Mohammad Yazid, Jakarta – The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled Monday to uphold the 45-year-old Blasphemy Law after a judicial review request was filed last October by human rights groups and backers of pluralism, who said the law violated religious freedom. Among those who advocated that the law should be upheld is one of the country's largest Islamic organizations, Muhammadiyah. Saleh Daulay, the organization's secretary of law enforcement and human rights promotion, talked to The Jakarta Post's Mohammad Yazid. Below are excerpts of the interview:

Question: The Constitutional Court dismissed the request to revoke the 1965 Blasphemy Law, what's your comment?

Answer: We support the court's decision, because the law is still needed by society regarding religious teachings. There are four aspects of understanding as our basis.

First, sociologically, this law has so far proven capable of providing peace in Indonesian society in observing the existing faiths.

Second, constitutionally, this law is not opposed to the 1945 Constitution because it guarantees freedom in performing religious teachings.

Third, philosophically, we in Muhammadiyah interpret religious freedom as limited freedom, because without any limit it may impinge on the freedom of others.

Fourth, theologically, as Muslims, it is necessary to protect those who observe the Islamic faith on the basis of the Koran as taught by the Prophet Muhammad. For instance, Islam maintains that Muhammad is the last prophet, but when a certain group claims the presence of a new prophet, we need to protect the established majority so that their faith won't be disturbed. As an organization, Muhammadiyah is also obliged to protect its members.

If the law is revoked, we see no more (legal) foundation that can be used to avoid social mayhem and certain groups taking the law into their own hands.

Isn't the ruling against the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom?

No, because the freedom is one which respects other people's freedom, instead of total freedom without limit. The freedom only applies as long as no religious principles are contradicted.

As indicated in its other articles and elucidations, this law was made to prevent unresolved cases that may endanger the unity of the nation and state, and to foster peaceful religious practice. This law is needed to preserve social order.

The law was by no means intended to encroach on the survival rights of government-sanctioned religions.

Neither was it meant as an intervention of the state in citizens' freedom to embrace and perform some religious teachings, but instead it was designed to strengthen the basis of social life and uphold the principles of citizens' equal rights before the law.

Who should define "heretical religious teachings" as stipulated in Article 1 of the law?

We think the large Islamic groups whose existence has been recognized, in this case the major Muslim organizations such as Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), Muhammadiyah and the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), are authorized to define the groups regarded as practicing heretical religious teachings.

However, we continue to respect the role of the government, in this case the Religious Affairs Ministry, in dealing with this issue.

The sense of heresy here has a theological implication, which is drawing people from true Islam, such as the teachings of Lia Aminuddin and Ahmadiyah, which cannot be accepted by established and majority groups of Muslims.

Some other examples of heretical religious teachings are the worship of a new prophet after Muhammad, prayers in languages other than Arabic or making haj pilgrimages to places other than the Holy Land Mecca as instructed by Muhammad.

Under this law, how would the Ahmadiyah followers conduct worship?

We in Muhammadiyah support the freedom to follow whatever faith is embraced, even the freedom to set up a new religion, but one should avoid the way in which Ahmadiyah uses Islam, as its teachings are contrary to Islam.

As a solution Ahmadiyah should found a new religion if it doesn't want to be called a heretical group, thus creating peace among us. The main problem is that one of its teachings concerns a new prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, whereas Islam teaches that Muhammad is the last prophet of the era.

If any revision is proposed, how should it be done and what's your suggestion?

Perhaps we need to define the criteria for heretical teachings and who is the most responsible for it in this case. It's our main principle to support all proposals that lead to more peace in this country. We will support measures to introduce clearer rules on heretical teachings.

With the law now in force, certain groups may feel justified to intimidate others. What should be done to avoid arbitrary acts?

This law will serve as a means to avoid such arbitrary actions. Such acts should be referred to the Criminal Code. We in Muhammadiyah do not support any party taking the law into its own hands in treating minorities, whether it's the Islamic Defenders' Front (FPI) or any other group. All minorities should receive protection in carrying out their beliefs.