SHARIAsource

Ibn Ḥārith al-Khushanī recorded the following case as a ḥikāya, an anonymous report: A Christian appeared before the judge Aslam b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, petitioning to be executed. But he was rebuked because he had committed no crime. The text explains that the Christian’s behaviour was motivated by his desire to die in imitation of Jesus, as an act of virtue (faḍīla), although—as our source points out—Jesus himself did not seek martyrdom. In response to the judge’s admonishment, the Christian explained that he would not in truth die. While his shibh, or likeness (i.e., a body that resembled his body), might perish, his real self would ascend to the heavens upon execution. The judge aimed to disprove this theory by ordering the Christian flogged. Thus, the judge illustrated that the Christian could indeed suffer pain and likewise would suffer death if a sword were to cut his neck.

Translation

Ibn Ḥārith said: I heard someone recounting that a Christian went [to the judge] asking to be put to death. Aslam reprimanded him asking him: “Woe unto you! Who provoked you to ask for your own death if you have committed no crime?” The stupidity and ignorance of the Christian led him to take upon himself a virtuous act (faḍīla) when nothing of the kind was attributed to Jesus, son of Mary – God bless Muḥammad and Jesus. The Christian told the judge: “You assume that if you execute me I would be the one killed.” The judge asked him: “Who else could be the one killed?” The Christian answered: “A likeness of me (shibhī) that was cast on a body is what you will execute, while my real self in that same hour will directly go to heaven.” Aslam then told him: “We lack sufficient information to have an opinion on the [outcome] that you argue for,[1]but you lack what it takes to make you realize that you are deceiving yourself. There is however a way to reveal what is right to us and to you.” The Christian asked the judge: “What could that be?” The judge Aslam summoned his court assistants (aʿwān) and told them: “Take the whip,” then ordered them to strip the Christian which they did, and then ordered them to beat him. When the Christian felt the flogging he became agitated and screamed. Aslam asked him: “On which back is the flogging taking place?” “On mine!” said the Christian. Aslam told him: “In the same way the sword will cut your neck, don’t be deluded into believing otherwise.”

Ibn Ḥārith al-Khushanī recorded the following case as a ḥikāya, an anonymous report: A Christian appeared before the judge Aslam b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, petitioning to be executed. The anecdote offers insight into the historical role of judges during a period of religious dissent in the Umayyad Caliphate, while the author's narrative voice demonstrates past judicial approaches to rationality, humor, and violent penalization. 

This text is part of Maribel Fierro, The Judges of al-Andalus, forthcoming.

Originally sourced from the Dutch colonial criminal code (Wetboek van Strafrecht voor Nederlandsh-Indie), the Criminal Code's relevance to the application of shari'a in Indonesia, among others, lies in the wording of art 156a. Article 156a prescribes up to five years' imprisonment for any person who intentionally, in public, expresses a feeling or conducts themselves in a way that:

1. is hostile, abusive, or defamatory towards a religion followed in Indonesia; or
2. intends to discourage persons from embracing a religion based on the belief in One Almighty God.

The Criminal Code is also referred to in some religious court (pengadilan agama) decisions, and already covers certain parts of the criminal law that Acehnese regional legislation (qanun) seeks to regulate.

This Supreme Court decision upheld Decision: 69/PID.B/2012/PN.Spg of the Sampang State Court to imprison Tajul Muluk, a member of the Shi'a Muslim community in Madura. Tajul's four year prison sentence was upheld for allegedly teaching his students 'unorthodox' religious teachings, including questioning the authenticity of the Qur'an in its current form. Tajul and multiple witnesses disputed and denied the allegations.

The court sentenced Tajul Muluk, a member of the Shi'a Muslim community in Madura, to two years' prison for conducting himself in a manner that defamed Islam. Tajul was found guilty of teaching his students 'unorthodox' religious teachings, including questioning the authenticity of the Qur'an in its current form. Tajul and multiple witnesses disputed and denied the allegations, but the court found him in contravention of the Defamation of Religion Law, regardless.

The prosecution would appeal the leniency of the sentence before the higher court of East Java, which subsequently increased Tajul's sentence from two years to four. This four year sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court in Decision 1787 of 2012.

This joint decree, based on Law No. 1 of 1965 on Prevention of Abuse and/or Defamation of Religion, warns and orders adherents, members, and/or organisational members of Jemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia, to cease the dissemination of their religious interpretations and activities that 'deviate' from the fundamental tenets of Islam. Failure to abide by the decree may result in disturbing the peace and social order and can, therefore, result in sanctions.

This circular outlines the implementational requirements of different levels of government vis-a-vis the Joint Decree of the Minister of Religion, Attorney-General and Internal Affairs Minister No. 3 of 2008, which dramatically curbed the public practice and dissemination of so-called 'deviant' beliefs and teachings of the Jemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia.

The primary purpose of this presidential determination is captured in art 1, which prohibits all persons from intentionally and publicly conveying, endorsing, or soliciting public support for an interpretation of a religion followed in Indonesia, or conducting religious activities that resemble the religious activities of that religion, where such interpretation and activities deviate from the fundamental tenets of that religion. Article 4 also amends the Indonesian Criminal Code to include art 156a, thereby criminalising such behaviour.

The elucidation lists the six religions to which the vast majority of Indonesians adhere: Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. The elucidation clarifies, however, that this list is not exhaustive, and that other religions such as Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, and Taoism are not prohibited. That said, the list of religions to which the vast majority of Indonesians adhere would subsequently become the base definition for the term 'religion' in Indonesia.

This presidential determination was later exalted to the status of a statute (undang-undang) after the enactment of Law No. 5 of 1969 on the Declaration of Various Presidential Determinations and Presidential Regulations as Laws.

This Constitutional Court review of Law No. 1 of 1965 on the Prevention of Abuse and/or Defamation of Religion concluded that while a person’s religious beliefs are part of their inner freedom of religion (forum internum), for the sake of peace and social order, when stated publicly, those interpretations must accord with the basic tenets of that religion, and the scriptures of that religion. It is in these cases that restrictions on religious interpretation may be enforced.

This fatwa acknowledges the recent development of a stream of Islamic leadership established by Ahmad Moshaddeq which teaches a creed (syahadat) that differs from traditional Islamic teachings. The fatwa finds that, contrary to Islamic teachings, this new stream of Islam:

1. states: "Asyhadu alla ilaha illa Allah wa asyhadu anna masih al-Mau'ud Rasul Allah" ("I bear witness that there is no God except Allah, and I bear witness that the promised Messiah is the Messenger of God");
2. teaches that there is a new prophet/messenger (nabi/rasul) who came after the Prophet Muhammad SAW; and
3. does not oblige its followers to pray (shalat), fast (puasa) or perform the hajj (haji).

The fatwa declares that followers of this particular stream of Islam are apostates (murtad). It also urges the government to prohibit the dissemination of this interpretation of Islam, to close all places associated with it, and to silence its leadership, pursuant to current legislative provisions.

This fatwa reinforces a 1980 fatwa issued by the Indonesian Council of Ulama (Majelis Ulama Indonesia) that stipulates that Ahmadiyya is outside Islam, misled and misleading, while its adherents are apostates (murtad). It also implores adherents of Ahmadiyya to return to the correct teachings of Islam, in line with the Qur'an and Hadith. The fatwa also obliges the government to prohibit the dissemination of the Ahmadiyya interpretation throughout Indonesia, as well as to freeze the organisation and close all sites of Ahmadiyya-related activities.

This elucidation of Indonesian Council of Ulama Fatwa No. 11 of 2005 on Ahmadiyya provides background information on the Ahmadiyya sect, its leader (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) and his supposed exaltation by Allah as prophet (nabi) and messenger (rasul), and its history.

This elucidation of Indonesian Council of Ulama Fatwa No. 7 of 2005 on Pluralism, Liberalism and Secularism states that Indonesian Muslims are in the middle of a non-physical war or war of thoughts (ghazwul fikr). Principally, secularism and liberalism, two schools of thought from the West, have arrived in Indonesia and have caused much of society to diverge from the teachings of Islam.

This fatwa was issued in response to a letter to the Indonesian Council of Ulama (Majelis Ulama Indonesia) from Ir. Andan Nadriasta requesting an explanation of the teachings of a Qur'anic study group led by Lia Aminuddin. Aminuddin claimed to have been visited by the Archangel Gabriel (Malaikat Jibril), claims which Nadriasta believed could upset the Islamic community because they contradicted Islamic beliefs. Aminuddin, in a subsequent letter to the Secretary of the Council Fatwa Commission, confirmed that she had indeed been visited by, and received teachings from, the Archangel Gabriel.

During a Fatwa Commission hearing, Aminuddin explained that on one occasion she had been left upset by the attitudes of Anton Medan and two kiai (Nur Muhammad Iskandar and Zainuddin MZ), which had left her in tears every night, and moved her to voice her frustrations to Allah. Aminuddin claimed that one night her entire body had trembled and that she had sweated excessively, all the while feeling cold. The next day she was able to see a variety of things: for example, she could see which cars on the road were the result of corruption. She could also treat a variety of illnesses. Afterwards, she was visisted by an invisible creature which followed her and provided her with Islamic teachings and guidance. That creature revealed itself to her as Habib al-Huda.

One day one of Aminuddin's patients, Indra, who Aminuddin claimed was a genie, told Aminuddin that she was being accompanied by the Archangel Gabriel. On another day, another person came to see Aminuddin and told her the same thing. When Aminuddin questioned the truthfulness of these statements to her accompanist, her accompanist confirmed he was indeed the Archangel Gabriel. Aminuddin was then instructed by the Archangel Gabriel to carry out umrah in order to obtain evidence that he was indeed Gabriel. Along her umrah journey Aminuddin saw signs that she had indeed been accompanied by Gabriel. Gabriel, however, only visited her when he wanted, and in order to convey to her necessary messages.

This fatwa determines that belief in angels, including the Archangel Gabriel, must be based on information or an explanation from revelation (the Qur'an or Hadith). There exists no Qur'anic verse or hadith that states that the Archangel Gabriel is still instructed by Allah to impart teachings on the people because the teachings of Allah are already perfect. A person's confession that they have been visited and received teachings from the Archangel Gabriel is, therefore, contrary to the Qur'an. The fatwa states that Aminuddin's confession is viewed as being misled and misleading. The fatwa concludes by imploring Muslims to take care when receiving spiritual guidance, and to always preference teachings derived from the Qur'an and Hadith as ratified by ulama.

This fatwa affirms a raft of preceding fatwa that declare the teachings of Darul Arqam to be divergent from Islamic beliefs (Aqidah Islamiyah). It supports in full the decision of the Attorney-General of the Republic of Indonesia to prohibit the distribution of the book Aurad Muhammadiyah pegangan Darul Arqam, by Ustaz Azhari Muhammad, published by Penergan Al-Arqam. It also supports the Attorney-General's decision to maintain efforts to protect the prohibition on the distribution of the book Presiden Soeharto Ikut Jadwal Allah by Abuya Syech Imam Azhari Muhammad, edited by Ustazah Chadijah Aam, published by Penerbitan al-Arqam Indonesia.

The fatwa recommends that the Attorney-General of the Republic of Indonesia issue a prohibition on Darul Arqam and the dissemination of its ideas and teachings for the sake of protecting the purity of Islamic teachings and national unity. The fatwa also calls on Muslims not to be influenced by the teachings of Darul Arqam.

This fatwa acknowledges that in certain regions of Indonesia there are religious streams that do not acknowledge the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad SAW as a source of Islamic shari'a law. Such streams include that espoused by Irham Sutarto (employee of PT Unilever Indonesia in Jakarta).

The fatwa states that a religious stream that does not consider the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad SAW to be a source of Islamic shari'a law is misled and misleading, and exists outside the Islamic faith. The fatwa also directs those following such streams, whether they are aware or not, to repent immediately, and for the government to place a prohibition on such streams.

This fatwa acknowledges the principal distinctions between Sunni and Shi'a Islam:

1. Shi'a Islam rejects hadith not narrated by the Prophet's family (Ahlu Bait), while Sunni Islam (Ahlu Sunnah wal Jama'ah) does not differentiate between hadith provided that those hadith meet the criteria of the classification of hadith (mustalah hadis);
2. Shi'a Islam perceives imams as infallible (ma 'sum), while Sunni Islam does not;
3. Shi'a Islam does not acknowledge consensus (ijma') without the presence of an imam, while Sunni Islam does;
4. Shi'a Islam believes that political leadership/government is included in the pillars of religion, while Sunni Islam believes in general welfare with the aim of religious, spiritual, political leadership being to guarantee and protect the proselytisation and interests of the Islamic people (umat); and
5. Shi'a Islam, in general, does not acknowledge the succession of Abu Bakar as-Siddiq, Umar Ibnul Khatab, and Usman bin Affan, while Sunni Islam does.

Acknowledging these principal differences, especially with regard to government (imamah), the Indonesian Council of Ulama implores Indonesian Muslims to understand Sunni Islam in order to increase their own vigilence towards the flow of interpretations based on Shi'a Islam.

This fatwa states that any attempt to trivialise religion or to incorrectly cite scripture degrades the purity and sanctity of religious life. Accordingly, the Indonesian Council of Ulama (Majelis Ulama Indonesia) is committed to tackling such cases with seriousness and in perpetuity.

This fatwa states that, pursuant to the information collated from nine books on Ahmadiyya, the Indonesian Council of Ulama (Majelis Ulama Indonesia) has determined that Ahmadiyya is a religious congregation (jama'ah) outside of Islam that is misled and misleading. The fatwa acknowledges that Jemaat Ahmadiyah is a recognised legal entity in the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia, but that for Muslims it has resulted in:

1. disquiet, because its teachings are contrary to Islamic teachings;
2. disunity, especially in regards to prayer (shalat), marriage (munakahat), etc; and
3. a threat to state order and security.

This fatwa states that the Islam Jama'ah sect commenced in Indonesia in the 1970s. As its teachings were misled and misleading, and led to disquiet among Indonesian society, its interpretation of Islam was prohibited by the government in 1971. Islam Jama'ah, however, continued to operate under different names, which continued to change until 1977-78. The philosophy of Islam Jama'ah was that there were 72 categories of Muslims who were not part of Islam Jama'ah and would, therefore, be directed to hell.

The sect believed it had to appoint a Leader of Believers (Amirul Mukminin) as its central leadership; a leader who must be obeyed. Adherents had to pledge allegiance to this Leader in order to be guaranteed passage to heaven, and the only rightful and permissible Islamic teachings came from ther Leader. Adherents of the sect also had to cut off ties with persons from these other categories, even if those people were their parents; they were not allowed to pray behind people who were not adherents of Islam Jama'ah; they were not allowed to wear clothing for prayers that had been touched by people who were not adherents unless it had been cleansed; husbands even had to endeavour to make their wives join the sect, and if their wives refused, they would have to divorce them. A legitimate marriage was one officiated by the sect's leader, and for a sermon to be legitimate it would have to be conducted in Arabic.

This fatwa states that Islam Jama'ah, Darul Hadits (or whatever other pseudonym the sect may have adopted), is contrary to the teachings of Islam, and that its dissemination is designed to destablise the state. It implores Muslims to avoid its teachings and to return to the pure teachings of Islam with the intent and desire to similarly save those who have already chosen Islam as their religion from the wrath of Allah. It also implores people to report to their local public prosecutor any evidence of activities conducted by Islam Jama'ah.