---

Amidhan Shaberah and Musni Umar, experts presented by the relevant parties to offer their expertise in the judicial review hearing of Blasphemy Law on Thursday (9/2) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

A sociologist of the Ibnu Chaldun University, Musni Umar, emphasized the need for the Ahmadiyya to break away from community exclusivity. This was conveyed by Umar, an expert for the Dewan Da’wah Islamiyah Indonesia, in a follow-up hearing of Law No. 1/1965 on Religious Prevention, Abuse, and/or Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law) held by the Constitutional Court on Thursday (9/2).

Umar asserted that exclusivity is one of the five factors that keep the Ahmadiyya issue from coming to an end. The expert for the Relevant Party explained that exclusivity is apparent because the Ahmadiyya community lives only with its community and not with the general society so it is very easy to arouse suspicion in social relations.

In the fourteenth session of the case No. 56/PUU-XV/2017, Umar mentioned several factors influencing the lack of solution for the Ahmadiyya issue. He said theological, scripture, community mosque, and the absence of comprehensive problem solving has made the distinction between the Ahmadiyya and the predominantly Muslim Indonesian society continue to occur. On the lack of solution to the Ahmadiyya issue, Umar explained that from 2009 to 2018 various groups have raised their voices on the Ahmadiyya issue.

"The root of this problem is Law No. 1/1965 on Religious Prevention, Abuse, and/or Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law) that was created in the period of Guided Democracy, but this law is still indispensable to prevent religious blasphemy before the birth of a new law," Umar said.

In relation to theological factor, Umar said that in social life, the society considers the Ahmadiyya deviant and expected Ahmadiyya followers to go back to the teachings of Islam or consider themselves non-Muslims or ask the government to dissolve the community. As for the scriptures, Umar said that in the the Ahmadiyya community there is the Book of Tadzirah, whereas Islam has the Qur\'an. Thus, according to Umar, this is a problem that encourages conflict.

"The decision of the World Islamic League and the MUI fatwa that declare the Ahmadiyya a heresy is not the cause of Muslims abusing the Ahmadiyya, but more the ghirah of Muslims who rise because of their belief that Islam was being challenged," Umar said.

Next, about mosques built only for the Ahmadiyya community, Umar acknowledged that the mosque is a place of worship for anyone and a place to perform social activities. However, this is not the case in practice in relation to the Ahmadiyya.

Polemic in Society

On the same occasion, Former Chief of MUI Halal Product Division, Amidhan Shaberah, in his statement conveyed that acts of violence against the Ahmadiyya, Amidhan conveyed Islamic figures had made attempts to seek a solution on the Ahmadiyya issue.

"[Islamic communities] agree that the Ahmadiyya deviates from the teachings of Islam. For that, the government must be present at every sign of violence so that every individual is free to perform their worship and belief, but it should be stressed that the state also has the authority to supervise it so as not to disturb the freedom of others," Amidhan explained.

At the end of the statement, Amidhan expressed his wish that the Ahmadiyya remain in its group and not try to spread its teachings to other parties and that the state always be present in every sign of violence that befell the Ahmadiyya. "Thus, there is no need to change existing laws as it could cause new problems. So, I insist that there be no change in the a quo law," he explained.

The Petitioners are Ahmadiyya adherents who claimed their constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Blasphemy Law. In their petition, they claim the Joint Decree of the Minister of Religious Affairs, the Attorney General, and the Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia concerning Warning and Order to Adherents, Members and/or Leading Members of the Indonesian Ahmadiyya Jama\'at (JAI) and Members of the General Public (Joint Decree of 3 Ministers) drafted based on the three articles had caused them damages. The Joint Decree of 3 Ministers established Ahmadiyya as a cult. Therefore, the Petitioners were directly affected and their rights to religion and worship were restricted and suppressed because of it.

The Ahmadiyya adherents feel a domino effect, for example the Petitioners could no longer worship in the mosques they had built because they were sealed or burned down, they could not record their marriage in Religious Affairs Office (KUA), and they were even evicted from their residences. Therefore, the Petitioners requested that Articles 1, 2, and 3 of Blasphemy Law be declared contrary to Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28E paragraphs 1) and (2), Article 28I paragraph (2), Article 28G paragraph (1), and Article 29 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and having no binding legal force as long as it was interpreted to be against the citizens of the Ahmadiyya community who only worshipped in their own places of worship and not in public. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---