Jakarta – Indonesia's top Islamic organisation Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) yesterday demanded that an article guaranteeing religious freedom be kept untouched in the country's Constitution.
NU reiterated its stand at the close of its congress that it opposed efforts to make religious practice and syariah law obligatory for Indonesian Muslims.
A 10-point recommendation issued by the congress said that although the NU fully supported current efforts to amend the 1945 Constitution, it wanted the article guaranteeing freedom of religion kept untouched.
"NU is of the opinion that the values of the national independence proclamation, the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, the presidential system and Chapter 29 of the 1945 Constitution, do not need to be changed." Chapter 29 says that the state guarantees the freedom for every resident to adhere to his respective religion and to perform his religious duties in accordance with his religion.
But the United Development Party, the largest Islamic political party, headed by Vice-President Hamzah Haz – and some smaller Islamic parties – are advocating an amendment that makes it compulsory for Indonesian Muslims to practise their faith and abide by syariah law.
The People's Consultative Assembly, Indonesia's highest law making body, is scheduled to discuss this during its annual congress in Jakarta next month.
Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim-populated state with over 80 per cent of its approximately 214 million people following the Islam faith, but it is not the state religion and different faiths are widely accepted.
The NU also rejected any plan by the US and its allies to attack Iraq and reiterated its support for Palestinian statehood.
The organisation with over 40 million members, primarily active in Islamic education, urged the world and the United Nations to halt what it called Israeli aggression in the Middle East.
The NU regional chief for Yogyakarta, Mr Abdul Malik Madani, reading out the discussion results, said a suicide bombing could be condoned if it was part of a fight for truth and Islam.
He was quoted as saying that it was acceptable if it met three conditions: that it was aimed at protecting and fighting for the interests of Islam and Muslims; that there was no other more effective and less risky way to do so; and that it should only be aimed towards those believed to be the masterminds or perpetrators of injustice.