Objection of Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia Against the Review of Blasphemy Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Misuse And / Or Desecration of Religions Proposed by The Advocacy Team of Religious Freedom
As it is widely known, the Law Number 1/PNPS/1965 is about the Misuse And / Or Desecration of Religions. The Religious Freedom Advocacy Team is now asking the Constitutional Court to review the law.
If it is carefully observed, the law is part of the state’s efforts to protect its citizens from the spread of interpretations and religious activities that deviate from the basic principles of religious teachings in Indonesia. Also, it protects the people from the acts of hostility, abuse, or desecration of the professed religions in Indonesia.
As one of the religions professed by the majority of Indonesian people, Islam and the Muslim community are among those protected by the law. If the law is dropped as requested by the plaintiff, the protection of the sanctity and the purity of Islam is threatened. Even when this law is still valid now, various interpretations and deviant religious practices continue to emerge, then what will it be when it is removed. Not to mention there are various actions that lead to hostility, abuse, and desecration of Islam. So it is certain, if the prohibition against those acts is dropped, distortion, and desecration of Islam will be more vivid.
Yet strangely, in their material litigation the advocacy team also use the reality of Islam and the Muslims as the basis of their arguments; to make it sound as if their litigation is in line or not contrary to Islam. In fact after making a careful study, we know that the arguments used by the plaintiff have many weaknesses, unfounded, and not in accordance with the facts. Even among its content, there are many elements of provocation that can cause conflicts. Some of which are:
1. In their legal claim, the plaintiff said (38a, page. 19): Similar to Islam, for example, there are many which deal with religious schools of thought: Sunni, Shiite, Mu’tazila, Kharijites, and so on. In one school of thought there are a variety of branches. At least there are four schools of thought in Islamic jurisprudence: Sunni, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali. At the level of theology, the Sunni is even divided into Asy’ariyah and Maturidiyah.
Similarly, the plaintiff also stated (154, page. 53): The fact that there is no sole understanding of religion creates the problems on whose authority will be used to interpret that one religion has been hostile, abused, or dishonored. They also asserted (169, page 60): In reacting to the differences in beliefs and/or religions, the state should stay neutral by not siding with one of the teachings /sects/ interpretations.
The reality of the various groups and schools of thought in the lives of the Muslims is used as a basic argument to say that the main points of the teachings do not have a standard provision. In fact, that is not the case.
It is true that in the life of the Muslims there are many schools of thought as mentioned by the petitoners. But the number of schools of thought and groups in Islam does not make Islam to lose a tool to assess whether a school of thought (madzhab) or a group is still in the corridors of Islam or is out of it. The tool is Al-Quran and al-Sunna. Because, both are the major sources of Islamic teachings, either in aqeedah-which becomes the creed of Islam as well as the Usul-or in sharia-which is called the branch or trivial cases (furû’)
It is said that if all groups and schools of thought have the rights to claim that their opinion is taken from al-Quran and al-Sunnah, why there is still a difference? Wouldn’t that indicate that the interpretation of both is relative so that one cannot undermine another?
If anyone thinks so, then it shows that he or she doesn’t know, or pretends not to know-the facts of al-Quran and al-Sunna. As a kalam (speech), the liberals often call Quran as ‘text’-, al-Quran and al-Sunna potentially create a variety of interpretations. But not all verses of al-Quran and Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم have multi interpretations. Because the dalâlah (the appointment of its meaning) of the verse or hadith in both sources may have qath’iy meanings (which are loud and clear) so as not to allow interpretation of more than one meaning; and there are zhanniy meanings (which are vague and contains allegations), which opens opportunities for different interpretations. This reality is stated by the Qur’an in Surah Ali Imran [3]: 7, that the verses of al-Quran are divided into two parts, namely: the verses of muhkamât and and the verses of mutasyâbihât.
The verses of muhkamât are verses, which are clear in their meanings and their appointment, and there is no vagueness in them, [1] and has only one meaning [2] so they don’t create differences of interpretation. [3] An example is the saying of Allah:
قل هو الله أحد
"Say: "He is Allah, the One."
"Say: "He is Allah, the One."
(Sura al-Ikhlash, 112:1)
The dalâlah or the appointment of the meaning of this verse is very clear. There is no other interpretation except that God is only one. If there is someone who interprets this verse that God is two, three, or four, then the interpretation certainly has deviated from the content of this verse. Likewise, the saying of Allah:
وَلاَ تَقْرَبُواْ الزِّنَى إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاء سَبِيلاً
"Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)"
(Surah al-Isra ‘, 17:32)
Based on this verse, adultery is a moral disgrace and is prohibited. If there is a contrary interpretation of this, for example, which states that adultery is an allowable act, even laudable deeds and it is ordered, then it is clearly a distorted interpretation.
While the verses of mutasyâbihât are the opposite of muhkamât verse. The verses of mutasyâbihât are those whose meaning are vague and contain multiple interpretations, which may cause more than one possible meanings. [4] For example Allah says:
أَوْ لاَمَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء
"Or you have been in contact with women"
(Surah an-Nisa 4:43)
The word Lâmastum in the verse is understood by some Mujtahids with haqîqiy meaning (denotative meaning), which is touching in the truest sense. While others understand the meaning with majâzi (connotative meaning), which means Jima ‘(intercourse). [5]
In the propositions, which have zhanniy meaning (more than one interpretation), then there is a room for ijtihad (interpretation). Because of its multiple interpretations, then the difference of ijtihad in it is still permitted, and tolerated by Islam. That is in this realm evolves many schools of thought. All schools of thought, as long as they base on the mu’tabar (trusted) proposition, are still categorized as al-madzâhib al-Islamiyya (Islamic schools of thought). In this context, there are differences of opinion about the number of rakaat (movements and words) of Tarawih prayer and qunut of Shubuh prayer. Strangely, this matter is justified a lawsuit by the plaintiff (page. 23).
The same thing would not apply to cases built from qath’iy propositions. Because the meaning is so clearly demonstrated that there is no need for ijtihad in it. There should not be differences and disagreements in understanding that. Allah forbids and threatens people with severe punishment who disagree about the things in which they have clear provisions (al-bayyinât) both in Quran Book and in Sunnah. Allah says:
وَلاَ تَكُونُواْ كَالَّذِينَ تَفَرَّقُواْ وَاخْتَلَفُواْ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
"Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving Clear Signs: For them is a dreadful penalty."
(Surah Ali Imran, 3:105) [6]
In Islam, all matters which are the cores of the religion (ushul al-din) are based on the qath’iy (definite) proposition. Among these matters are the faith to Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection, and al-qadhâ’ wa al-qadar. So, anyone who denies those, either in whole or in part, is out of Islam.
Similarly, the legal cases that have been known urgent in Islam (ma’lumun min ad-ad-din bi dharurah), such as the necessity of prayer, fasting, zakat, hajj, or illegitimate murder, adultery, stealing, qisas penalty for murderers, cutting off hands for theft, and others are included the ones that do not require ijtihad. [7] Anyone who denies it, then he or she falls into infidelity.
Thus, although in Muslim ummah many schools of thought and groups emerge, they can easily be identified and classified, whether the group or the school of thought is still in the corridors of Islam or is out of it. In Islam, it has been clear what matters should be the same, and what matters are allowed to be different. Islam also has set some basic ideas, both covered in the pillars of Islam, the pillars of faith, as well as a number of its ideas expressed by the qath’iy propositions. If there are any groups who claim to be Islamic groups, but they have conflicting views and ideas with some basic principles as mentioned above, then the groups cannot be said to be Islamic groups.
Starting from here, the plaintiff’s arguments that mention many groups make it difficult in determining which cases are included as the main teachings of Islam are discarded and should be rejected. Similarly, it is clear that the authority which determines whether a religion is an enemy is the religion itself, and of course through the leader of the Muslims. For example, al-Quran definitely states that Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the last prophet and messenger, then the Ahmadiyya who claimed there is another prophet after the Prophet Muhammad has clearly deviated from the teachings of Islam.
Accordingly, the lawsuit that the State must not take sides on one teaching / thought / interpretation, including the teaching / thought /interpretation of Islam is something irrelevant. Therefore, the State should have acted to keep the purity of religion, particularly Islam and take side on Muslims. The State also provides religious freedom to others to stay alive. Only in furu ‘(branches/trivial) matters, may the State give freedom to everyone to carry out his conviction. If there is a desecration of the Islam, then the perpetrators must be punished by the State.
The removal of the State’s role in religious matters is actually a characteristic of the Liberal view, both in the field of economics and in religion. Such a view is clearly contrary to Islam itself that necessitates the role of the state, both in the field of religion and economics, and certainly in all other areas. In addition, it is also in contra to the constitution of this country.
2. The plaintiffs interpreted freedom of religion (45, page. 27): That the freedom of ’embracing’ a religion or a belief also includes the freedom to choose his or her religion or belief, including the right to change his or her religion or belief with another religion or embrace an atheistic view…
This interpretation is clearly not in accordance with the principle of Belief in God Almighty. From this, it is already clear that what is desired by the plaintiff is any form of freedom, the emergence of any new sect or any religion, including the freedom to be atheists. This is a proposal that will destroy the pillars of the State. Because of that, this view must be rejected and canceled.
3. In their complaint, the plaintiff said that (38a, page 19): The differences in religious thought in Islam are not only about the trivial doctrine (furu’iyyah), but also about more fundamental problems (Ushul/Principle). The debate between the Sunni and the Mu’tazila even about the relationship between God and His nature. Mu’tazila said that the Qur’aan is a creature, and therefore it is not eternal. While the Sunnis regarded it eternal and inherent in God’s Himself.
"Also, in their complaint the plaintiff stated that (144, page. 51): Ahmad Bin Hanbal (241H/855), was imprisoned and tortured because the regime at that time took Mu’tazila school of thought to become the State’s official school of thought, in which Ahmad ibn Hanbal was considered deviated from Mu’tazila doctrines. After the State changed its official school of thought, then at that time Ahmad bin Hanbal had also been recovered from the status of the deviation, and even was recognized as a great scholar (ulama).
In Islamic knowledge, we know the term of usûl and furû ‘. The term of usul al-din refers to the case of Islamic creed, while the term furû refers to the case of sharia. It has been explained previously that in the case of usul al-din the Muslims are not allowed to be different. In the case of Usul, people are required to believe. Anyone who denies it will lead him or her to fall into infidelity.
However, in the subject matter itself there are things, which become the branches (far ‘[un] ushûliy amri min). Of course there are differences between the two. The subject matters should not be different, while in the case of branches of the underlying subject the differences are still possible. In the case of Usul, the proposition used, as its base must be qath’iy, either it is tsubût (clear source of proposition) or it is dalâlah (clear meaning of the proposition). While in the far ‘[un] min amri ushûliy, the differences are allowed because they do not have to be built from qath’iy propositions. It is the differences in this case which then give birth to various madzâhib i’tiqâdiyyah (theology schools), such as Ahlussunnah, Mu’tazilite and Jabariyah.
Muhtazilah and Jabariyah
For example, the faith in the existence of the angels of Allah is a matter of usul. This faith is based on qath’iy proposition, both tsubût and dalâlah. While the case of the names of angels and their jobs is a branch discussion. If the case is based on qath’iy proposition, something that we must have faith in. Like the belief of the existence of Angel Gabriel and Mikail. So anyone who denies their existence, he or she has been distorted and out of Islam. But if their existence is based on dzanni proposition (strong assumption), either tsubût or dalâlah, then the denial of them will not lead to infidelity. For example, the existence of angels of Munkar and Nakir. Because the proposition of the latter is not until qath’iy, so if there is anyone who denies his or her existence, he or she is not out of Islam.
The same case happens with the faith in al-Quran. The muslims believe that al-Quran is kalâmul-Lâh (the words of Allah), which was revealed by Allah to Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, all of its contents are true, in which there is no addition, no subtraction, and no change and it is a matter that the muslims must believe. This is the case of Usul. The faith against it based is based on the qath’iy proposition. So anyone who denies it has left Islam.
The discussion of whether al-Quran is a creature or not is something different. The discussion includes one of trivial cases. The propositions, which explain it, do not reach the degree of qath’iy. So, the differences of opinion in this case will not lead someone to infidelity. That is what really happens in the debate between the Mu’tazila and Ahlussunnah. Imam Ahmad, for example, even though he did not agree with the interpretation of Mu’tazila al-Quran who thought that al-Quran is a creature, he did not mention that the Mu’tazila followers had left Islam. It applies vice versa.
Also, the case of imprisonment of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal cannot be used as an argumentation, because it is a form of policy mistakes of the Caliph at the time. Because in Islam, a Caliph cannot adopt a particular school of thought, because the state, in the view of Islam, is not a state for certain school of thought (mazhab). The view of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was not an aberration of Islam, because it is not about basic creeds. However, this is different from the deviations made by Ahmadiyya, for example. Because, Ahmadiyya, Moshadek, Lia Eden, etc have strayed from the main points of the Islamic creed. Therefore, the incident of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal cannot be used as an argument to justify the deviations of Islamic creed (aqeedah).
Hizb ut-Tahrir’s point of view is that this case does not need to be discussed, let alone be the subject of a prolonged debate. The reason is that the theme is the unseen case, while the arguments about it do not reach the degree of qath’iy. So, the best attitude is just to leave it, do not add and subtract.
Therefore, the examples used by the plaintiff are not relevant to review the law that prohibits the interpretation that deviates from the basic beliefs of religious teachings, and therefore it must be rejected.
4. In their complaint, the plaintiff’s said that the formulation of the main points of religions is different in each group. To legalize, it is stated that (38a, page.19): For example what is defined as the basic teachings of Islam by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri is different from that defined by Abu Bakr al-Jazairi, Ali al-Tamimi, and Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Abi Allah bin Baz. (See Abdullah Saeed page. 44-47). If al-Misri said that there are 9 points of Islam which are severely punished namely, if:
(1) lowering oneself in front of an idol or object, such as the sun and the moon;
(2) saying the words that are meant distrust, such as "I am God" or "God is three ";
(3) denying the existence of God, His eternity in which there is no beginning or ending of Him, or denying all characteristics in which there is a consensus among the Muslim about the case;
(4) Insulting Allah and His Messenger;
(5) Being sarcastic to the names of Allah, His commandments, His prohibitions, His promises, or His threats;
(6) denying the verses of al-Quran or something agreed upon by the intellectuals as a part of it, or adding verses of al-Quran;
(7) believing that Allah’s Messenger or the Prophet is a liar or denying that were sent to mankind ;
(8) Denying the obligations, which are agreed upon by Muslims such as prayer, even the rakaah from 1 to 5 times obligatory prayer;
(9) denying the existence of angels or jinn or heaven.
Meanwhile, al-Jazairi said that there are 5 main things that are severely punished:
(1) Insulting the Prophet or Allah or Angels;
(2) denying to acknowledge that Allah is the true God or the prophetic belief to the Prophet or hold a belief that there is a prophet after the Prophet Muhammad;
(3) rejecting the Islamic obligations (Faridah) where there is general agreement such as prayer, fasting, zakat (alms), pilgrimage, be good to parents, or jihad;
(4) believing that such unlawful acts such as adultery, drinking alcohol, theft or murder, or black magic practices are legal;
(5) refusing a chapter, a verse or a surah from al-Quran.
Both definitions mentioned above are used by the plaintiff to make an example to reinforce their argument that the main subject of Islam is different. In fact, if we scrutiny the two definitions given by ulama are not different, much less contradictory. Even if there appears to be a difference, it is located on the editorial language, not substantive.
In point 1 which mentions that al-Jazairi: (1) Insulting Allah or the Prophet or Angels is not different from points 4 and 5 as mentioned by al-Misri: (4) Insulting Allah and His Messengers; (5) Being cynical to the names of Allah, His commands, His prohibitions, His promises, or His threats.
The main subject which is explained by both in fact is the same, namely, insulting or abusing to the sacred and compulsory beliefs.
Similarly, with points 2 which define that al-Jazairi: Denial to acknowledge that Allah is the true God or the prophet or prophetic belief that there is a prophet after the Prophet Muhammad; are in line with points 2, 3, and 7 as mentioned by al-Misri: (2 ) saying the words that mean disbelief, like "I am God" or God is three "; (3) denying the existence of Allah, His eternity in which there is no beginning or end, or denying all characteristics in which there is consensus throughout the Muslim upon Him; (7) believing that God’s Messenger or prophet is a liar or denying that they were sent to mankind.
The main subjects explained by them are equally true, namely the rejection and the denial of the faith to Allah and His Messenger. The faith of allah includes all of His characteristics based on the qath’iy proposition, such as about His Oneness and His Eternity of Allah. Similarly, the faith to them brings the consequences that they are free from mistakes, including lies. This includes the belief in Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم as the prophet and the last messenger. This is a mandatory subject that we should believe in. So, a denial of them causes the perpetrators to fall into kufr.
Point 4 which mentioned that al-Jazairi: Convinced that illegal acts such as adultery, drinking alcohol, theft or murder, or black magic practices are legal; similar to point 8 which defined by al-Misri: Denying the obligations which have been agreed upon by the Muslims such as prayer, even rakaah from of 1 until 5 times is obligatory prayer.
The main subject raised by both of them in fact shows the same case, ie, denying the lawsuit, which has been agreed upon by the Muslims. Prohibitions of alcohol, theft, black magic or witchcraft are forbidden acts based on the qath’i propositions, either tsubût or her. Similarly, the necessity of prayer 5 times a day is a qath’iy case. There is no difference among the Muslims about the necessity of the prayer. So, if anyone disputes it, then it certainly can remove him or her from Islam.
Point 5 which is s given by al-Jazairi: Rejecting a chapter, a verse or a surah from al-Quran; are equal to point 6 conveyed by al-Misri: denying verses of al-Quran or something agreed upon by the intellectuals as a part of it, or adding the verses in which previously there was nothing in it.
Both explanations refer to the same actions, namely denying al-Quran and its purity, either in whole or in part. This include in the subject of faith is the faith of the truth of the contents of al-Quran; no addition, no subtraction, or no alteration. So, anyone who denies it, it can remove him or her from Islam.
Indeed, both explanations of the scholars of the subject matter upon which the doers must be severely punished have something in common. That any denial of the cases built on the qath’iy proposition (tsubût and dalâlah), either in the case of usul and or in the case of furu can remove someone from the faith or become apostasy. Likewise, the insults and the harassment against the purified matters (umûr muqaddasah) in Islam. While apostasy in Islam is categorized as a crime that deserves a severe punishment: the death penalty.
It is clear that the definition of the subject matter described by the two ulama is not different as assumed by the plaintiffs. Even if there appears to be a difference, it is simply about the editorial language. Therefore, by itself it cannot be used as the basis for plaintiff’s argument.
5. In their complaint, the plaintiff said that (38b and c, page.21, 22): "That what is so-called as deviant interpretation is actually the difference between the interpretation of one group with another group, then the activity which is considered deviant by one group may not be considered deviant by another group. "
The plaintiff’s statement is clearly trying to confuse the difference (ikhtilâf) with deviations (inhirâf). In Islam they show different facts. If the difference (ikhtilâf) is still allowed, while deviation (inhirâf) is clearly prohibited, it might even cause the perpetrators of inhirâf fal into kufr. Therefore, the ambiguity of both can result in very serious consequences. For example, the difference between NU and Muhammadiyah about Qunut or no Qunut in the Subuh pray is a matter of ikhtilâf. This is something different from Ahmadiyya, which states that there is a prophet after Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and the Islamic groups that claim there is no prophet after Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. This view of Ahmadiyyah is is called inhirâf (deviation), not ikhtilâf.
As explained above, dalâlah (the appointment of a meaning) in the Quran and the Hadith of the Prophet has two kinds, namely: qath’iy and zhanniy. Allah says:
وَإِن طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تَمَسُّوهُنَّ وَقَدْ فَرَضْتُمْ لَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً فَنِصْفُ مَا فَرَضْتُمْ إَلاَّ أَن يَعْفُونَ أَوْ يَعْفُوَ الَّذِي بِيَدِهِ عُقْدَةُ النِّكَاحِ
"And if you divorce them before consummation, but after the fixation of a dower for them, then the half of the dower (Is due to them), unless they remit it or (the man’s half) is remitted by him in whose hands is the marriage tie."
(al-Baqarah, 2:237)
The phrase al-ladzî bi yadihi uqdat al-nikâh of this verse can indeed lead to double interpretations, namely the husband or the wife’sguardian. It is becase they are the ones who do akad (marriage settlement). If it is interpreted ‘husband’, then what is meand bu the husband’s forgiveness is to provide the dowry in the specified amount. However, if interpreted ‘guardians of women’, the intention is to free the husband from the obligations to pay the dowry.
It is different with the words of Allah:
وَلاَ تَنكِحُواْ الْمُشْرِكَاتِ حَتَّى يُؤْمِنَّ وَلأَمَةٌ مُّؤْمِنَةٌ خَيْرٌ مِّن مُّشْرِكَةٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَتْكُمْ وَلاَ تُنكِحُواْ الْمُشِرِكِينَ حَتَّى يُؤْمِنُواْ وَلَعَبْدٌ مُّؤْمِنٌ خَيْرٌ
مِّن مُّشْرِكٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَكُمْ أُوْلَـئِكَ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى النَّارِ وَاللّهُ يَدْعُوَ إِلَى الْجَنَّةِ وَالْمَغْفِرَةِ بِإِذْنِهِ وَيُبَيِّنُ آيَاتِهِ لِلنَّاسِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَذَكَّرُونَ
"Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe: A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though he allures you. Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the Garden (of bliss) and forgiveness, and makes His Signs clear to mankind that they may be mindful." (al-Baqarah, 2:221)
This verse is very clear, does not cause a lot of interpretation that it is forbidden for men to marry Musyrikah women, and Mukminah women married with Musyrikah men. If there is a contrary conclusion, allowing the marriage so someone has made clearly distorted interpretation.
It is clear that equating difference (ikhtilaf) with deviations (inhiraf) is a serious mistake. Therefore, the plaintiff’s argument in this case must be rejected.
6. In their complaint, the plaintiff said that (38C, page 22): As an illustration, in the interpretation and the beliefs of the NU, visiting the grave and tahlil is a part of worship (religious activities). While for people Muhammadiyyah or Wahabi, visiting the grave is a heresy that leads to shirk. Shirk is the unforgivem sin by Allah. Therefore, in the interpretation of Muhammadiyyah, NU people have made interpretation and deviant activity. If the formula of impositing positive law requires someone to choose one particular interpreatation, such as the interpretation of Muhammadiyyah, there will be tens of millions NU people who are criminalized for committing a deviant religious activities. "
Plaintiff’s argument is clearly wrong and unacceptable. First, the claim that visiting the grave according to Muhammadiyah and Wahhabi is heretical which causes shirk (idolatry), while saying shirk is a sin that is not forgiven by Allah is a rash conclusion.
Visiting the grave is a deed which has syar’i basis. Although the Hadith used has zhanniy argument, but it is clear in terms of its appointment. The Messenger of Allah said:
نَهَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ الْقُبُورِ فَزُورُوهَا
"I forbade you in the past to visit the graves, but (now) visit them."
(Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidzi, and al-Nasa’i dari Abu Buraidah, Ibnu Majah from Ibnu Mas’ud, and Ahmad from Abu Said al-Khudri)
Muhammadiyyah and Wahhabi pilgrimage also do not consider visiting the grave as heretical, let alone something that cause syirik. In the book Knowing and Being Muhammadiyah written by AR Fakhruddin, it is mentioned that: Visiting the grave is not only at certain times. Every time is allowed whether it is in the morning, at noon, afternoon, every time is fine. Not necessarily on Thursday afternoon, nor on Friday afternoon, nor in Ruwah month, in Shawwaal, on August 17, on May 20, on October 5, on November 10, and so on. Every time is allowed. [8]
The book mentions the adab (courtesy) of visiting the grave. However, he proposed an important note: visiting the grave is not to ask for pangestu (blessings). But to learn a lesson. Many people have died, but not many people learn or remember something from that. In contrast, people who contributed to the community is always remembered when he died due to his services. Pilgrimage is not to deify someone; nor even to treat a person as a God. [9]
Neither is with Wahabi. Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz in his fatwa also said that visiting the grave, either the graves of the saints and the Muslims in general is done in order to remember the dead, pray for them, and ask for forgiveness are suggested deeds. [10] Other prominent figure of salafi, Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen also states: If someone visit the grave with the aim of learning, remembering, and praying for the dead as the prayer of Allah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم when he visited the grave, then this is one which is instructed by Islam to do, whether for a male or a female, day and night. [11]
Indeed in some detail about this issue is different. However, to say that the Wahhabis and Muhammadiyah consider visiting the grave as a heresy or shirk is clearly a distortion of facts, unusual and even considered as a provocation that could spark conflicts among groups.
Second, that potential of criminilazing the case due to different interpretations of the NU and Muhammadiyyah is an illusion of the plaintiff. Throughout the enforcement of Law 1/PNPS/1965 we have never heard of criminalizing the case.
From these two reasons, the above mentioned arguments of the plaintiff do not correspond to the facts and must be rejected.
7. In their complaint, the plaintiff said (38b, page.21): Islam must be a real distortion of Christianity, which considers Jesus as God, while the Muslims regard Jesus only as a prophet. If referred to the history, then all religions actually emerged as a form of distortion of the doctrines of the previous traditional religions.
This is clearly a hasty conclusion and a makeup. Saying that Islamic theology is in conflict with Christianity or Jewish religion is a fact that cannot be denied. However, the contradiction cannot be called that Islam is a splinter from Christianity and Jewish religion. Because, something can be called as a breakaway from the other if both come from the same base of the (religion). And this does not happen to Islam.
Since the beginning, Islam was declared as the religion that is different from other religions. In his life, never had the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم been a follower of two religions. He also never made the two books of religious teachings to justify his own teachings, or he made deviant interpretation. In fact, they (the Christians and the Jews) were waiting for a new Prophet (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) as stated in their books. If so, from where it can be said that Islam is a real distortion of the Christian religion as proposed by the plaintiff? Doesn’t this expression precisely cause division and animosity among religious believers?
This is a different case when it happens with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He claimed to be a muslim, but he conveyed the teachings, which are obviously contrary to Islam. In Islam, Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was the last prophet and messenger. There is no prophet and messenger after him. So, anyone and any group that recognizes a new prophet, as practiced by Ghulan Mirza Ahmad, has been distorted and been removed from Islam. It is similar with Lia Eden, Mosadeq Ahmad, and others to whom the plaintiff asked, their teachings obviously could be considered a deviation from Islam.
The existence of these sects can be called a deviation. Their existence is also very dangerous to the Muslims. Because Ahmadiyya followers still claim to be Muslims, and some verses of al-Quran and Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم are also still used to justify their beliefs and the guidance of some of their worships. They also still use Islamic symbols. However, they make changes here and there. This reality will certainly deceive most ordinary Muslims who is still consider them as a part of Islam.
From these facts, the plaintiff’s arguments are wrong and should be rejected.
8. In their complaint the plaintiff said (143, page. 51): For example: In the year 763 AD Imam Abu Hanifah, the founder of the Hanafi School of Thought, and all his followers were accused of being infidels and apostates. He was arrested and imprisoned, tortured and poisoned to death in prison. However, the teachings and the followers of the Hanafi School of thought still survive and is even growing until now.
The history presented by the plaintiff as an example is contrary to the true history. There is no single history book that tells Abu Hanifa and all his followers were accused infidels and apostates. It is true that he was ever imprisoned by the Caliph at the time, but not because he was accused of being infidels. Abu Hanifa was imprisoned for refusing the offer of the Caliph Abu Jafar al-Mansur as a Qadi.
Then it allegedely assumed that, the distortion of the facts are only used to justify their complaint. Therefore, the arguments must be rejected.
In general, the use of some of the proposition in Islam, the reality of Muslims and their history are not relevant, not in accordance with the facts, not used in the context, and have an element of provocation. Therefore, all arguments of the plaintiff should be rejected.
9. In general, the plaintiff’s claim is to review of Blasphemy Law no. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Misuse and / or Desecration of Religions declared unenforceable by any binding legal effects. In other words, they want Law to be inapplicable.
That is, they want freedom to interpret religious teachings as they want (especially Islam) and the deviations of the basic teachings of religion (article. 1), such deviation is not considered breaking the law (article. 2 and 3). In addition, they want to do hostility, abuse or desecration of religion, and are also free to do this so people do not adopt any religion (Article 4).
In essence, the plaintiffs want cults to emerge freely and defamation / desecration of religion (Islam). This shows that they adore human rights and democracy. They have made human rights and democracy as a new religion. The more cults emerge the stronger the religion of human rights and democracy is. It is clearly hostility toward religions. Therefore, it not surprising that the plaintiff subtly leads to atheism.
In point 45 upon which they base their request of review, it is mentioned: "That the freedom of ’embracing’ a religion or a belief also includes the freedom to choose his religion or belief, including the right to change his religion or belief with another religion or embrace an atheistic view …." Therefore, if in the past the movements are called Sepilis group (secularism, pluralism, and liberalism), and is now developed into Sepilis group A +, which stands for secularism, pluralism, liberalism, atheism, plus strengthening colonialism.
Based on these facts, the Constitutional Court has to reject plaintiff’s litigation. Otherwise, the impact will be very dangerous:
First, cults will emerge like mushrooms in the rainy season. They will feel free o act with the pretext of human rights.
Second, the destruction of Islam will happen openly and massive. Only now are there cartoons that contempt the Prophet, the accusation that Islam harass women, al-Quran is the book of violence, al-Quran is the most pornographic book, there should be an amendment to al-Quran, the story of the condemnation of the homosexual of Prophet Lut in al-Quran is a hoax, the writing of al Quran is fictitious, etc. which occur in Indonesia. When the Constitutional Court grants the demands of the group of Sepilis A + there will be a desecration of Islam freely without legal consequences. If the Court grants the request today, the next days various insults and attacks against Islam will spread.
Third, if this happens there will be chaos and conflicts in society. Stability will be torn. The muslims will be preoccupied with this issue. Meanwhile, the destruction of the Islamic creed and morals continues. The foreign occupiers and their accomplice who are hostile against Islam and muslims and want Iindonesia not to be safe will take advantage of it.
Finally, we remind the judges of the Constitutional Court that what you decide will be held accountable by Allah one by one:
وَلَقَدْ جِئْتُمُونَا فُرَادَى كَمَا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ وَتَرَكْتُم مَّا خَوَّلْنَاكُمْ وَرَاء ظُهُورِكُمْ وَمَا نَرَى مَعَكُمْ شُفَعَاءكُمُ الَّذِينَ زَعَمْتُمْ أَنَّهُمْ فِيكُمْ
شُرَكَاء لَقَد تَّقَطَّعَ بَيْنَكُمْ وَضَلَّ عَنكُم مَّا كُنتُمْ تَزْعُمُونَ
"And behold! You come to us bare and alone as We created you for the first time: you have left behind you all (the favours) which We bestowed on you: We see not with you your intercessors whom your thought to be partners in your affairs: so now all relations between you have been cut off, and what you asserted is gone from you." (al-An’am, 6:94)
References:
1 Ibnu Katsir, Tafsîr al-Qur’ân al-Azhîm, vol. 1 (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 2000), 315; Sa’id Hawa, al-Asâs fî Tafsîr, vol. 2 (Kairo: Dar al-Salam, 1999), 707; al-Qasimi, Mahâsin al-Ta’wîl, vol. 2 (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1997), 252
2 al-Qurthubi, al-Jâmi’ li Ahkâm al-Qur’ân, vol. 2 (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1993), 8-9
3 Wahbah al-Zuhayli, al-Tafsîr al-Munîr , vol. 3 (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1991), 150
4 al-Qurthubi, al-Jâmi’ li Ahkam al-Qur’ân, vol. 2, 9; al-Wahidi al-Naysaburi, al-Wasîth fî Tafsîr al-Qur’ân al-Majîd, vol. 1 2 (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1994), 414
5 Ali Ash-Shabuny, Rawai’ul Bayan Fi Tafsiri Ayat al-Ahkam, Jilid 2: 486-489
6 al-Syafi’i, Ar-Risalah, terj. Ahmadie Toha (Jakarta, Pustakan Firdaus, 1992), 268
7 Ibid, 1052
8 AR Fakhruddin, Mengenal dan Menjadi Muhammadiyah (Malang: UMM Press, 2005), 41
9 Ibid, 41
10 Abdullah bin Biaz, Hukm Ziyârah al0-Qubûr wa Adhrahah, lihat: http://www.binbaz.org.sa/mat/4112
11 Ibnu Shalih Uthaimeen, http://www.ibnothaimeen.com/all/noor/article_743.shtml
SOURCE: www.hizbut-tahrir.or.id