A short video can give rise to lengthy legal problems. A challenge to\nmemorise Surah Ad-Duha from the Quran with an alcoholic drink as a prize\nat a sponsor\u2019s booth at The Sounds Project music festival in Ancol,\nJakarta, on 9 August 2026, is the latest example. The video went viral\nand drew condemnation because Quranic verses were placed in the context\nof promoting alcoholic beverages. The festival organiser condemned the\nact and stated that the activity was outside their direction, approval,\nand control. Newport also issued an apology. The legal question is\nsimple, but the answer is not: was the act merely bad and insensitive\ncontent, or has it entered the territory of blasphemy? The next question\nis more fundamental: where should the state draw the line between\nfreedom of expression and respect for the sanctity of religion?<\/p>\n
Public reaction to the Surah Ad-Duha memorisation challenge has been\nvery clear. The Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), through the Chairman of\nits Fatwa Division, KH Asrorun Ni\u2019am Sholeh, strongly condemned the act.\nThe essence is that the Quran is the word of God and holds a very sacred\nposition. Reading the Quran is an act of worship. Alcohol is something\nforbidden in Islam. Therefore, making Quran memorisation a condition for\nobtaining alcohol is considered a degradation of the sanctity of the\nQuran. MUI has called for those responsible to be processed according to\nthe law. A similar reaction came from Jakarta Governor Pramono Anung,\nwho strongly condemned the act and said firm action must be taken. He\nassessed that bringing alcohol promotion into activities related to\nreligion is something that tarnishes religious life in Jakarta. The\nMuslim Lawyers Association of Indonesia (ALMI) has also filed a\ncomplaint with the Criminal Investigation Agency (Bareskrim). Led by\nZainul Arifin, ALMI visited Bareskrim on 11 August 2026 and filed a\ncomplaint of alleged blasphemy. The latest development is serious: on 14\nAugust, police arrested four people with the initials Res, E, AK, and M\nto investigate their roles and named all four as suspects. Police have\nnot ruled out the possibility of other parties being held\nresponsible.<\/p>\n
In Indonesian society, religion is not merely a private matter.\nReligion is part of the social and cultural identity of the community.\nTherefore, religious symbols carry far greater sensitivity than ordinary\ncommercial symbols. For Muslims, the Quran is not just a book or text.\nIt is a holy scripture and the source of religious teachings. When\nQuranic verses are used as part of an alcohol promotion game, the issue\nis not merely whether the challenge participants actually memorised the\nverses. The problem is the symbolic context. From the perspective of\nsociologist Emile Durkheim, there is a boundary between the sacred and\nthe profane. The Quran lies within the sacred realm for Muslims, while\nalcohol is placed in a realm that contradicts those values. When the two\nare brought together as a promotional strategy, the symbolic clash\nbecomes very strong. However, the law must not stop at sociological\nconclusions. Something considered offensive by society is not\nautomatically a criminal offence.<\/p>\n
Indonesia has a long history of blasphemy cases, including the case\nof former Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok). In the North\nJakarta District Court Decision Number 1537\/Pid.B\/2016\/PN Jkt.Utr, Ahok\nwas found guilty and sentenced to two years in prison under Article 156a\nletter a of the Criminal Code. That decision became one of the most\ncontroversial blasphemy cases in Indonesian legal history. The Ahok case\nshows how difficult it is to distinguish between political statements,\ncriticism of the use of religious symbols, and blasphemy. The most\nimportant lesson is not whether one agrees or disagrees with the\nverdict. The lesson is that in a state of law, punishment must be built\non the elements of the offence, evidence, intent, the context of the\nstatement, and judicial consideration, not merely on the virality of an\nevent. The case of Panji Gumilang also illustrates different\ncomplexities. In the Indramayu District Court Decision Number\n365\/Pid.Sus\/2023\/PN Idm, Panji Gumilang was found guilty of blasphemy\nand sentenced to one year in prison on 20 March 2024. That case is\nimportant because it shows that religious expression deemed deviant or\ncontroversial is not automatically identical to a criminal offence. What\nmust be tested is the act charged and whether the criminal elements are\nfulfilled under applicable law. This is where criminal law must work\ncarefully.<\/p>\n
Before 2026, blasphemy was primarily associated with Article 156a of\nthe Criminal Code, which originated from Article 4 of Law\nNo.\u00a01\/PNPS\/1965. The formulation uses terms such as \u2018hostility\u2019,\n\u2018abuse\u2019, and \u2018defamation\u2019 against religion. The problem is that these\nterms contain broad room for interpretation. Since 2 January 2026, the\nNational Criminal Code has been in force. Chapter VII of the new\nCriminal Code regulates criminal offences against religion, belief, and\nreligious life, including through Articles 300 to 305. Article 300, for\nexample, regulates acts in public that are hostile, expressions of\nhatred, or defamation against religion.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/testing-the-limits-of-freedom-of-expression-1787698218", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }