and/or organisers, of the Millata Abraham and/or Komar sect. Moreover, the sect deviates from the aqidah (creed) and religious requirements of Islam and/or other religions.

This gubernatorial regulation endeavours to maintain public safety and order in the face of deviant interpretations of religions by prohibiting activities that disseminate their practices and beliefs. The regulation stipulates the Ulama Consultative Council (Majelis Permusyawaratan Ulama) of Aceh as the authorised body to determine whether or not a sect deviates from traditional Islamic teachings as found in the Qur'an and Hadith, among other legitimate Islamic sources.

This regional regulation, which makes provision for public order in Pekalongan, Centra Java (Jawa Tengah), states that advertisements may not be offensive towards any ethnicity, race, and religion, may not contain pornography, may not be provocative, and may not contravene morality and ethics (art 40(1)). It also states that every religion is prohibited from:

1. offending other religions;
2. preventing religious activities from taking place;
3. cause damage to religious facilities and infrastructure;
4. conducting religious activities prohibited by the government;
5. conducting religious activities that result in disturbing public order and the peace;
6. teaching deviant sects to members of society;
7. using places of residence as places of worship; and
8. establishing places of worship without the regent's permission (art 43(1)).

This regional regulation makes provision for public order in Tegal, Central Java (Jawa Tengah). It prohibits the production, distribution, sale, making available, and serving of alcohol (art 49(1)). It makes an exception for the use of alcohol in religious ceremonies and for health purposes (art 49(2)). It also states that all persons and entities, whether indoors or outdoors, are prohibited from exceeding curfews in the evening, during Ramadhan, and other religious days (art 64). Similarly, places of entertainment, pubs, discotheques, cafes, karaoke establishments, massage parlours, spa houses, saunas, and the like are prohibited from operating during the month of Ramadhan (art 65(1)), while restaurants may not disturb the solemnity of Ramadhan (art 65(2)).

This gubernatorial regulation prohibits adherents, members and/or coordinating members of the Ahmadiyya community (Jemaat Ahmadiyah) from conducting activities in any form that relate to the dissemination of their own interpretation of Islam, as well as activities that deviate from the tenets of Islam (art 3(1)). The regulation also prohibits members of society from carrying out anarchic or illegal conduct in connection with the activities of adherents, members and/or coordinating members of the Ahmadiyya community that deviate from the tenets of Islam (art 4(1)).

This mayoral regulation prohibits Ahmadis from carrying out activities in any form in the territory of Bekasi municipality (art 2(1)), while legislating for the fostering and surveillance of Ahmadis by the regional government (art 3).

The plaintiff (KH. Moch. Yusman Roy) was the caretaker of Jamaah Pengajian Lelaku at Pondok Iktikaf, an i'tikaf (seclusion in a mosque) study group venue in Malang, East Java, where Qur'anic study and recitation activities were held, and the production of prayer carpets (sajadah), pillows, and bolsters was conducted. The defendant, the Regent (Bupati) of Malang, had issued a decree declaring the cessation of the activities of Jamaah Pengajian Lelaku at Pondok Iktikaf. The plaintiff submitted that he had received the decree, dated 7 May 2005, through a family member. On 6 May 2005 at 8.00pm, however, the plaintiff submitted that he had been arrested and interrogated by the Malang Regional Police. Therefore, the legal process had been implemented prematurely and without authority. Moreover, that in issuing the decree, the defendant had acted unilaterally, without considering all the relevant concerns. Therefore, pursuant to art 53(1) and (2)(a) and (b) of Law No. 9 of 2004 on Amendments to Law No. 5 of 1989 on the State Administration of the Judiciary, as the plaintiff had suffered loss as the result of a state administrative decree, he was entitled to submit a written application to the authorised court seeking that the decree be declared null and void, and seeking damages as an additional remedy. The plaintiff also requested that the court suspend the implementation of the defendant's decree, pursuant to art 67(2) of Law No. 5 of 1986, and that the investigation of the case be conducted as quickly as possible, pursuant to art 98 of Law No. 5 of 1986.

In its exceptions, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff's submissions were incorrect and inaccurate because the plaintiff had already submitted a request for protection, dated 6 May 2005, to the Malang Regional Police, expressing concern and fear for the consequences of his having taught sholat and do'a (prayers) in both Arabic and Indonesian. The plaintiff's conduct had allegedly generated a negative reaction from the community towards the plaintiff. It was in accordance with the plaintiff's request that the Malang Police conducted its investigation and arrest on 7 May 2005. The legal consequences that followed had, therefore, resulted from the plaintiff's request, rather than the issuance of the regental decree. The regental decree had been issued in consideration of Presidential Determination No. 1 of 1965 on the Prevention of Abuse and/or Defamation of Religion, meaning that both an administrative action and criminal conduct had occurred, for the purposes of art 10 of Law No. 32 of 2004 on Regional Administration. Moreover, purusant to art 27(1)(c) of Law No. 32 of 2014, the regental decree had been issued in accordance with the obligations of a regional head to maintain peace and order. More specifically, it was issued in anticipation of anarchic reactions from other parties who did not share the religious opinions of the plaintiff that it was acceptable to conduct sholat in Indonesian, as well as the original Arabic.

The defendant also submitted that the state administrative court was precluded from adjudicating the case pursuant to art 49 of Law No. 5 of 1986, because it had issued the regental decree during a time when the public interest dictated it do so. In addition to adhering to Presidential Determination No. 1 of 1965, the regental decree also accorded with art 156(a) of the Criminal Code because it acknowledged that the plaintiff's conduct was defamatory towards a religion.

The court dismissed the defendant's exceptions in their entirety. It reiterated the constitutioanlly-guaranteed freedom to practise one's religion and beliefs in accordance with their own conscience, as found in art 28E(1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution, as well as Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights. The court noted that these guarantees derive from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, which identifies basic human rights and freedoms which are naturally connected to, and inseparable from, humans from the moment they are born. The court also noted, however, that as the defendant had deemed the activities of Pondok Iktikaf Jamaah Njagi Lelaku to have the potential to disturb the peace and order of the community, it was of the opinion that the cessation of these activities constituted a preventative measure to protect the human rights of others, and that maintaining the peace was in the public interest, per art 73 of Law No. 39 of 1999, which states that rights and freedoms can only be limited by, and pursuant to, statute. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's request that the regental decree issued by the defendant be revoked on the grounds that it was not contrary to any statute. Moreover, it dismissed the plaintiff's request that the defendant reinstate the good name of the plaintiff on the same grounds.

This case relates to the infamous 'Monas Incident' (Insiden Monas). On 1 June 2008, the birthday of Pancasila ('five principles' - Indonesian state ideology), members of the National Alliance for the Freedom of Religion and Beliefs (Aliansi Kebangsaan Untuk Kebebasan Beragama dan Berkeyakinan - AKKBB), while conducting a peaceful long march from Gambir Station to Bundaran Hotel Indonesia, were attacked by members of the Islamic Defenders' Front (Front Pembela Islam - FPI) at the Indonesian National Monument (Monumen Nasional - Monas). While AKKBB claimed the march was in the name of religious freedom and putting an end to violence within religion, the FPI, led by former human rights lawyer turned 'born again' Muslim and Hizbut Tahrir member, Munarman, had heard that members of AKKBB were marching in support of Ahmadiyya. This, according to members of FPI and certain other Islamic groups assembled nearby to protest the increase in fuel prices, provided them sufficient reason to encounter the AKKBB protestors.

Those accused of physically assaulting AKKBB protesters were sentenced to one year imprisonment for contravention of art 170(2).1 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana) on the grounds they had caused damage to property or used violence to cause injury. Significantly, the defendants made no reference to laws against blasphemy to excuse their conduct.

The Asia Bibi case is one of the recent manifestations of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. The Applicant, Asia Bibi, a Christian woman, was sentenced to death by the trial court after allegedly uttering blasphemous statements against the Prophet Mohammad to fellow Muslim field workers. Despite serious questions regarding the quality of her defense and the truthfulness of the allegations against her, the appeal to the Lahore High Court was dismissed.

The Pakistan Supreme Court has acquitted Asia Bibi of blasphemy charges, removing her from death row. A Pakistani Christian woman, Asia Bibi, was arrested in 2010 after a dispute with her Muslim co-workers in which they claimed that she insulted the Prophet Muhammad. The state prosecutor charged her with blasphemy and the trial court sentenced her to death. The courts subsequently dismissed her appeal to the Lahore High Court. After a lengthy series of appeals, the Pakistan Supreme Court acquitted Asia Bibi of blasphemy charges, vacating her sentence. The decision navigates between affirming the law and reversing its application to Ms. Bibi. The Court notes on the one hand that blasphemy was a severe offense under classic Islamic law, and it upholds capital punishment for it, citing Muhammad Ismail Qureshi v. Pakistan (PLD 1991 FSC 10). The Court concludes, on the other hand, that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellant “beyond reasonable doubt.” It noted “glaring and stark contradictions in the evidence,” and cited evidence that the prosecution’s witnesses harbored ill will against Asia Bibi and thus may have fabricated the allegations. According to the Court, “even if there was some grain of truth in the allegations … the glaring contradictions in the evidence … clearly show that the truth in this case had been mixed with a lot which was untrue.” In the end, the Court notes the abuse of the blasphemy charge, and condemns people with “nefarious designs” who level false allegations of blasphemy, citing Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri v. the State (PLD 2016 SC 17). This decision thus upholds blasphemy laws but cautions against broad and false applications of it.

Brunei lawmakers passed amendments to the Syariah Penal Code Order of 2013 in August 2018. The amendments define the term ‘practice or ceremony related to the religion of Islam’ and give examples, broaden the definition of ‘contempt of Islam’ to include disputing and questioning, and broaden ‘incitement to neglect religious duty’ to include any Islam-related practice or ceremony that is common in Brunei.

Brunei lawmakers passed amendments to the Syariah Penal Code Order of 2013 in August 2018. The amendments define the term ‘practice or ceremony related to the religion of Islam’ and give examples, broaden the definition of ‘contempt of Islam’ to include disputing and questioning, and broaden ‘incitement to neglect religious duty’ to include any Islam-related practice or ceremony that is common in Brunei.

Lawmakers in Brunei passed the Syariah Penal Code Order of 2013 in October of that year, and implemented the law in two stages: sections regulating minor crimes and misdemeanors took effect on May 1, 2014, and the remainder—including serious crimes and felonies that entail classical Islamic criminal law’s fixed crimes and punishments—took effect on April 3, 2019. This Islamic criminal code exists in parallel to Brunei’s “civil” (or secular) criminal laws, which borrow from British law. Among other provisions, Brunei’s new code criminalizes failures to perform various religious obligations, sexual relations out of wedlock, and gay or lesbian sexual relations. It includes punishments of whipping, amputation of hands and feet, and stoning. Notably, the most severe punishments accompany very high evidentiary standards as laid out within the Code, and in the related Syariah Courts Criminal Procedure Code Order, the SCCPCO of 2018.

Lawmakers in Brunei passed the Syariah Penal Code Order of 2013 in October of that year, and implemented the law in two stages: sections regulating minor crimes and misdemeanors took effect on May 1, 2014, and the remainder—including serious crimes and felonies that entail classical Islamic criminal law’s fixed crimes and punishments—took effect on April 3, 2019. This Islamic criminal code exists in parallel to Brunei’s “civil” (or secular) criminal laws, which borrow from British law. Among other provisions, Brunei’s new code criminalizes failures to perform various religious obligations, sexual relations out of wedlock, and gay or lesbian sexual relations. It includes punishments of whipping, amputation of hands and feet, and stoning. Notably, the most severe punishments accompany very high evidentiary standards as laid out within the Code, and in the related Syariah Courts Criminal Procedure Code Order, the SCCPCO of 2018.

Volume 3

On February 2, 2023, the Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Johor (MAINJ) announced that Sultan Ibrahim of Johor had approved a fatwā on the types of events hosted by non-Muslims that Muslims are permitted to attend. The fatwā states that Muslims are prohibited from participating in religious rituals of other faiths, but they are not precluded from attending celebrations of other faiths that do not involve ritual ceremonies. Along with the issuance of the fatwā, MAINJ also issued more general guidelines on non-Muslim festivals that Muslims are permitted to attend–including ceremonies not accompanied by rituals, non-Muslim religious symbols, and religious songs contrary to the Islamic faith.

On January 17, 2023, the National Assembly of Pakistan passed a bill expanding the country’s laws on blasphemy. Previously, Pakistan’s blasphemy laws subjected those who insulted the Prophet Muhammad to the death penalty. The amended blasphemy laws carry a minimum ten-year prison sentence for those deemed to have insulted any of the Prophet’s Companions or Family members, and it renders blasphemy a non-bailable offense.