Lukas 23:33-43

Yesus disalibkan

23:33 Ketika mereka sampai di tempat yang bernama Tengkorak¹, mereka menyalibkan Yesus² di situ dan juga kedua orang penjahat itu, yang seorang di sebelah kanan-Nya dan yang lain di sebelah kiri-Nya. 23:34 ³Yesus berkata: "Ya Bapa,^s ampunilah mereka, sebab mereka tidak tahu apa yang mereka perbuat.^t" Dan mereka membuang undi^u untuk membagi pakaian-Nya. 23:35 Orang banyak berdiri di situ dan melihat⁴ semuanya. Pemimpin-pemimpin mengejek Dia⁵,^vkatanya: "Orang lain Ia selamatkan, biarlah sekarang Ia menyelamatkan diri-Nya sendiri, jika Ia adalah Mesias, orang yang dipilih Allah.^w" 23:36 Juga prajurit-prajurit mengolok-olokkan Dia;^x mereka mengunjukkan anggur asam^y kepada-Nya23:37 dan berkata: "Jika Engkau adalah raja orang Yahudi,^z selamatkanlah diri-Mu!" 23:38 Ada juga tulisan di atas kepala-Nya: "Inilah raja orang Yahudi^a". 23:39 Seorang dari penjahat yang di gantung itu menghujat Dia, katanya: "Bukankah Engkau adalah Kristus? Selamatkanlah diri-Mu dan kami!^b" 23:40 Tetapi yang seorang menegor dia, katanya: "Tidakkah engkau takut, juga tidak kepada Allah, sedang engkau menerima hukuman yang sama? 23:41 Kita memang selayaknya dihukum, sebab kita menerima balasan yang setimpal dengan perbuatan kita, tetapi orang ini tidak berbuat sesuatu yang salah.^c" 23:42 Lalu ia berkata: "Yesus, ingatlah akan aku, apabila Engkau datang sebagai Raja.^d" 23:43Kata Yesus kepadanya: "Aku berkata kepadamu, sesungguhnya hari ini juga engkau akan ada bersama-sama dengan Aku di dalam Firdaus⁶.^e"

🙏

Jakarta detik - Pihak-pihak yang berkompeten kini membahas perihal hubungan fatwa Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI) dan hukum positif. Mantan ketua Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) Mohammad Mahfud MD menegaskan bahwa fatwa adalah pendapat keagamaan, bukan hukum positif.

Menurut Mahfud, hukum positif adalah semua yang ada di dalam Undang-undang dan diatur lembaga negara. Sedangkan MUI bukanlah lembaga negara. Pernyataannya itu disebutkan dalam diskusi bertajuk 'Fatwa MUI dan Hukum Positif' di PTIK, Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta Selatan, Selasa (17/1/2017).

"Apa yang dikatakan hukum positif itu, hukum yang sedang berlaku, yang diberlakukan secara resmi oleh lembaga hukum negara. Nah MUI kan tidak pernah diberlakukan sebagai lembaga negara," kata Mahfud.

Mahfud-pun menambahkan bagi mereka yang melanggar fatwa tidak boleh diberi sanksi atau hukuman. Fatwa itu mengikat pada diri sendiri, dan tidak diatur dalam Undang-undang.

"Fatwa itu baik karena untuk membimbing Umat. Tapi apa harus diikuti? Tentu tidak," ujarnya.

Diskusi ini juga dihadiri oleh Kapolri Jenderal Polisi Tito Karnavian. Tito mengatakan bahwa fatwa MUI memiliki implikasi hukum yang luas. Fatwa MUI, menurutnya bukan hanya menjadi sekadar keterangan ahli agama, namun juga memutuskan suatu kasus yang seharusnya menjadi domain hukum positif.

"Ini memiliki implikasi hukum yang luas. Karena kasus ini kemudian bergejolak, yaitu ada gerakan GNPF (Gerakan Nasional Pengawal Fatwa) MUI, atas nama gerakan ini kemudian terjadi mobilisasi masyarakat dan opini terbentuk. Dengan adanya sikap keagamaan dari MUI, bukan lagi hanya sekadar keterangan ahli, tapi juga semacam keputusan penodaan agama yang sudah jadi domain hukum positif, KUHP. Ini menarik bagaimana sikap keagamaan ini menarik masyarakat," kata Tito.
(dnu/dnu)

👌

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com

- Warga Pulau Pramuka merasa keberatan dengan ucapan petinggi Front Pembela Islam (FPI) Novel Chaidir Hasan yang menyebut mereka awam memahami agama.

Salah seorang penjual nasi, Saadah (47), menyatakan, warga Pulau Pramuka adalah penganut Islam taat. Ia menyebut di Pulau Pramuka hanya ada satu keluarga yang beragama bukan Islam.

"Habib apa sih namanya? Novel ya. Dia kata di pulau seribu Islamnya bukan Islam. Di Pulau Seribu cuma dua orang yang agamanya Kristen. Orang pendatang," kata Saadah kepada Kompas.com, Minggu (8/1/2017).

Menurut warga lainnya, Tarni (45), meski mayoritas beragama Islam, warga Pulau Pramuka yang bukan beragama Islam tetap merasa nyaman tinggal di pulau tersebut.

Saking nyamannya, ia menyebut ada sebuah keluarga non-muslim yang seluruh anak-anaknya kemudian menjadi mualaf karena terbiasa berinteraksi dengan warga Pulau Pramuka.

"Anak-anaknya enggak ada satupun yang kristen. Orang tuanya aja yang enggak," ujar Tarni.

Ketua Masjid Jami Al Makmuriah, Faturrahman (70), menjelaskan bahwa cukup banyak orang non-muslim yang menetap di Pulau Pramuka kemudian menjadi mualaf tanpa paksaan.

"Teman saya juga ada yang masuk Islam. Kepala sekolah SMP dulu. Masuk Islam sekeluarga," ujar pensiunan guru yang sudah menetap di Pulau Pramuka sejak 1970 ini.

Pernyataan Novel diketahui disampaikannya saat sidang lanjutan dugaan kasus dugaan penodaan agama dengan terdakawa Gubernur DKI Jakarta Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama. Menurut Novel, warga yang tertawa saat Ahok menyampaikan pernyataan tentang Alquran Surat Al Maidah ayat 51 adalah orang yang awam.

Namun, sebagai pihak yang menyaksikan langsung saat Ahok menyampaikan sambutannya pada 17 September 2016, warga Pulau Seribu menyatakan tak ada satupun ucapan Ahok yang menyinggung, apalagi menodai agama Islam.

✌

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com

— Wakil Ketua Setara Institute Bonar Tigor Naipospos tak menampik bahwa hampir sebagian besar kasus dugaan penodaan agama di Indonesia diputus bersalah.

Menurut Bonar, fakta itu juga memengaruhi persepsi dari masyarakat terhadap kasus dugaan penodaan agama oleh Basuki Tjahaja Purnama atau Ahok.

"Wajarlah kalau banyak orang pesimistis terhadap peradilan (yang) menimpa Ahok ini," kata Bonar di Cikini, Jakarta Pusat, Kamis (22/12/2016).

Tak sedikit orang pesimistis Ahok bisa lolos dari jerat pidana penodaan agama. Meskipun demikian, kata Bonar, tindakan Ahok tidak termasuk dalam elemen kejahatan penodaan agama.

Adapun elemen penodaan agama antara lain salah penafsiran serta menyimpang terhadap keyakinan arus utama dan mengajak orang untuk tidak beragama.

Elemen ini sesuai dengan Pasal 1 Penetapan Presiden Nomor 1/PNPS/1965 tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan Agama.

Sementara itu, Ahok, kata Bonar, tidak memberikan penafsiran atau komentar apa pun terhadap surat Al Maidah ayat 51. Terlebih lagi, Ahok juga dianggap tidak menyertakan kebencian pada agama tertentu dalam ucapannya.

"Tetapi, dimensi politik lebih tebal, sulit peradilan kita untuk bisa adil," kata Bonar. (Baca: Jaksa: Persidangan Ahok Bukan karena Tekanan Massa)

Kendati demikian, subyektivitas hakim menjadi penentu dalam kasus Ahok di peradilan. Pada kasus ini pula sikap hakim diuji.

Sikap hakim untuk bersikap independen, mampu mempertimbangkan banyak aspek, dan tidak tertekan oleh massa dipertanyakan.

Ahok telah didakwa dengan dakwaan alternatif antara Pasal 156 huruf a KUHP atau Pasal 156 KUHP karena diduga menodakan agama.

👀

Metrotvnews.com, Jakarta: Gus Soleh, teman lama calon gubernur DKI Jakarta Basuki `Ahok` Tjahaja Purnama, mendatangi Rumah Lembang untuk memberi dukungan. Ia bercerita, dirinya pernah membantu Ahok mendirikan pesantren seluas 20 hektare di Bangka Belitung.

Kisah itu bermula ketika Gus Soleh membantu Ahok saat pemilihan Bupati Belitung Timur. Ia membantu kampanye Ahok yang saat itu berjanji mendirikan pesantren di Bangka Belitung jika memenangi pemilihan.
Tak disangka, Ahok menang telak menjadi Bupati Belitung Timur. "Begitu Ahok menang, saya langsung ditelepon sama dia. 'Alhamdulliah puji Tuhan, kita bisa bikin pesantren', " kata Gus Soleh menirukan ucapan Ahok di Rumah Lembang, Jalan Lembang, Menteng, Jakarta Pusat, Jumat (8/12/2016).

Gus Soleh berdecak kagum, karena hal pertama yang diingat Ahok saat menang adalah menenuhi janjinya mendirikan pesantren. Tidak lama berselang, didirikan pesantren di atas tanah seluas 20 hektare di Bangka Belitung.

"Itu tanah pemerintah, dikasih Ahok ke umat Muslim. Saya sendiri juga akhirnya menyerahkan yayasan pesantren tersebut ke kiai setempat," jelas Gus.

Karena itu, Gus Soleh heran jika ada tudingan Ahok menistakan agama Islam. Dia mengaku melihat dengan mata kepalanya sendiri bagaimana keluarga Ahok memperlakukan agama lain tanpa membeda-bedakan.

"Kalau sekiranya Ahok dituduh menistakan agama, itu dipolitisir saja. Saya tahu orang tua Ahok ahli sodaqoh dan mba Fifi (adik Ahok) membantu saudara Muslim tanpa diskriminasi," tandas Gus Soleh.

(NIN)

🙏

Merdeka.com - Kasus dugaan penistaan agama dengan tersangka Basuki Tjahaja Purnama aliasAhok menjadi polemik. Ketua Badan Pengurus Setara Institute Hendardi menilai, proses hukum seharusnya dihentikan.
Hendardi merujuk dari Penetapan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 1/PNPS Tahun 1965 Tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan Agama. Berdasarkan aturan tersebut, pihak yang diduga melakukan penodaan agama, kemudian telah meminta maaf, proses hukum seharusnya dihentikan.

"Saya menyatakan bahwa proses pidana atas dugaan penistaan agama atas Basuki semestinya tidak berlanjut, karena yang bersangkutan telah meminta maaf," ucap Hendardi saat dihubungi wartawan Senin (5/12).

Sebab, dia menjelaskan, pada Pasal 2 aturan itu, berbunyi:

(1) Barang siapa melanggar ketentuan tersebut dalam pasal 1 diberi perintah dan peringatan keras untuk menghentikan perbuatannya itu di dalam suatu keputusan bersama Menteri Agama, Menteri/Jaksa Agung dan Menteri Dalam Negeri.

(2) Apabila pelanggaran tersebut dalam ayat (1) dilakukan oleh Organisasi atau sesuatu aliran kepercayaan, maka Presiden Republik Indonesia dapat membubarkan Organisasi itu dan menyatakan Organisasi atau aliran tersebut sebagai Organisasi/ aliran terlarang, satu dan lain setelah Presiden mendapat pertimbangan dari Menteri Agama, Menteri/Jaksa Agung dan Menteri Dalam Negeri.

"Jika mengulangi perbuatannya, baru kemudian dipidana," kata Hendardi.

Badan Reserse Kriminal Polri menetapkan Ahok sebagai tersangka, Rabu (16/11) lalu. Penetapannya sebagai tersangka, berdasarkan alat bukti video pidato Ahok di Kepulauan Seribu pada 27 September lalu, sejumlah dokumen, dan keterangan sejumlah ahli yang menilai perkara ini perlu dilanjutkan ke tahap penyidikan.

Sebelum Ahok ditetapkan sebagai tersangka, berlangsung aksi unjuk rasa yang diikuti ratusan ribu orang, pada Jumat (4/11). Aksi itu, menuntut hukum ditegakkan dalam kasus dugaan penistaan agama oleh Ahok.

"Saya melihat adanya tekanan massa ini lah yang jadi penyebab penetapan tersangka," ujar Hendardi.

Menurut Hendardi, penetapan Ahok sebagai tersangka menjadi preseden buruk bagi promosi pemajuan kebebasan beragama atau berkeyakinan di Indonesia. Penegakan hukum atas dugaan penodaan agama tidak sepenuhnya dijalankan dengan mematuhi prinsip due process of law. Tapi, Hendardi berharap, keputusan yang dibuat Polri patut dihormati. Sebab, keputusan Polri adalah produk institusi yang patut dihormati.

"Nuansa tertekan, terlihat dalam proses penyidikan. Tetapi karena telah menjadi putusan institusi penegakan hukum, maka proses hukum harus dihormati," imbuh Hendardi.

Sementara itu, Kejaksaan Agung telah memutuskan, bahwa perkara tersangka Ahok telah dinyatakan P21. Berarti administrasi penanganan perkara oleh jajaran Pidana Umum Kejaksaan menyatakan berkas perkara hasil penyidikan Bareskrim Polri telah memenuhi syarat untuk dibawa ke pengadilan secara formal dan material.

Perkara Ahok dinyatakan P21, setelah sebelumnya Penyidik Direktorat Tindak Pidana Umum Bareskrim Polri menyerahkan berkas perkara tahap pertama kasus yang menjerat Ahok kepada Kejaksaan Agung, Jumat (25/11). Lima hari berselang, Kejaksaan menyatakan perkara Ahok P21.

"Secara umum tidak ada ketentuan batas waktu. Tetapi memang ini terlalu cepat dan tidak lazim, pernyataan P21 begitu cepat," tutup Hendardi.

👌

VOA: Amnesty International mendesak Pemerintahan Joko Widodo untuk segera membebaskan tanpa syarat orang-orang yang ditangkap dan ditahan karena UU Penodaan Agama.JAKARTA — Organisasi Internasional yang mempromosikan hak asasi manusia (HAM), Amnesty International mengkritik penahanan terhadap seseorang yang dituduh melakukan penodaan agama oleh pihak berwenang Indonesia.
Direktur Riset Amnesty Internasional untuk Asia Tenggara, Ruppert Abbot mendesak pemerintahan Joko Widodo, mencabut Undang-undang (UU) Nomor 1/PNPS/1965 tentang Penodaan Agama karena dinilai telah menyumbang iklim intoleransi di Indonesia.

kekerasan umat beragama

"Kami fokus pada undang-undang penodaan agama. Dan undang-undang itu harus dicabut. Pemerintahan baru harus dapat mengakhiri kriminalisasi keyakinan lewat UU Penodaan Agama yang bersifat menindas ini. UU Penodaan Agama di Indonesia ini menantang hukum dan standar-standar hukum international. Tapi kita sadar bahwa mencabut undang-undang itu perlu waktu perlu proses. Dan ini ada di luar kewenangannya eksekutif," kata Ruppert Abbot.
Ruppert Abbot, menyatakan sejak 2004 Amnesty International mencatat setidaknya 106 individu yang diadili dan dijatuhi hukuman menggunakan UU Penodaan Agama. Mereka kebanyakan berasal dari agama minoritas atau keyakinan tertentu.

tantangan hukum penodaan agama

Dalam laporan ini juga menyebut penggunaan UU Penodaan Agama meningkat di 2 periode masa pemerintahan Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (2004-2014), dibanding dengan pemerintahan sebelumnya. Kasus-kasus penodaan agama menurut Ruppert hampir semuanya diajukan di tingkat lokal daerah.
Dari catatan Amnesty, aktor-aktor politik, kelompok garis keras yang mengatasnamakan Islam, dan aparat keamanan kadang berkolusi untuk menyasar para kelompok minoritas.
Sebagian besar kasus menunjukkan, banyak individu atau kelompok minoritas justru malah ditangkap dan ditahan oleh aparat keamanan setelah mereka diganggu atau diserang oleh kelompok garis keras yang mengatasnamakan agama mayoritas.
Untuk itu, Amnesty Internasional tegas Ruppert, mendesak Pemerintahan Joko Widodo untuk segera membebaskan tanpa syarat orang-orang yang ditangkap dan ditahan karena UU Penodaan Agama.
"Yang lainnya adalah, kita menyerukan kepada eksekutif dalam hal ini Presiden Jokowi, untuk segera dan tanpa syarat membebaskan mereka yang ditahan dan dipenjara karena undang-undang penodaan agama. Ini masih menjadi kewenangan Presiden. Yang lain adalah kita berharap janji-janji dan komitmen yang dibuat Jokowi bisa dijalankan," lanjut Ruppert.
Peneliti senior Setara Institute Bonar Tigor Naipospos menyambut baik pesan yang disampaikan Amnesty Internasional terhadap pemerintahan Joko Widodo. Apalagi menurutnya dalam waktu dekat Kementrian Agama akan menyusun UU Perlindungan Agama.
"Ada harapan sebetulnya karena kementrian agama mau membuat rancangan undang-undang perlindungan umat beragama. Kita berharap RUU nanti selain mengatur soal apa yang harus dilakukan negara dalam memberikan perlindungan warganegara dalam kebebasan beragama," kata Bonar Tigor Naipospos. "Tapi juga mencabut pasal-pasal penodaan agama dan kemudian mengadopsi hate speech crime sebagai tindakan pidana untuk mencegah supaya tidak terjadi provokasi, kebencian apalagi kekerasan terhadap mereka yang beragama lain," lanjutnya.
UU penodaan agama disahkan oleh Presiden Sukarno pada 1965. Produk perundangan ini dibuat untuk mengakomodasi permintaan organisasi-organisasi islam untuk melarang aliran kepercayaan lokal yang dinilai bisa menodai agama-agama di Indonesia.
Kasus Syiah SampangDirektur Riset Amnesty Internasional untuk Asia Tenggara, Ruppert Abbot menambahkan, UU Penodaan Agama yang berakibat pada ketidakbebasan individu untuk menjalankan keyakinan mereka, diantaranya kasus yang terjadi pada Tajul Muluk di Sampang Madura.
Setidaknya 186 anggota komunitas syiah Tajul Muluk termasuk 51 anak-anak berada di sebuah fasilitas tempat tinggal sejak Agustus 2012, setelah desa mereka diserang oleh gerombolan massa anti Syiah.
Pemerintahan SBY sebelumnya telah mengupayakan pemulangan terhadap komunitas ini ke kampung halamannya secara bertahap, namun proses itu dijalankan tidak secara maksimal oleh pemerintah daerah setempat dengan alasan komunitas itu sudah tidak lagi diterima oleh masyarakat sekitar.
Kuasa hukum Tajul Muluk, Asvinawati menjelaskan, perangkat pemerintah di daerah terus melakukan provokasi terhadap masyarakat agar komunitas syiah. "Mereka ini tidak ada masalah sebetulnya untuk kembali pulang. Tapi lagi-lagi ada ujaran kebencian yang terus diproduksi terus-menerus. Di pengadilan ada seorang saksi dari pelaku pembakaran rumah Tajul Muluk yang mengatakan bahwa bupati pada saat acara Isra Miraj mengatakan orang syiah harus keluar dari Sampang. Dari situ kita bisa tau bahwa bukan masyarakat yang menolak, tapi justru hal itu diproduksi oleh elit," jelas Asvinawati.
Amnesty International adalah sebuah organisasi non-pemerintah International dengan tujuan mempromosikan seluruh HAM yang terdapat dalam Universal Declaration of Human Rights dan standar International lainnya.
Organisasi ini mengkampanyekan untuk membebaskan tawanan politik pegiat demokrasi dan HAM. Serta menentang segala bentuk pelecehan terhadap HAM, baik oleh pemerintah atau oleh grup lainnya.

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com

- Direktur Imparsial Al Araf mengatakan, istilah penodaan atau penistaan agama tidak dikenal dalam sistem hukum dan HAM internasional.

Menurut Al Araf, sistem hukum diciptakan tidak untuk mengatur hal yang terkait pandangan seseorang terhadap keyakinan tertentu.

Sebab, jika instrumen hukum digunakan untuk memroses pandangan seseorang atas keyakinan, hal itu hanya akan menimbulkan kontroversi.

"Hukum tidak bekerja untuk mengatur pandangan seseorang terhadap keyakinan tertentu, karena hanya akan melahirkan kontroversi," ujar Al Araf dalam diskusi di Jakarta, Selasa (15/11/2016).

Al Araf menjelaskan, idealnya persoalan dugaan penistaan agama seharusnya tidak diselesaikan melalui mekanisme hukum, melainkan melalui jalan dialog atau komunikasi.

Jika kasus penistaan agama diselesaikan melalui jalur hukum, kata Al Araf, justru rentan disusupi kepentingan politik.

"Persoalan penodaan agama harusnya diselesaikan dengan jalan dialog atau komunikasi, tidak diselesaikan melalui prosedur hukum," kata Al Araf.

(Baca juga: Penyikapan Kasus Penistaan Agama Dinilai Bisa "Mendewasakan" Demokrasi)

Pada kesempatan yang sama, Direktur Riset Setara Institute Ismail Hasani, mengatakan, berdasarkan Undang-Undang PNPS No. 1 tahun 1965 tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan atau Penodaan Agama, ada mekanisme yang harus ditempuh sebelum proses penyelidikan oleh kepolisian.
Pasal 2 UU tersebut menyatakan, barang siapa melanggar ketentuan tersebut dalam pasal 1 (melakukan penafsiran tentang sesuatu agama) diberi perintah dan peringatan keras untuk menghentikan perbuatannya itu di dalam suatu keputusan bersama Menteri Agama, Jaksa Agung dan Menteri Dalam Negeri.

"Berdasarkan PNPS No. 1 tahun 1965 seharusnya ada proses awal yakni pemberian peringatan," kata Ismail.

👍👍👍

fiqhmenjawab.net ~ Usai sidang di Mahkamah Konstitusi, Gubernur DKI Jakarta Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok) tiba-tiba saja diteriaki ‘gila’ oleh Habib Novel Bamukmin alias Habib Novel. Habib Novel bereaksi keras, karena tak terima Ahok yang dianggap telah mempermainkan ayat suci Al-Qur’an. Sebelumnya, setelah menyapa warga di Kepulauan Seribu, Ahok sempat menyebut kalau warga dibohongi dengan menggunakan ayat Al-Maidah untuk tidak memilih dirinya.

Seperti diketahui, ayat dari Surah Al-Maidah yang kerap disebut sebagai dalil menolak ‘pemimpin kafir’ itu ialah,

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى أَوْلِيَاءَ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءُ بَعْضٍ وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّهُمْ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ

“Hai orang-orang yang beriman, janganlah kamu mengambil orang-orang Yahudi dan Nasrani menjadi ‘awliya’; sebagian mereka adalah awliya bagi sebagian yang lain. Barangsiapa diantara kamu mengambil mereka menjadi wali, maka sesungguhnya orang itu termasuk golongan mereka. Sesungguhnya Allah tidak memberi petunjuk kepada orang-orang yang zalim.” (QS. Al-Maidah: 51)

Benarkan ayat di atas menyerukan penolakan “pemimpin kafir”? Menurut pakar tafsir Al-Qur’an Prof. Quraish Shihab, ayat di atas tidaklah berdiri sendiri namun memiliki kaitan dengan ayat-ayat sebelumnya. Hanya memenggal satu ayat dan melepaskan ayat lain berimplikasi pada kesimpulan akhir. Padahal, Al-Maidah ayat 51 merupakan kelanjutan atau konsekuensi dari petunjuk-petunjuk sebelumnya.

Prof. Quraish Shihab

“Konsekuensi dari sikap orang yang memusuhi Al-Qur’an, enggan mengikuti tuntunannya…”

Pada ayat sebelumnya, Al-Qur’an diturunkan untuk meluruskan apa yang keliru dari kitab Taurat dan Injil akibat ulah kaum-kaum sebelumnya. Jika mereka – Yahudi dan Nasrani, enggan mengikuti tuntunan Al-Qur’an, maka mereka berarti memberi ‘peluang’ pada Allah untuk menjatuhkan siksa terhadap mereka karena dosa-dosa yang mereka lakukan.

“Jadi, mereka dinilai enggan mengikuti tuntunan Tuhan tapi senang mengikuti tuntunan jahiliah,” katanya dalam pengajian Tafsir Al-Qur’an di salah satu stasiun TV swasta.

Lalu, dilanjutkan oleh ayat 51 surat Al-Maidah. Kalau memang seperti itu sikap orang-orang Yahudi dan Nasrani – mengubah kitab suci mereka, enggan mengikuti Al-Qur’an, keinginannya mengikuti jahiliyah, – “Maka wahai orang-orang beriman janganlah engkau menjadikan orang-orang Yahudi dan Nasrani sebagai awliya.”

Bagi Quraish Shihab, hubungan ayat ini dan ayat sebelumnya sangat ketat. “Kalau begitu sifat-sifatnya, jangan jadikan mereka awliya. Nah, awliya itu apa?,” tanyanya memantik diskusi sebelum mengkaji lebih dalam.

‘Awliya’ ialah jamak atau bentuk plural dari ‘wali’. Di Indonesia, kata ini populer sehingga ada kata wali-kota, wali-nikah dst. Wali ialah, kata penulis Tafsir Al Misbah ini, pada mulanya berarti “yang dekat”. Karena itu, waliyullah juga bisa diartikan orang yang dekat dengan Allah.

Wali kota itu berarti yang mestinya paling dekat dengan masyarakat. Orang yang paling cepat membantu Anda, ialah orang yang paling dekat dengan Anda. Nah, dari sini lantas dikatakan bahwa wali itu pemimpin atau penolong.

Adapun wali dalam pernikahan – apalagi terhadap anak gadis – sebenarnya fungsinya melindungi anak gadis itu sehingga tidak dibohongi oleh pria yang hanya ingin ‘iseng’ padanya.

Wali Allah berarti orang yang dekat pada Allah. Seseorang yang dekat pada yang lain, berarti ia senang padanya. Setan jauh daripadanya karena ia tidak senang.

“Dari sini, kata ‘wali’ yang jamaknya ‘awliya’ memiliki makna bermacam-macam.”

Yang jelas, kata jebolan Al Azhar Mesir ini, kalau ia dalam konteks hubungan antar manusia, berarti persahabatan yang begitu kental. Sehingga tidak ada lagi rahasia. Kalau dalam hubungan suami-istri itu cinta yang melebur kepribadian.

Baca juga: BENARKAH DILARANG MEMILIH NON-MUSLIM SEBAGAI PEMIMPIN?

“Dalam ayat ini, jangan angkat mereka –Yahudi dan Nasrani- yang sifatnya seperti dikemukakan pada ayat sebelumnya menjadi wali atau orang dekatmu. Sehingga engkau membocorkan rahasia kepada mereka. Sehingga tidak ada batas antara mereka.”

Dengan demikian, ‘awliya’ bukan sebatas bermakna pemimpin, kata Quraish Shihab. “Itu pun, sekali lagi, jika mereka enggan mengikuti tuntunan Allah dan hanya mau mengikuti tuntunan Jahiliyah seperti ayat yang lain.”

Kita lihat, jika mereka juga menginginkan kemaslahatan untuk kita, boleh tidak kita bersahabat? Quraish Shihab kembali bertanya, jika ada pilihan antara pilot pesawat yang pandai namun kafir dan pilot kurang pandai yang Muslim, “pilih mana?” sontak jamaah yang hadir pun tertawa.

Atau, pilihan antara dokter Nasrani yang kaya pengalaman dan dokter Muslim tapi minim pengalaman. Dalam konteks seperti ini, bagi Quraish Shihab, tidak dilarang. Yang terlarang ialah melebur sehingga tidak ada lagi perbedaan termasuk dalam kepribadian dan keyakinan. Karena tidak ada lagi batas, kita menyampaikan hal-hal yang berupa rahasia pada mereka. “Itu yang terlarang.”

Namun kalau pergaulan sehari-hari, dagang, membeli barang dari tokonya dsb, tidaklah dilarang. Selanjutnya ayat ini berbicara tentang sebagian mereka adalah awliya bagi sebagian yang lain. Artinya, sebagian orang Yahudi bekerjasama dengan orang Nasrani yang walaupun keduanya beda agama namun kepentingannya sama, yaitu mencederai kalian. Oleh sebab itu, Al-Qur’an berpesan, “Siapa yang menjadikan mereka itu orang yang dekat, yaitu meleburkan kepribadiannya sebagai Muslim sehingga sama keadaannya (sifat-sifatnya) dengan mereka, oleh ayat ini diaggap sama dengan mereka.”

Baca juga: SAATNYA MEMBACA KITAB TAFSIR AL-MAIDAH AYAT 51

Terakhir, Allah tidak memberi petunjuk pada orang-orang zalim. Menurut Quraish Shihab, petunjuk ada dua macam; umum dan khusus. Petunjuk khusus itu, memberi tahu dan mengantar. Allah memberi tahu kepada semua manusia bahwa ini baik dan itu buruk tapi tidak semua diantar oleh-Nya. Di sisi lain, ada orang yang tidak sekedar diberitahu jalan baik, namun juga diantar jika orang itu menginginkan. Meski demikian, Allah tidak memberi petunjuk khusus kepada mereka yang tidak menempatkan sesuatu pada tempatnya. []

👳

islam city: There is nothing in the Quran or the authentic teachings of Prophet Muhammad

justifying the killing of people for opposing, criticizing, humiliating or showing irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs and beliefs of Islam.

The Quran says:

“Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah,
lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance.
Thus We have made alluring to each people its own doings.
In the end will they return to their Lord,
and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did. [6:108]

“O ye who believe! Let not some men among you ridicule others:
It may be that the (latter) are better than the (former):
Nor let some women ridicule others: It may be that the (latter are better than the (former):
Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames:
Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, (to be used of one) after he has believed:
And those who do not desist are (indeed) doing wrong. [49:11]

“Those who avoid the greater crimes and shameful deeds, and, when they are angry even then forgive;” [42:37]

If blasphemy was punishable by death in Islam, then the Prophet

would have been the first one to order the killing of hundreds of his foes who later became his closest companions. With the exception of a very few earlier Arabs who accepted the Prophet

as the Messenger of Allah

, the majority of people of Makkah opposed him, humiliated him, cursed or blasphemed him or even tried to kill him, yet he preferred to practice forgiveness and to seek the divine mercy for them.

The old woman who used to throw garbage on the Prophet

was visited by him when he did not see her throwing it any more to learn that she was not well. When Suhail bin Amr, a poet who composed poetry blaspheming the Prophet

was taken as a prisoner of war after the battle of Badr, the Prophet

asked his companions to show kindness to him. There are examples after examples to prove that the Prophet

was never resorted to violence against those who were showing utter disrespect to him.

The assassination of a Pakistani Christian cabinet minister for speaking against the blasphemy law is a stab in the heart of Islam and a humiliation of the Prophet

by those who claim to be his followers. Those who are supporting his killing or similar actions are the worst enemy of Islam who neither understands Islam nor respects the Prophet

. No matter who they are, they must be challenged on the basis of the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet

Unfortunately, their argument is built on a position that is supported by a good number of Muslim religious scholars all over the world that demand death for acts of apostasy and blasphemy, two of the practices that were developed under the influence of corrupt despotic Muslim rulers who misused their power to twist religious scholarship to serve their political interests.

The idea of blasphemy is foreign to Islam. It was justified by many medieval Muslim scholars on the basis of their understanding of Christian and Jewish texts supporting laws against those who blaspheme and vilify their religions.

The word “blasphemy” came via Middle English blasfemen and Old French blasfemer and Later Latin blasphemare meaning “I injure.” Based on this definition, rulers used laws to victimize non-members of and dissident members of the ruling sect or cult. Countries that had a state religion used it often to serve the interests of the rulers. In Judaism, the third book of Torah, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy shall surely be put to death. The seven laws of Noah seen by Judaism as applicable to all of humankind prohibits blasphemy In Christian theology, the Gospel of Mark 3:29, describes blaspheming the holy spirit as unforgiveable eternal sin. Thomas Aquinas considered blasphemy a major unforgiveable sin, more grave than murder. The Book of Concord describes it the greatest sin ever committed. The Baptist Confession of Faith calls it a disgusting and detesting act. Catholic Church has specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for blasphemy against God and the Church was a crime punishable by death in much of the Christian world. In England, last blasphemy execution, was that of an 18-year-old Thomas Aikenhead who was executed for the crime in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the accuracy of Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ’s miracles.

The Quran and the authentic teachings of the Prophet

describe the practice of showing irreverence to God and his messenger as acts of ignorance, deliberate provocation or hatred. Yet the two sources of Islamic guidance never proposed punitive action on the basis of theological dissent or religious differences or irreverence. Some Muslim jurists, have, often misused the institution of ijtihad to serve the emotive interests of the people. The fatwa or religious decree issued by Khomeini proposing murder of Salman Rushdie was a personal opinion with no support from the divine guidance.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan also has in its penal code laws that prohibit and punish blasphemy against Islam ranging from a fine to death. The Criminal courts often decides a case of blasphemy on the basis of public emotions and political interests rather than the divine writ. Pakistan’s Criminal Code has its blasphemy laws. For instance, code 295 forbids damaging or defiling a place of worship or a sacred object, code 296A forbids outraging religious feelings, code 295 B forbids defiling the Quran, code 295 C forbids defaming Prophet Muhammad

Defiling the Quran in punishable by imprisonment for life and defaming Prophet Muhammad

by death with or without a fine. None of these codes have any basis in the Quran or the authentic teachings of the Prophet

. It is a position that many scholars adopted under the influence of despotism that prevailed in the Muslim world for centuries and still prevails in many countries. This position is rarely challenged by those who claim to have knowledge of the Quran and sunna. Often, they use their religious authority to suppress debate on the issue.

The tyranny of religious scholars is so intense that those opposed to these laws are condemned as non-Muslims punishable by death. Some of the scholars even encourage their followers to unleash terror against such people. Their arrogance has reached to a point that they do not want to listen to any argument based on the Quran and the teachings of the Quran. The religious and educational institutions of the Muslim world suffer from the tyranny of these scholars who justify their ignorance and arrogance on the basis of a literature that emerged at a time, when Muslims had lost connection with the Quran and by and large were at the mercy of despotic rulers and their hired religious scholars.

The un-Quanic and un-Prophetic practices adopted by many Muslims scholars must be challenged. Islam is not the monopoly of self imposed scholars. It is a faith given to people for their well being and guidance without any interference from any authority other than Allah

, the almighty.. Those who assume the divine role in condemning people and deciding their life and death must be challenged and what better way than to seek the repelling of blasphemy law in light of the Quran and sunna.

If Muslim religious scholars are seriously concerned about the sensitivities of people with regards to their faith and its holy figures, then they should advocate common laws for every religion and religious community emphasizing that respect must be shown to all religions and freedom of speech must not be seen as a license to hurt and provoke others.

It is time that Muslim scholars from all over the world revisit issues such as blasphemy and apostasy in the light of the Quran and sunna rather than falling victim to positions that can not be substantiated by the divine writ.

Dr. Aslam Abdullah is editor in chief of the weekly Muslim Observer and director of the Islamic Society of Nevada.

😇

What is the Punishment for Blasphemy in Islam?

Khalid Saifullah Khan - Australia

Introduction

Blasphemy, derived from the Latin Blasphemia, is generally defined as the exhibition of irreverent behaviour or language towards God, religion or anything held sacred. It is a sensitive issue for many, especially those who have an unshakeable faith in their beliefs, religious leaders, holy book, places of worship and rituals.

What acts can be deemed ‘irreverent’, how those who carry out such acts should be punished, and what role the law should play in preventing blasphemy are questions that have instigated huge debate and controversy. Images of certain Muslim groups who adopt harsh punishments against people apparently blaspheming against Islam or turning apostate are displayed horrifically by the Western media. Seeing people being beaten and murdered for the crime of blasphemy has left a deep impact upon the Western World.

Unfortunately, certain misguided Muslim groups are attributing teachings to Islam that have nothing whatsoever to do with it; the media happily relay these stories to the world without considering the fact that such acts are not representative of Islam’s true teachings.

A person is naturally hurt whenever something he holds sacred is defiled or desecrated. Many consider it morally wrong to hurt the religious sensibilities of others, as it can disturb the peace and harmony of society and disrupt law and order, whilst others believe any form of censorship curtails necessary freedoms. The freedom to openly profess, practise and preach one’s religion by all, in particular by minority groups, is what determines the level of religious tolerance of a society. In this matter, justice is not only to be done but must also be seen to be done—actions speak louder than words.

Of great concern at the present time is the subject of whether Islam prescribes any punishment for blasphemy. Every true Muslim loves and regards the Holy Prophet Muhammad^(saw), the Founder of Islam, more than any other human being. A Muslim may tolerate insults against his parents, relatives or friends, but he cannot endure anyone mocking the Prophet Muhammad^(saw). But how exactly does Islam teach a Muslim to respond to insults against the Prophet^(saw), or for that matter, insults directed at God or anything sacred in Islam? Unfortunately, many Muslims assert that death or other harsh measures are the only possible punishments for those who commit blasphemy. However, as will be explained, this belief is mistaken and incorrect according to both the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah—the Practice of the Holy Prophet^(saw).

Islam enjoins fair treatment of all, including one’s enemies:

…Let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness… (Ch.5:V.9)

But Islam does not only condemn the blaspheming of God. It also protects the feelings of polytheists, by forbidding Muslims from attacking their idols. On this point, the Holy Qur’an states:

And revile not those whom they call upon beside Allah, lest they, out of spite, revile Allah in their ignorance.… (Ch.6:V.109)

In other words, Islam teaches Muslims to be sensitive to the sensibilities of others—no matter how strongly they disagree with them. The implication of this verse is that if it is not permitted for Muslims to slander false idols, it certainly cannot be permissible for Muslims to defile other sects within Islam or other religions.

Here we will examine the concept of blasphemy in light of the true teachings of Islam, and also analyse the fall-out of the incorrect interpretations of Qur’anic verses by Muslim scholars in countries such as Pakistan. Pakistan has the 2^nd largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia, and 97% of its approximate 170 million inhabitants are Muslims. An analysis of Pakistan’s infamous blasphemy laws in light of the Qur’an, Hadith and Sunnah is pertinent because it is important to reveal that the Western media wrongly target these so-called ‘Islamic’ laws in Muslim countries to try and prove that Islam discharges harsh, excessive and medieval justice, whereas the reality is that these laws do not reflect the true Islam, only a completely erroneous interpretation of the Islamic law.

Blasphemy vs. Freedom of Speech

One criticism against the concept of blasphemy is that, when enforced, it curtails freedom of expression. The freedom to speak freely, without censure, is a fundamental human right that should be guaranteed to citizens of every just state. While freedom of speech is necessary for the progress and development of a society, however, this freedom, like all other freedoms, is not limitless.

The truth is that both religious sensitivities and freedom of speech are important and need to be protected. There is no conflict if both operate within their limits and do not trespass into each other’s domain. Yet there are times when sensitivity and freedom will conflict. Nonetheless, although Islam regards blasphemy as heinous and offensive, it does not prescribe any worldly punishment for it, as this would seriously restrict freedom of expression.

Discussing this issue, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad^(ru) (1928-2003), the fourth Khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, writes in his book Islam’s Response to Contemporary Issues:

‘Blasphemy: Islam goes one step further than any other religion in granting man the freedom of speech and expression. Blasphemy is condemned on moral and ethical grounds, no doubt, but no physical punishment is prescribed for blasphemy in Islam despite the commonly held view in the contemporary world.

‘Having studied the Holy Qur’an extensively and repeatedly with deep concentration, I have failed to find a single verse which declares blasphemy to be a crime punishable by man’.1

The one major restriction to freedom of expression in Islam is on speech towards someone’s beliefs that may be hurtful. This is deemed to be immoral, and this restriction also covers blasphemy under its umbrella. The Holy Qur’an states:

Allah likes not the uttering of unseemly speech in public, except on the part of one who isbeing wronged…. (Ch.4:V.149)

Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad^(ru) explains:

‘Although the Holy Qur’an very strongly discourages indecent behaviour and indecent talk, or the hurting of the sensitivity of others, with or without rhyme or reason, Islam does not advocate the punishment of blasphemy in this world nor vests such authority in anyone.’2

Blasphemy Committed Against all Prophets of God

There has been no prophet upon whom derogatory words were not used. The Holy Qur’an confirms that God sent a Warner to every people, and that each and every one of the prophets has been the subject of mockery:

Then We sent Our Messengers one after another. Every time there came to a people their Messenger, they treated him as a liar.… (Ch.23:V.45)

Another verse of the Holy Qur’an also emphasises this:

Alas for My servants! There comes not a Messenger to them but they mock at him.(Ch.36:V.31)

The Holy Qur’an also points out that blasphemous speech was uttered against Mary^(ra)and Jesus^(as): For their disbelief and for their uttering against Mary a grievous calumny(Ch.4:V.157). According to this verse, the Jews during the time of Jesus^(as) committed a grave blasphemy by declaring Mary^(ra) to be unchaste and alleging that Jesus^(as) was a child of questionable birth.

Yet despite the fact that the Holy Qur’an confirms that all prophets have been subject to attacks by others, there is no evidence that any of the offenders were ever ordered to be punished.

Blasphemy Against the Holy Prophet Muhammad^(saw)

The Holy Qur’an mentions many blasphemous utterances by non-believers and hypocrites against the Holy Prophet Muhammad^(saw) without sanctioning any physical punishment for the perpetrators:

Verily, those who annoy Allah and His Messenger—Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them an abasing punishment. And those who malign believing men and believing women for what they have not earned shall bear the guilt of calumny and a manifest sin. (Ch.33:Vs.58-59)

It should be noted that the ‘abasing punishment’ of blaspheming God and His Messenger rests with God alone and it is up to Him whether He punishes such persons in this world or in the hereafter. The authority to punish blasphemers has not been delegated to anyone, not even to the Holy Prophet^(saw).

The Holy Prophet^(saw) was repeatedly mocked by the believers. The Holy Qur’an points out that his opponents claimed he was “a madman” (Ch.15:V.7) and that “there is madness in him” (Ch.23:V.71). Indeed, many of the disbelievers thought that he was “a victim of deception” (Ch.17:V.48) and treated him as a liar. Furthermore, he was labelled a “poet” and “a fabricator” by the disbelievers (Ch.16:V.102).

But the blasphemous statements did not stop there. Not only did they make personal attacks on the Holy Prophet^(saw), they also insulted the Holy Qur’an, calling it a book of “confused dreams.” Indeed, the Holy Qur’an itself points to the fact that they saw its instructions as “mere stories of the ancients” (Ch.16:V.25).

But this was not enough for the disbelievers—in addition, they tore the Qur’an into pieces and urged people not to listen to it; in fact, they encouraged others to make noise when it was being recited.

And yet, as the Promised Messiah^(as) points out, the Holy Qur’an is the greatest blessing to have been bestowed on mankind:

The disbelievers even tore the Qur’an to pieces, yet God instructed the Prophet Muhammad(saw) not to retaliate.

‘The Holy Qur’an is the fountainhead of your salvation for all betterment and success…The supporter or falsifier of your faith on the Day of Judgement would be the Holy Qur’an…Realise, therefore, the value of the blessings bestowed upon you. It is a precious blessing and a great treasure…’3

The Holy Prophet^(saw) loved and treasured the Holy Qur’an to such an extent that whenever a portion of it was revealed to him, he would commit it to memory and carry its whole text with him wherever he went. Given the reverence Muslims accord to the Holy Qur’an, any insult to it would also count as blasphemous.

Despite the ill-treatment and disrespect shown to both the Holy Prophet^(saw) and the Holy Qur’an, God instructed him not to retaliate, because, says God: “We will, surely, suffice thee against those who mock” (Ch.15:V.96). In other words, God Himself is sufficient to deal with those who commit blasphemy against Him, the Holy Prophet^(saw) or the Holy Qur’an and He does not allow anyone else to mete out punishment in this regard. The Holy Prophet^(saw) was advised by God to remain patient and to …follow not the disbelievers and hypocrites, and leave alone their annoyance, and put thy trust in Allah; for Allah is sufficient as a Guardian (Ch.33:V.49).

The Holy Qur’an gives clear guidance on how Muslims should behave when they are faced with those committing blasphemy. Instead of punishing the blasphemers, believers are advised to leave the company of such people until they change the topic of their conversation. Allah says:

…when you hear the Signs of Allah being denied and mocked at, sit not with them until they engage in a talk other than that; for in that case you would be like them…(Ch.4:V.141).

With such beautiful guidance promoted in the Holy Qur’an, how can anyone contend that the punishment of death for blasphemy is justified in Islam?

Extremist Interpretations of Islam

Clearly the Holy Qur’an does not even remotely hint at the death sentence for those blaspheming against it or Islam. Unfortunately, the behaviour of extremists groups claiming to be Muslims, and the introduction of so-called Shariah law in Muslim countries, has led the media to pointing fingers at the religion of Islam in general. However, neither those extremist groups nor those Muslim governments practise the true and real Islamic teachings. In Pakistan, for example, several sections of its Criminal Code comprise its blasphemy laws. Blasphemy merits the death penalty under Section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code:

‘Use of derogatory remarks etc. in respect of the Holy Prophet^[saw]: Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.’

Night view of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. Pakistan, a beautiful country with great potential for success and progress, has been ruined by misinterpretations of Islam adopted by the Government such as in the Blasphemy Laws.

In 1987, the Federal Shariah Court revised the law to declare that blasphemy was punishable only with death and that no lighter punishment could be awarded. Accordingly, in 1990, the alternate punishment of life imprisonment was withdrawn, due to which death became the only penalty for the crime of blasphemy. This move opened up a floodgate for extremism and terrorism which the government was unable to subsequently control. The fact that the law is so vague—the clause ‘any imputation, innuendo, insinuation, directly and indirectly,’ can be interpreted in incredibly loose ways—means that all sorts of speech can be prosecuted under it.

Indeed, there have been many recent instances in Pakistan which manifest the extremism that has been supported by this law. For example, Punjab governor Salman Taseer, who supported reforms to the blasphemy law, was assassinated in December of 2010 for his opposition to the current law. And the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian who was put on death row for allegedly insulting Islam, has captured worldwide attention. In other words, the dangerous effects of this law are not merely academic—they are all too real.

In its 1987 ruling, the Court issued a 30-page judgement which used quotes from the Holy Qur’an, Traditions from a book of Hadith other than those in the ‘Six Sahih’ (widely considered the most authentic Books of Tradition). No space was given to opposing viewpoints. The main foundations of the case rested on two basic ideas: first, that blasphemy is practically the same as apostasy, and secondly, the idea that whoever insulted the Holy Prophet^(saw) is, in effect, waging war with him.

Blasphemy Apparently Tantamount to Apostasy

The first supposed reason offered in favour of the death penalty is the idea that a person who uses derogatory words against the Holy Prophet^(saw) becomes apostate and that the punishment of apostasy is death. The proceedings of the Shariah Court state:

‘Maulana Subhan Mahmood relied upon verse: 9:65 and 66; 33:57; 49:2; 2:217; 5:75; 39:1, 65; 47:28. He has related some Ahadith and juristic opinions wherein the contempter has been considered an apostate. He has further relied upon a Hadith related on the authority of Abu Qulabah wherein the punishment of contempter has been prescribed death. He has also relied upon the Hadith related by Qazi Ayaz that the Holy Prophet said:

“Kill the person who abuses the Prophet and whip the one who abuses his companions”’ (Para 4).

There are many problems with this view. First, it is not correct to contend that a disrespectful word is tantamount to apostasy. The Holy Qur’an records many disrespectful utterances and acts by the hypocrites. Yet they were not expelled from the main body of Islam, nor were they killed for apostasy. 4

Moreover, even if blasphemy did equate to apostasy, it is a misconception that the Holy Qur’an prescribes the death penalty for an apostate. On the contrary, while the Qur’an speaks repeatedly of those who disbelieved after believing, it does not once state that they should be killed or punished. The Holy Qur’an states:

…And whoso from among you turns back from his faith and dies while he is a disbeliever, it is they whose works shall be vain in this world and the next… (Ch.2:V.218)

Notice that this verse does not say that the disbeliever should be killed—rather, it is simply pointing out the fate of one who dies while having gone back on his faith. The Holy Qur’an would not have used this phrasing if it had wanted Muslims to punish apostates with death.

Another Qur’anic verse also points to this:

Surely, those who disbelieve after they have believed and then increase in disbelief, their repentance shall not be accepted, and these are they who have gone astray (Ch.3:V.91).

But surely, if the death penalty had been prescribed for apostasy, it would not have been possible for apostates to “increase in disbelief.” Nor, indeed, would it have been possible for them to repent.

The Holy Qur’an, referring to a group of hypocrites, says:

And a party of the People of the Book say, ‘Declare your belief (outwardly) in that which has been revealed unto the believers, in the early part of the day, and disbelieve in the latter part thereof; perchance they may return (Ch.3:V.73).

But if it were true that the Holy Prophet^(saw) had administered capital punishment to apostates, this plan could have only been in vain. Instead, this verse points to the fact that this group was in fact able to believe and then disbelieve without any negative worldly consequences.

It is possible that this misconception was caused by the fact that during the Holy Prophet’s^(saw) time, Muslims were engaged in defensive wars and those who became apostates would have joined the enemy afterwards and would therefore have been treated as part of the enemy force. In this case, if an apostate was killed, he would have been killed not for his apostasy, but for being part of an enemy force which was committing murder or other war crimes.

Further, the view that apostates are liable to be killed according to Islam goes in complete contradiction with the clear injunction of the Holy Qur’an:

There should be no compulsion in religion… (Ch.2:V.257)

Clearly, this verse expounds that religion is a matter for every individual to decide for himself. No one can be forced to remain a Muslim against his will.

Blasphemy Law Inconsistent with Practice of the Holy Prophet^(saw)

The Holy Prophet’s^(saw) life is a beautiful illustration of the word forgiveness, as incidents from his perfect life demonstrate how he pardoned even his worst enemies. For example, the Holy Qur’an records the statement of Abdullah bin Ubayy who, in the company of others, called himself ‘the most exalted’ and referred to the Holy Prophet^(saw) as ‘most mean’ (Ch.63:V.9). However, Abdullah bin Ubayy was not given any punishment whatsoever and he continued to live peacefully in Madinah until he died a natural death. In fact, the Holy Prophet^(saw) himself led his funeral prayer.

Another example of the Holy Prophet’s^(saw) patient nature is demonstrated when Makkah fell to the Holy Prophet^(saw). He pardoned all those who had dismissed him by calling him a sorcerer, madman, or liar.5

The Holy Prophet^(saw) also forgave Abu Sufyan, the Makkan leader who led the most wars against him; Wahshi, who had killed the Holy Prophet’s^(saw) own uncle, Hazrat Hamzah^(ra); and Hinda, the wife of Abu Sufyan, who had torn out Hadhrat Hamza’s^(ra)liver and chewed it out of spite.

Furthermore, he also pardoned Habbar, who speared and felled the camel that had been carrying the Holy Prophet’s^(saw) daughter, Hadhrat Zainab^(ra), from Makkah to Madinah. As a result, Hadhrat Zainab^(ra), who was pregnant at the time, miscarried and eventually passed away. And yet the Holy Prophet^(saw) forgave even him.

But these are just a few instances; the Holy Prophet’s^(saw) life is replete with examples of his forgiveness of even his worst enemies. He was more merciful than any person ever born. Indeed, God Himself called the Holy Prophet^(saw) a “mercy for all mankind.”

Therefore, to claim that 295-C is in accordance with the practice of the Holy Prophet^(saw)is tantamount to saying that he put to death anyone who by words, either spoken or written, by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly defiled his sacred name. Such a view can only be held by those who take pleasure in destroying others in the name of God—it cannot be supported by the facts of the Holy Prophet’s^(saw) life. In fact, such an understanding is just the opposite of what God has said regarding the Holy Prophet’s^(saw) treatment of non-Muslims:

And it is by the great mercy of Allah that thou art kind towards them, and if thou hadst been rough and hard-hearted, they would surely have dispersed from around thee. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them, and consult them in matters ofadministration; and when thou art determined, then put thy trust in Allah. Surely, Allah loves those who put their trust in Him. (Ch.3:V.160)

In light of the Holy Prophet’s^(saw) exquisite example, it would be, in fact, a serious act of blasphemy to declare that the Pakistan Penal Code was at all supported by the Sunnah (Practice) of the Holy Prophet^(saw). All lovers of the Holy Prophet^(saw) should ponder this question seriously. It can safely be concluded, therefore, that blasphemy does not have any criminal sanction under Islamic law, as has been proved from references available in the Holy Qur’an and examples from the beautiful life led by the Holy Prophet^(saw). Spiritual offences should only be avenged by spiritual means.These words of God give an insight into the beautiful character of the Holy Prophet^(saw), of which the most prominent trait was his comprehensive mercy. He was full of the milk of human kindness and was not only kind towards his companions and followers, but was also instilled with unimaginable mercy and sympathy even for his enemies who were always prepared to inflict harm towards him. It is recorded in history that he took no action against those treacherous hypocrites who had deserted him in the Battle of Uhud; instead, he even consulted them in affairs of state.

Conclusion

Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad^(aba), Fifth Successor to the Promised Messiah^(as) and Head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim community stated during a Friday Sermon6 that in the current age, the Promised Messiah^(as)understood and respected the status of the Holy Prophet^(saw)more than anyone else. The Promised Messiah^(as)wrote:

‘That light of that high degree that was bestowed on the perfect man was not in angels, was not in stars, was not in the moon, was not in the sun, was not in the oceans and the rivers, was not in rubies, emeralds, sapphires, or pearls; in short, it was not in any earthly or heavenly object. It was only in the perfect man whose highest and loftiest and most perfect example was our lord and master, the Chief of the Prophets, the Chief of all living ones, Muhammad^(saw), the chosen one…’ (Essence of Islam, Vol.1)

And the Promised Messiah^(as) further stated regarding the Prophet Muhammad^(saw):

‘One cannot reach the limit of his high status and it is not given to man to estimate correctly his spiritual effectiveness. It is a pity that his rank has not been recognised, as it should have been. He was the champion who restored to the world the Unity of God which had disappeared from the world; he loved God in the extreme and his soul melted out of sympathy for mankind…’ (Essence of Islam, Vol.1)

The Promised Messiah^(as) has beautifully summarised how Muslims can best uphold the honour of the Prophet Muhammad^(saw) and respond to the insults and abuse directed towards him, by adopting the following approach. The Holy Qur’an provides many instructions for mankind, such as: worshipping the One God and fulfilling his dues, being compassionate towards all of God’s creation, being truthful in every circumstance, adhering to promises, discharging one’s responsibilities to family and relatives, to forgive, to be humble, to trust God in every situation and so on and so forth. The Holy Prophet^(saw) most excellently adhered to all of the commands of the Holy Qur’an. The Prophet never told a lie, never broke a promise, never acted rudely towards anyone and was always kind to all peoples. He was the perfect model of all the virtues and moral qualities listed within the Holy Qur’an, to the extent that even the fiercest enemies of Islam respected him and called him ‘Al-Amin’ (trustworthy) and ‘As-Siddiq’ (truthful).

A true Muslim, therefore, along with invoking Durud (sending salutations upon the Holy Prophet^(saw)), should strive to follow the example set by the Holy Prophet^(saw). He should obey all the injunctions given by God, and endeavour to lead every moment of his life in the way the Prophet^(saw) did. When a Muslim adopts this approach, his Durud will emanate from his heart, and he will become a paragon of virtue and high moral standards. This is how the honour of the Holy Prophet^(saw) can truly be upheld, rather than by holding rallies and burning tyres etc.. To silence others, a Muslim follows the example of the Prophet^(saw), and thereby does not give an opportunity for anyone to raise objections against Islam or hurl abuse against it. Instead, his excellent behaviour would lead people, even the opponents of Islam, to stand up and take notice, and praise the teachings of Islam and the person of the Holy Prophet^(saw) for inspiring such excellent conduct.7

Endnotes

1. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad^(ru), Islam’s Response to Contemporary Issues, p. 38

2. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad^(ru), Islam’s Response to Contemporary Issues, p. 38

3. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^(as), Kishti-e-Nuh (Our Teaching), Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol.19, p.26

4. See the following Holy Qur’an verses: Ch.9:V.64; Ch.3:V.155, V.168; Ch.4:Vs.62-64; Ch.63:V.9; Ch.4:V.143-147; Ch.47:V.17.

5. See the following verses from the Holy Qur’an: Ch.51:V.52; Ch.15:V.6, Ch.23:V.70, Ch.16:V.101, Ch.17:V.47

6. Friday Sermon by Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad^(aba), 21^st January 2011

7. Ibid.

the review of the religion

😇

Rabu, 16 November 2016 | 15:09

Video: Ahok Jadi Tersangka, Sopir Taksi Ini Menangis

Jakarta beritasatu - Video seorang sopir taksi yang menangis usai mendengar penetapan tersangka yang dilakukan Kepolisian RI terhadap calon Gubernur DKI Jakarta Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, Rabu (16/11) beredar di media sosial YouTube.

Sopir taksi bernama Mukti itu mengaku meluangkan waktunya untuk mendengarkan keputusan gelar perkara Ahok kendati sedang bekerja mencari penumpang.

Mukti mengaku sedih, terharu dan kasihan mengapa Ahok akhirnya ditetapkan sebagai tersangka dalam kasus dugaan penistaan agama. Menurutnya Ahok adalah orang bersih yang sudah membantu banyak terutama bagi keluarganya.

"Keluarga saya ini tertolong dengan dia. Contohnya anak saya sekolah, bisa bayaran, bisa beli sepatu, bisa beli baju. Tiap bulan dapat uang Rp 150.000. Buat jajan.

Terharu pak, benar pak... Kasihan saya sama Ahok. Orang baik-baik begitu, bersih... Kenapa jadi tersangka."

Demikian diutarakan Mukti mengenai kebaikan Ahok sembari menangis haru.

✌

bisnis.com: “Ya Allah....” Dua kata itu membuka percakapan kami lewat saluran telepon. Suara itu terdengar berkeluh-kesah, menggambarkan kesedihan.

Dua kata itu juga yang saya baca di status laman facebook kolega kuliah saya. “Ya Allah...,” dengan tambahan beberapa kalimat setelahnya. Meski tidak mendengar, saya bisa menebak, status di sosial media itu ditulis teman saya dengan persaaan senang karena diikuti dengan kata alhamdulillah.

Dua kata yang sama persis namun disampaikan dengan perasaan hati berbeda itu sebenarnya menyikapi satu persoalan yakni nasib Ahok. Kita tahu semua,Basuki Tjahaja Purnama alias Ahok sudah ditetapkan menjadi tersangka oleh kepolisian pada Rabu lalu (16/11) dalam kasus dugaan penistaan agama.

Yang menarik buat saya adalah, kepada Tuhan lah dua orang itu seperti melaporkan apa yang terjadi di bumi Jakarta menyangkut seorang Ahok dengan nada yang berbeda. Satu dengan kesedihan dan satu lagi terasa riang.

Kejadian di Rabu pagi itu, saya rasa, bukan hanya milik pribadi saya. Hmm..., saya kok yakin kebanyakan dari Anda juga mengalaminya. Ada teman yang bersedih atas nasib Ahok, ada yang bergembira.

Lingkungan saya (kita) sudah begitu terpecah sejak beberapa bulan terakhir ini. Terkotak-kotak. Meski masyarakat terbagi paling tidak dalam tiga kelompok dalam menyikapi kasus itu yaitu pro-Ahok, anti-Ahok, dan biasa-biasa saja alias netral, dalam kenyataannya terlihat tersisa dua kelompok saja; Ahok lovers atau Ahok haters.

Kelompok yang netral susah untuk berdiri di tengah-tengah. Oleh grup anti-Ahok, mereka kerap dipandang sebagai pro-Ahok. Sebaliknya, oleh pro-Ahok, yang netral-netral ini dituding sebagai anti-Ahok.

Sepertinya Anda dan saya harus berbesar dan bersabar hati karena suasana seperti ini masih panjang durasinya. Pemilihan Kepala Daerah DKI Jakarta baru akan digelar pada Februari tahun depan atau tiga bulan lebih dari sekarang.

Seandainya pencoblosan selesai, urusan perpecahan belum tentu tamat. Pasalnya, Ahok masih punya peluang untuk menjadi pemenang di Pilkada itu. Pengalaman pada Pemilihan Presiden 2014 dengan dua pasangan kontestan yakni Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa dan Joko Widodo-Jusuf Kalla, bisa kita jadikan contoh.

Banyak orang yang tidak juga move on dari kontestasi itu meski Jokowi sudah menjadi Presiden dan tetap berhubungan baik dengan Prabowo sebagai rivalnya di Pilpres 2014.

Di tengah kegalauan tentang teman-teman dekat saya yang terpecah soal Ahok, masuk pesan whatsapp yang memberitahukan bahwa polisi akan menggelar Operasi Zebra selama 16—29 November ini.

Saya pun jadi senyum-senyum sendiri mendapat pesan itu. Bukan urusan razia lalu-lintasnya, tetapi Zebra-nya yang mengingatkan saya kepada sebuah anekdot.

Zebra itu sebenarnya berwarna hitam belang-belang putih, atau putih belang-belang hitam? Jangan-jangan, mereka yang pro-Ahok dan anti-Ahok seperti itu.

🙏

Jakarta, NU Online

Media massa Barat intensif melaporkan demonstrasi 4 November menentang Gubernur DKI Jakarta Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok) yang sebenarnya terjadi bukan hanya di Jakarta, namun juga di berbagai daerah di Indonesia. Sebagian besar media massa Barat menitikberatkan laporan mereka kepada babak akhir unjuk rasa Jumat ini ketika unjuk rasa berubah rusuh.

Di bawah judul Indonesia protest: Jakarta anti-governor rally turns violent atau "Demonstrasi Indonesia: unjuk rasa anti pemerintah Jakarta berubah menjadi kekerasan", BBC menyebutkan bahwa bentrok pecah antara polisi dan demonstran yang menolak dibubarkan.

Menurut BBC, polisi Indonesia sudah mengantisipasi kemungkinan unjuk rasa berubah menjadi ketegangan agama dan rasial. BBC juga menyebutkan unjuk rasa diikuti sekitar 50.000 orang.

Sementara itu, koran Australia, Sidney Morning Herald (SMH), menurunkan judul "Demonstrasi Jakarta: Kekerasan di jalanan ketika garis keras muslim menuntut gubernur Kristen Ahok di penjara (Jakarta protest: Violence on the streets as hardline Muslims demand Christian governor Ahok be jailed)."

Menurut SMH, unjuk rasa yang tadinya berlangsung damai telah berubah menjadi kekerasan menyusul bentrok antara polisi dan demonstran yang berpuncak pada ditembakkannya gas air mata untuk membubarkan demonstran yang masih bertahan di luar Istana Kepresidenan.

Seraya menitikberatkan bahwa demonstran menuntut penangkapanan Gubernur keturunan Tionghoa Kristen, The Herald menyebutkan unjuk rasa ini diikuti oleh sekitar 150.000 orang.

Lain lagi dengan CNN. Media ini melaporkan bahwa 75 orang dibawa ke rumah sakit, kebanyakan terpapar gas air mata. CNN menekankan bahwa ribuan demonstran bergerak di Jakarta untuk menuntut apa yang disebut media ini, Gubernur Jakarta yang dituduh menghina muslim. CNN menaksir jumlah pengunjukrasa 200.000 orang.

Sementara itu, Bloomberg menurunkan laporan di bawah judul Indonesia Police Fire Tear Gas to Disperse Anti-Ahok Protesters atau Polisi Indonesia tembakkan gas air mata untuk bubarkan demonstran anti-Ahok.

Seperti SMH, media besar dari Amerika Serikat itu menyebut unjuk rasa besar Jumat itu untuk menuntut Gubernur Kristen kota itu (Jakarta) dipenjarakan atas komentarnya menyangkut Al-Qur’an.

Bloomberg kemudian mengutipkan kalimat pakar politik Keith Loveard dari Concord Consulting di Jakarta yang mengatakan,"Tekanan untuk menghukum sang gubernur atas komentarnya itu adalah babak terbaru dari upaya terus menerus minoritas garis keras muslim yang berusaha menerapkan syariat di negeri itu (Indonesia)." (Antara/Fathoni)

😍

Jakarta KONTAN. Pasca-reformasi 1998, jumlah kasus dugaan penistaan agama yang menggunakan pasal 156 a Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) mengalami peningkatan. Sayangnya, kasus dugaan penistaan agama ini juga ditumpangi dengan kepentingan lain, terutama politik.

Direktur Riset Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia (YLBHI) Donny Ardyanto mengatakan, peningkatan tersebut mengindikasikan bahwa pasal 156 a KUHP semakin sering digunakan untuk kepentingan politik, daripada kepentingan penegaan hukum.

legal project org:

Defamation of Religions

For over a decade, the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, now renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), has sponsored and actually pushed to passage a U.N. resolution calling on countries to criminalize what it terms "defamation of religion." Though the language of these resolutions has changed at times, the OIC's goal has remained the same—to impose at the international level a conception of freedom of speech and expression that would severely limit anything deemed critical of or offensive to Islam or Muslims. Unfortunately, even as the OIC continues its efforts to enshrine a binding version in international treaty law, the U.S. is softening its traditional opposition to such efforts and to the OIC in order to curry favor with the Islamic world. The negative impact of this approach on freedom of expression domestically and abroad could be significant.

The Concept of "Defamation of Religion":

The notion that an idea (here, religion)—rather than a person—can be "defamed" does not fit within most Western legal systems' understanding of defamation. Further, the OIC does not precisely define what it means by "defamation of religion." However, as several examples of the sort of censorship it has in mind under this concept consider the following:

In 2008, a court in OIC member Turkey blocked access to the website of prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins after a creationist complained the website was "defamatory" of religion.
Egypt and Pakistan forced the U.N. Human Rights Committee to ban in-depth discussion of religions after an NGO representative to that body described female genital mutilation as sanctioned by Islamic law.
Following a republication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu called them "blasphemous" and declared that "these misguided Islamophobic acts, by deeply hurting the feelings of one-fifth of humanity, go beyond the freedom of expression or press."

Impact on Freedom of Expression and Other Rights:

As the above examples illustrate, the OIC and its member states' concept of freedom of expression includes severe limitations, even, for example, placing some scientific theories, discussion of human rights violations, or even mild political commentary outside the bounds of protected expression. It should come as no surprise then that over 200 NGOs from across the ideological spectrum have signed a joint statement warning that banning "defamation of religions" is incompatible with free speech rights. Indeed, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam sets forth specifically the OIC's parameters on what constitutes "legitimate" freedom of expression. In relevant part it reads:

"Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah."

There are a number of specific reasons, beyond a commitment to free speech, to be very concerned about the OIC's efforts.

First, the continued dominance of U.N. human rights discussions by the OIC's "defamation of religion" rants distracts attention and resources away from actual human rights violations in the world. (e.g., the arrest of journalists and bloggers and killing of others, the persecution of religious minorities (view here), "honor" killings, acid attacks, and genocide to name a few.

Second, a fall 2009 report from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom noted that the OIC's effort is based on domestic laws OIC members states already exploit domestically to "intimidate and … detain" religious minorities. So, in addition to the obvious strictures that they place on speech, laws restricting "defamation of religion" are incompatible with other fundamental human rights including freedom of religion. Other studies have echoed these findings.

In 2010, Freedom House published Policing Belief: The Impact of Blasphemy Laws on Human Rights, a detailed account of the human rights violations resulting from the domestic manifestation of "defamation of religion"—so-called "blasphemy" laws. While the deleterious effect of such laws on other human rights, particularly freedom of religion, may come as no surprise to some, such an impact is ironic given the manner in which the "defamation of religion" concept has been sold to the public. In the August 2011 Pew Research Center report, Rising Restrictions on Religion, the following is noted regarding law against "blasphemy, apostasy, and defamation of religion":

"While such laws are sometimes promoted as a way to protect religion and reduce social hostilities involving religion, in practice they often serve to punish religious minorities whose beliefs are deemed unorthodox or heretical, and who therefore are seen as threatening religious harmony in the country."

Changing terminology:

In the years since its introduction at the now-defunct United Nations Human Rights Commission over a decade ago, the concept of "defamation of religion" has masqueraded under various names. Its original name, "defamation of Islam," revealed the goal of its proponents—to limit any expression deemed critical of or offensive to Islam or Muslims. Although the concept was soon renamed to the more general "defamation of religion," discussions surrounding various resolutions focus almost exclusively on expressive acts related to Islam and to the supposedly growing incidence of "Islamophobia" in the West.

November 2010 saw the introduction of the similarly vague term "vilification of religion" as well as the terms "Christianophobia" and "Judeophobia" to give a more ecumenical veneer to a concept that is primarily about restricting criticism of Islam or non-Shari'ah-compliant speech. Still, however the concept of "defamation of religion" remained.

In March of 2011, the OIC introduced a version of the resolution at the Human Rights Council (HRC) that did not include the troublesome term "defamation of religion." While some considered the change a victory for free speech, a defeat of the OIC in its years-long campaign, and perhaps even the death knell of the "defamation of religion" concept, no sooner had the term supposedly been dropped than the OIC was publicly describing the resolution using that very terminology. It also threatened that "defamation of religion" could be reintroduced in the future. Further, the OIC characterized the West's acquiescence as a concession and an implied admission that there was a problem of religious discrimination in the West.

An additional concern is that the latest resolution, like several others before it, continues to track the language of Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The language of Article 20 was considered a threat to freedom of expression from the beginning. For that reason, when the United States finally ratified the ICCPR in 1992, it did so with the reservation that it could not be interpreted as authorizing or requiring restrictions on freedom of speech and association in contravention of the U.S. Constitution or other laws.

Article 20 calls on states to outlaw speech that "constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." The latest HRC resolution tracks this dangerously vague language—language that would, upon a plain reading, subsume much speech currently deemed constitutionally protected in the United States. More troubling still, is that the world has witnessed the application of similar language in the so-called "hate speech" laws that have proliferated throughout Europe, Canada, and Australia. Such laws criminalize much speech that is merely offensive, and these law have not been applied in a viewpoint neutral way. Not surprisingly, speech deemed critical of Islam has been specifically targeted as indicated by the growing list of criminal prosecutions in Europe (including, Geert Wilders, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Jesper Langballe, and Lars Hedegaard).

Even if the OIC's decision to drop "defamation of religion" language from the HRC resolution is maintained, there is nothing to indicate that its goal has changed. The OIC may have merely substituted "hate speech" law for "defamation of religion" as the means to the same end, criminalizing expression deemed critical of or offensive to Islam or Muslims. This is all the more troubling given the current Administration's softening approach to the OIC and its efforts.

Administration's changing response to OIC:

Despite OIC's history at the U.N. of attempting to restrict speech, the current administration announced early on that it was prepared to work with the organization. In September 2009, the United States "surprised" many in the Human Rights community by co-sponsoring a resolution with Egypt that condemned "negative religious stereotyping," "incitement to discrimination," and the "promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes." News sources quoted American diplomats saying the measure was part of the Obama administration's "effort to reach out to Muslim countries."

In addition, rather than meeting the OIC's recent wording changes to the HRC resolution—dropping problematic terminology while keeping the expression-restrictive goal the same—with the appropriate level of skepticism, the Administration has responded, paradoxically, with praise. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton responded with words of approval, applauding the OIC and "complimenting the secretary general on the OIC team in Geneva." In addition, Washington has plans to host a meeting with the OIC on how to implement the new resolution. Although Clinton assures us that the new measure will not "criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence," the troubling language of "hate speech" laws is part of the latest resolution, keeping open another route to speech restriction. Further, even the act of supporting such a resolution can alter the outer contours of our free speech protection at home.

The existence of treaties limiting speech can color the way U.S. courts construe the boundaries of free expression. International law and the First Amendment are not independent issues. The more such treaties there are, the greater the likelihood courts will find they embody a compelling government interest that could trump the First Amendment.

The Legal Project is working on both the policy and public awareness fronts to address this threat. It participated in the joint NGO statements opposing the measures. Nevertheless, sustained vigilance is required particularly given the Administration's willingness to engage the OIC on the issue. Accordingly, the Legal Project continues to monitor the issue with articles, speeches, and blog posts.

💙

The problem of blasphemy and defamation of religion laws

by Paul Sturges, Loughborough University, UK

[PDF]

Introduction

Precisely on the day the first words of this Spotlight were written, a newspaper story reported that in a court in Tomsk, Siberia, state prosecutors have filed a case seeking to ban the Bhagavad Gita on the grounds that it is extremist and insults non-believers. At the same time, Hare Krishna members have demonstrated against this outside the Russian consulate in Kolkata and in the Indian parliament ministers have called the case an insult to Lord Krishna. (Guardian, 2011) What is happening here? To a detached observer, it seems to be that in Tomsk we have an official move to censor a religious document on the grounds that it is offensive to believers in other religions, and maybe also an incitement to mistreatment of some kind directed at those believers. At the same time we have in Kolkata an attempt to prevent this on the grounds that the legal process is an insult to a possibly mythological, but certainly long dead, object of religious devotion. There may also be an implication here that the process is a threat to believers.

The case in all its aspects constitutes a microcosm of many of the problems that can arise at the intersection between freedom of expression and religious belief. If these incidents were the only example in which such issues were raised it would be bad enough, but they are not. Although a rationalist might be tempted to say that all of this is complete nonsense and not worthy of attention, the incidents are part of a phenomenon that can bring not merely the restriction of free expression but also death and destruction anywhere in the world that it emerges. Hence this Spotlight's attention to blasphemy and defamation of religion laws and the whole complex of intolerance and aggression that surrounds them. Before examining this problem more deeply, we could ask whether there is any authoritative guidance relating to freedom of expression and religion. The answer is that indeed there is, in the form of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, and to which the nations of the world, including Russia and India, are signatories.

The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights

Article Nineteen of the UN Declaration says that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The Article is set out as a right to opinion and the expression of opinion, but (significantly for the library and information professions), it contains within it the right to freedom of access to information, expressed as the rights to seek, receive and impart information. Furthermore, although it is clearly a statement of the rights of the individual, there is clearly no intention to deny those rights to bodies of people, such as members of religions and other belief groups. By obvious inference religious expression is protected along with other opinions, be they political or scientific, trivial or important, popular or eccentric.

The protection of religion does not need to rely on Article Nineteen however. Article Eighteen of the Declaration states that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

What needs to be noted here is that thought, conscience and religion are offered equal protection, thus encompassing atheism and agnosticism; protecting the right to change religion implies the right to proselytise on behalf of one religion to adherents of another; and open observance of religion is also protected. On the face of it, Article Eighteen would seem to make the court process in Tomsk a potential violation of human rights. Also on the face of it, the protestors in Kolkata might have a more solid case, based on the rights set out in Articles Eighteen and Nineteen. What makes their case look less convincing is that it seems to be an insult to Lord Krishna that concerns them rather than freedom of expression or the exercise of freedom of religion.

Religious Objections to Freedom of Expression

If we try to sum up the problems that religious believers identify in relation to freedom of expression, we can place them in a set of categories.

Blasphemy (discourse that arguably insults religion itself);
Giving offence (perhaps through blasphemy, but specifically with the intention of inflicting distress on believers);
Incitement to hatred or violence on grounds of religion (the so-called hate speech);
Defamation of religion (which rolls up aspects of all of the above in a new structure of argument and assertion).

There is confusing overlap and imprecision in definition which makes any of these a dangerous area for freedom of expression. Blasphemy, for instance, has two connected meanings in English: the cursing and swearing that can be sexual or scatological but also, crucially, religious; and discourse that dictionaries variously describe as irreverent, sacrilegious, disrespectful, sinful, wicked, or evil in the light of religion. The giving of offence is arguably more a matter of the taking of offence by sensitive people. (Sturges, 2005) Hate speech, though often demonstrably vile, can be seen as an extreme form of expression of opinion and is thus protected by Article Nineteen, despite its vileness. What has become currently worrying is that a well-supported movement in favour of outlawing ‘defamation of religion' has had considerable momentum in the last decade. Before going on to discuss this, the nature and potential effects of blasphemy laws need to be examined.

A recent survey (Freedom House, 2010) examined the blasphemy laws of a selection of countries. Two examples from these, one Christian and the other Muslim will show the actual effects and potential threats of these laws very clearly. In Greece, the Penal Code, in section Seven, identifies ‘Offences against Religious Peace'. Article 198 opens the way to punishment for public and malicious blasphemy against God, whilst Article 199 concerns blasphemy against the Greek Orthodox Church, and other tolerated religions. State prosecutions under Article 198 do occur, despite any doubts about the very existence of a ‘God' which might reasonably be raised. Complaints leading to prosecution under Article 199 seem to have always concerned the Orthodox Church rather than the other tolerated religions. These blasphemy laws in Greece effectively serve the purpose of integrating church and state and have been used to the detriment of free speech and cultural manifestations on a regular basis.

The Muslim case, Pakistan, is even more disturbing. Pakistan introduced its current blasphemy laws as recently as 1982-6 and they provide for penalties including life imprisonment and capital punishment. The laws prohibit offences against the religious feelings of believers, insults to religion and to the Prophet Muhammad (died 632). The problem is that to repeat in an accusation the words that were allegedly used would be to compound the blasphemy. Thus cases in which someone is alleged to have said something blasphemous, place the accused under threat of death, without the freedom to question and defend the specifics of what they might or might not have said. The case of Aasia Bibi is particularly disturbing. Bibi, a Christian woman seems to have been involved in a dispute over a drink of water whilst she and others worked in the fields. It was claimed that Bibi uttered a blasphemy, for which she was tried and sentenced to death. The manifest injustice of this at any level at which it is examined was apparent to a prominent politician, Salman Taseer. He showed willingness to try to help Bibi in her nightmarish plight and also proposed the amendment of the blasphemy laws. For this, he was gunned down on 4th Jan 2011 by one of his bodyguards, who has since been celebrated in extremist religious circles, very extensive circles it seems, as a hero. Only in a few countries do blasphemy laws place innocent people in such jeopardy, but the very existence of laws anywhere that offer this level of protection to religion, which is after all an unprovable matter of faith, is an outrage against humanity. The author is pleased to record that in 2008 the British parliament voted to remove the country's disused, but still existing, blasphemy laws from the statute book.

Defamation of Religion

The threat that a universal declaration in favour of something called defamation of religion would be adopted in the United Nations has been present for most of the past decade. Since 2002 a series of resolutions on respect for religion, and against defamation of religion, have been brought forward in various UN forums, generally on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. First of all, we need to say that human rights protect human beings: not the ideas that human beings might hold on the origins and subsequent order of the world or any other matter. Yet, these resolutions have usually found majority support: that of 2009 being accepted in the United Nations Human Rights Commission by 23 votes to 11 with 13 abstentions. We should examine what the resolutions mean. A statement by a Pakistani official supporting the 2009 resolution claimed that ‘Defamation of religion is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of adherents and incitement to religious violence'.

What this seems to say first is that what we will refer to as criticism, whether reasoned, satirical or contemptuous, of the content of certain beliefs (religion in this case) affronts the dignity of those who believe. Certainly an affront may be felt by a believer encountering some form of criticism. In the defence of such ‘affronts', we should say that human progress has been built on the replacement of untenable ideas by more solidly-based versions, even though in the process there is a chance that sound ideas will have been attacked by proponents of the unsound. This is the challenging intellectual environment that freedom of expression seeks to defend. Dignity in the defence of one's views involves the potential for dignified withdrawal from a position that proves indefensible. It certainly calls for tolerance of those who criticise or attack one's views.

The second part of the statement is even more problematic. First it is alleged that affronts to dignity lead to a restriction of freedom. This is incomprehensible. Article Eighteen supports the right to believe and proclaim belief in anything we choose, whether stupid or wise. There is no restriction of freedom contained in criticism: quite the opposite. Criticism offers the freedom to change one's views, or retain them if one so chooses. The suggestion that incitement to religious violence is implicit in criticism of religion is more problematic. This seems to mean that a critical assault on religion might be followed by a physical assault on the adherents of a religion by the supporters of the criticism. Those who drafted and supported the resolutions may be able to cite instances in which it is completely provable that verbal attacks on ideas, as such, incited subsequent physical attacks on people and property. Be that as it may, what is definitely likely is that the adherents of a criticised religion might attack the critics. What is certain is that communal violence based on religious disputes is sadly common in many parts of the world. What needs to be asked is whether freedom of expression should be curtailed in matters of religion because religions harbour so many hotheads and bigots? Frankly, responding to criticism, or even insult, with violence is regressive and cannot form the basis for any interpretation of human rights.

The progress of these resolutions was first stemmed in March 2011, after the murder of Salman Taseer. Pakistan submitted a resolution to the UNHRC without reference to defamation of religion and this received consensus support. (USCIRF, 2011) It seems that maybe some sort of horrible lesson has been learnt from Taseer's fate. The new resolution was concerned with ‘combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief'. The shift from protecting religious beliefs to protecting those who hold religious beliefs is much more in the spirit of human rights. The new resolution does not seek to restrict peaceful expression, but calls for positive measures, including education and awareness-building. What still concerns some defenders of human rights is that the resolution's reference to ‘combating intolerance' and ‘negative stereotyping' may yet contain the germ of a protection for the content of beliefs. Intolerance in debate of what one believes to be wrong may be an unattractive attitude, but it does not infringe freedom of expression. Likewise negative stereotyping is hard to define and indeed one can see that it might be possible to argue that someone is being negatively stereotyped on the basis of a negative opinion of the religion he or she professes. However, negative stereotyping is a risk that anyone, including the author of this Spotlight, takes if they engage in controversy. There is a warning here that ‘defamation of religions' might not yet have wholly gone away and that the threat it presents to freedom of expression could be reintroduced in a less direct form.

Conclusion

IFLA, certainly since the passing of a Resolution on Freedom of Expression, Censorship and Libraries in 1989, and then through its Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) Committee, set up in 1997, has promoted a view of the library as a vehicle for freedom of expression. It is therefore important that FAIFE monitors and speaks out on threats to freedom of expression that might curtail the rights of library users by limiting the scope of the content that can be offered. Blasphemy laws present a real curtailment of content in many parts of the world and the defamation of religions resolutions threatened to smuggle in further restraint. They sought to do this by an unjustifiable adjustment of the protection of the freedoms of individuals and communities to express their ideas and opinions on any topic so as to exempt religious ideas and opinions from such freedom. Although a kind of victory against this seems to have been achieved in March 2011, blasphemy laws, some of them outrageously unjust and oppressive still remain in many countries and need to be opposed as strenuously as possible.

💫💫

Negeri Tawuran

Senin, 8 Oktober 2012 | 08:17 WIB

Azyumardi Azra

Mediasi harus dilakukan kepemimpinan puncak negara ini, Presiden SBY, yang memiliki berbagai wewenang untuk memaksakan berakhirnya tawuran sosial-politik. Presiden SBY semestinya tidak membiarkan berbagai bentuk tawuran terus berlanjut.

Tawuran antara SMA Negeri 70 dan SMA Negeri 6 yang mengorbankan jiwa peserta didik, belum lama ini, hampir dipastikan hanyalah gejala dari penyakit akut yang terus dan bahkan kian diderita negeri ini. Lihatlah, sebelumnya seorang mahasiswa Universitas Muslim Indonesia Makassar juga tewas karena tawuran antarfakultas.
Pada saat yang sama, tawuran antarkampung dan antardesa juga terus terjadi di berbagai tempat dari waktu-waktu. Kejadian mengenaskan yang hampir selalu mengakibatkan hilangnya nyawa terjadi tidak hanya di desa-desa yang jauh dari jangkauan aparat keamanan, juga di perkotaan—seperti Jakarta—yang lengkap dengan personel Polri yang semestinya dapat bergerak cepat.
Sementara itu, berbagai ”tawuran” dalam bentuk lain juga pada lapisan atas, misalnya adanya semacam ”tawuran politik” antara kalangan Polri dan lingkungan DPR pada satu pihak dengan KPK pada pihak lain. Meski ”tawuran” ini tidak melibatkan kekuatan fisik, pergumulan kekuatan jelas terlihat dalam ranah publik, yang menimbulkan kekacauan
Kepengapan pendidikan
Tawuran antarpelajar dan antarmahasiswa, selain merupakan cerminan kesumpekan masyarakat, sekaligus mengindikasikan kepengapan dunia pendidikan kita. Memang berlebihan jika tawuran antarpelajar dan antarmahasiswa dikatakan sebagai cerminan kegagalan pendidikan. Tetapi jelas, gejala tak sehat ini indikasi dari berbagai masalah serius yang dihadapi lingkungan sekolah dan kampus perguruan tinggi (PT) yang membuat dunia pendidikan kita secara keseluruhan menjadi sangat pengap.
Salah satu sumber kepengapan itu adalah lingkungan sekolah dan kampus yang tidak kondusif. Banyak sekolah dan kampus PT tidak memiliki fasilitas memadai, khususnya untuk olahraga, kesenian, dan berbagai medium penyaluran bakat lain. Padahal, fasilitas-fasilitas seperti ini sangat esensial tidak hanya untuk menyalurkan bakat dan minat, tetapi juga guna melepas energi berlebih dan gejolak emosional yang bisa terus meningkat dalam diri remaja dan anak muda.
Penyebab kepengapan lainnya adalah beban kurikulum sangat berat mulai dari tingkat SD, SMA, hingga PT. Setiap semester, para siswa dan mahasiswa harus mengambil 8-11 mata pelajaran/mata kuliah. Dengan beban berat seperti ini, sekolah dan PT tidak lagi menjadi lokus pembelajaran dan pembudayaan, tetapi tempat ”penyiksaan” peserta didik. Tidak heran kalau mereka menjadi sumpek dan bete, yang kemudian mereka lampiaskan ke dalam berbagai bentuk penyimpangan, termasuk tawuran.
Karena itu, penyediaan fasilitas sekolah dan kampus yang lebih memadai dan kondusif untuk pemberadaban peserta didik merupakan kebutuhan sangat mendesak. Dana amat besar, minimal 20 persen dari anggaran belanja negara (pusat dan daerah), untuk pendidikan sudah saatnya dikelola secara lebih bertanggung jawab sehingga tidak ada lagi sekolah dan kampus yang reyot, yang dalam istilah Profesor Winarno Surakhmad seperti ”kandang kambing”.
Pada saat yang sama, beban kurikulum yang menyiksa mestilah dikurangi. Mata pelajaran/mata kuliah yang menurut Profesor Malik Fadjar hanya ”recehan” harus dikembalikan kepada rumpun ilmunya. Dengan cara itu, setiap semester, peserta didik dapat mengambil 4-5 mata pelajaran/mata kuliah dengan bobot SKS lebih besar. Melalui cara ini, peserta didik dapat memiliki ruang lebih besar bagi imajinasi dan kreativitas.
Tawuran sosial-politik
Citra Indonesia sebagai ”negeri tawuran” agaknya menjadi sempurna ketika dari waktu ke waktu publik disuguhi berbagai tawuran sosial-politik. Ada tawuran sosial di antara kelompok keagamaan berbeda karena lenyapnya toleransi yang digantikan fanatisme mazhab dan aliran, yang masing-masing merasa paling benar sendiri. Tawuran semacam ini kian menjadi- jadi karena kegagalan aparat negara menegakkan hukum dan sikap partisannya kepada pihak tertentu yang bertikai.
Lalu, lihat pula tawuran politik yang sering terjadi seputar waktu pilkada. Pilkada DKI Jakarta yang aman dan damai belum lama ini merupakan pengecualian daripada gejala umum. Banyak pilkada lain di Tanah Air berujung pada tawuran, yang selain menimbulkan kerusakan fasilitas umum juga korban nyawa. Tawuran politik ini tidak lain adalah ekses dari fragmentasi dan kontestasi di antara para elite politik yang belum juga menunjukkan tanda penyelesaian.
Kini yang tidak kurang serunya adalah ”tawuran” politik antara kalangan Polri dan DPR pada satu pihak dengan KPK pada pihak lain. ”Tawuran” yang memang tidak melibatkan kekuatan fisik ini jelas merupakan buah dari perseteruan yang berlangsung lama di antara pihak-pihak yang ”bertikai”. Pihak pertama merasa sangat terganggu dengan kiprah pihak kedua dalam membongkar kasus korupsi yang melibatkan ”oknum” petinggi Polri dan kalangan anggota DPR. Kini tawuran ini mengambil ”perang daya tahan” (war of attrition) yang meningkatkan ketidakpercayaan dan skeptisisme publik kepada kedua pihak pertama.
Revitalisasi mediasi
Jika upaya penyelesaian tawuran antarpelajar dan antarmahasiswa melibatkan terutama para praktisi pendidikan terkait dan orangtua, sebaliknya tawuran sosial-politik memerlukan mediasi lebih kompleks. Penyelesaian tidak bisa hanya diusahakan para pihak yang terlibat langsung dalam tawuran, tetapi juga harus melibatkan elite politik lokal dan pusat, civil society, dan kepemimpinan puncak negeri ini.
Sejauh ini, keterlibatan civil society dapat mengurangi peningkatan intensitas dan proliferasi tawuran sosial-politik. Indonesia diberkahi kekayaan civil society keagamaan dan NGO (LSM) advokasi, yang selalu siap merapatkan barisan untuk mencegah negeri ini terjerumus ke tubir kekacauan sosial-politik dan disintegrasi. Tetapi, sebagai kekuatan moral, mereka memiliki keterbatasan tertentu sehingga tidak selalu dapat efektif dalam penyelesaian tawuran sosial-politik.
Karena itu, mediasi harus dilakukan kepemimpinan puncak negara ini, Presiden SBY, yang memiliki berbagai wewenang untuk memaksakan berakhirnya tawuran sosial-politik. Oleh sebab itu, Presiden SBY semestinya tidak membiarkan berbagai bentuk tawuran terus berlanjut. Sebaliknya, memerintahkan aparat yang berada di bawah wewenangnya—seperti Inspektur Jenderal Djoko Susilo, petinggi Polri—untuk mematuhi ketentuan hukum. Berlanjutnya kebisuan, apologi, dan ketidaktegasan Presiden hanya akan membuat negeri ini terus terombang-ambing dalam berbagai bentuk tawuran.
Azyumardi Azra Direktur Sekolah Pascasarjana UIN Syarif Hidayatullah; Anggota Advisory Board, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), Stockholm

Sumber :

Kompas Cetak

Editor :

Inggried Dwi Wedhaswary

Senin, 08/10/2012 07:15 WIB

Rp 3 Miliar, Sulap Hukuman Mati jadi 20 Tahun Penjara Sang Bandar Heroin

Andri Haryanto - detikNews

\Jakarta Seperti tidak mengenal jera, napi vonis hukuman mati kasus narkotika ini, Adam Wilson (48), kembali mengulangi perbuatannya. Di balik jeruji besi, bekas intelijen Kepolisian Nigeria ini mengendalikan peredaran sabu. Tidak sedikit barang bukti yang didapat petugas dari kaki tangan Adam, 9 kg sabu yang diselundupkan dari India siap diedarkan di Indonesia.

Lantas, apa motif Abu, sapaan akrab Adam Wilson, kendalikan peredaran barang haram itu?

Usut punya usut, Abu yang desersi dari tugas kepolisiannya di Nigeria dan memilih menjadi guru bahasa Inggris di Sabah, Malaysia, tahun 1984 ini tengah mempersiapkan sejumlah dana agar bisa bebas dari eksekusi vonis mati yang diketukkan oleh pengadilan. Jumlahnya tidak sedikit. Rp 3-4 miliar untuk bisa memuluskan jalannya keluar dari hukuman mati.

"Saya ingin hukuman itu jadi seumur hidup, yang penting jangan mati. Kalau yang sudah pernah, mungkin dia bohong atau tidak saya kan nggak
tahu. Itu Rp 3 miliar ke atas, tapi ini sudah pasti saya tidak mati," kata Abu kepada detikcom, beberapa waktu lalu.

Menurutnya, jumlah tersebut masih terbilang kecil dibandingan sejumlah dana yang tengah disiapkannya. "Ada mereka yang harus membayar Rp 8 miliar," katanya.

Sederet angka itu, tutur Abu, memiliki tingkatan tersendiri agar bisa lolos dari jerat hukum mengerikan, mati. Dia mencontohkan dengan dana Rp 1 miliar vonis hukuman mati dapat berubah menjadi seumur hidup.

"Kalau Rp 3 M bisa turun 20 (tahun). Ada harganya," kata pria bertubuh tambun ini.

Transaksi tidak begitu saja diberikan oleh sang napi. Penggelontoran uang dengan nilai fantastis itu baru dapat dilakukan bila Adam mendapatkan bukti bahwa dirinya sudah lolos dari jeratan hukuman mati.

"Kalau sudah masuk di koran, oke, masuk ke internet juga sudah, kemudian buktinya dibawa ke LP, ya sudah kemudian tanda tangan. Berarti saya sudah bisa terima remisi. Ya sudah baru bayar," terang Adam yang berkali-kali berucap tidak ingin mati ini.

Adam Wilson divonis hukuman mati oleh Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Tangerang karana terbukti menyelundupkan heroin sebanyak 1.000 gr. Mendekam empat tahun di Lapas Pemuda Tangerang, Adam lantas dipindahkan ke Lapas Kembang Kuning Nusakambangan. Adam kembali ditangkap petugas BNN atas kepemilikan 9 kg sabu yang dibawa dari India ke Indonesia.

Penangkapan Adam sendiri berdasarkan pengembangan beberapa tersangka yang tak lain menjadi kaki tangan Adam dalam bisnis narkotika. Para tersangka itu ditangkap di Kupang, Nusa Tenggara Timur dan Medan. Penangkapan sang bandar dilakukan Kamis (13/9) di RSUD Cilacap Ruang Dahlia saat bersama seorang perempuan.

Adam mendapat restu dari pihak pemasyarakatan untuk ke rumah sakit guna pemeriksaan kesehatannya. Lima unit handphone ditemukan dari tangannya. Barang bukti itu diduga menjadi lalu lintas komunikasi dengan 'pegawai'nya dalam mengendalikan sabu.

Di tengah suasanan perang terhadap narkotika. dua kali Mahkamah Agung (MA) membatalkan hukuman mati bagi bandit narkoba. Pertama dijatuhkan kepada pemilik heroin 5,8 kg Hillary K Chimezie dan kedua bagi pemilik pabrik ekstasi Hengky Gunawan. Putusan ini dibuat oleh ketua majelis kasasi yang juga Ketua Muda MA bidang Peradilan Militer, Imron Anwari.

Kekecewaan jelas diutarakan Badan Narkotika Nasional (BNN), otoritas pemberantasan kartel narkotika di Indonesia. Kekecewaan itu bukannya tanpa alasan, sebab para gembong narkotik ini telah melanggar HAM ribuan orang. 15 Ribu nyawa orang terenggut karena mengkonsumsi narkoba.

"Berapa anak bangsa yang mati sia-sia karena menggunakan narkotika? Dalam perhitungan kita, ada 15 ribu anak bangsa yang mati karena penyalahgunaan narkoba," kata Kepala Humas BNN, Kombes Sumirat Dwiyanto.

(ahy/jor)

Sebuah Gereja Sebuah Keyakinan di Indonesia

Selasa, 17 Januari 2017

HUKUM ketidakpastian HUKUM (1)

Lukas 23:33-43

What is the Punishment for Blasphemy in Islam?

Video: Ahok Jadi Tersangka, Sopir Taksi Ini Menangis

legal project org:

Defamation of Religions

The problem of blasphemy and defamation of religion laws

Introduction

The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights

Religious Objections to Freedom of Expression

Defamation of Religion

Conclusion

Rp 3 Miliar, Sulap Hukuman Mati jadi 20 Tahun Penjara Sang Bandar Heroin

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar

Mengenai Saya

Arsip Blog