Testing the Limits of Freedom of Expression
A short video can give rise to lengthy legal problems. A challenge to memorise Surah Ad-Duha from the Quran with an alcoholic drink as a prize at a sponsor’s booth at The Sounds Project music festival in Ancol, Jakarta, on 9 August 2026, is the latest example. The video went viral and drew condemnation because Quranic verses were placed in the context of promoting alcoholic beverages. The festival organiser condemned the act and stated that the activity was outside their direction, approval, and control. Newport also issued an apology. The legal question is simple, but the answer is not: was the act merely bad and insensitive content, or has it entered the territory of blasphemy? The next question is more fundamental: where should the state draw the line between freedom of expression and respect for the sanctity of religion?
Public reaction to the Surah Ad-Duha memorisation challenge has been very clear. The Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), through the Chairman of its Fatwa Division, KH Asrorun Ni’am Sholeh, strongly condemned the act. The essence is that the Quran is the word of God and holds a very sacred position. Reading the Quran is an act of worship. Alcohol is something forbidden in Islam. Therefore, making Quran memorisation a condition for obtaining alcohol is considered a degradation of the sanctity of the Quran. MUI has called for those responsible to be processed according to the law. A similar reaction came from Jakarta Governor Pramono Anung, who strongly condemned the act and said firm action must be taken. He assessed that bringing alcohol promotion into activities related to religion is something that tarnishes religious life in Jakarta. The Muslim Lawyers Association of Indonesia (ALMI) has also filed a complaint with the Criminal Investigation Agency (Bareskrim). Led by Zainul Arifin, ALMI visited Bareskrim on 11 August 2026 and filed a complaint of alleged blasphemy. The latest development is serious: on 14 August, police arrested four people with the initials Res, E, AK, and M to investigate their roles and named all four as suspects. Police have not ruled out the possibility of other parties being held responsible.
In Indonesian society, religion is not merely a private matter. Religion is part of the social and cultural identity of the community. Therefore, religious symbols carry far greater sensitivity than ordinary commercial symbols. For Muslims, the Quran is not just a book or text. It is a holy scripture and the source of religious teachings. When Quranic verses are used as part of an alcohol promotion game, the issue is not merely whether the challenge participants actually memorised the verses. The problem is the symbolic context. From the perspective of sociologist Emile Durkheim, there is a boundary between the sacred and the profane. The Quran lies within the sacred realm for Muslims, while alcohol is placed in a realm that contradicts those values. When the two are brought together as a promotional strategy, the symbolic clash becomes very strong. However, the law must not stop at sociological conclusions. Something considered offensive by society is not automatically a criminal offence.
Indonesia has a long history of blasphemy cases, including the case of former Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok). In the North Jakarta District Court Decision Number 1537/Pid.B/2016/PN Jkt.Utr, Ahok was found guilty and sentenced to two years in prison under Article 156a letter a of the Criminal Code. That decision became one of the most controversial blasphemy cases in Indonesian legal history. The Ahok case shows how difficult it is to distinguish between political statements, criticism of the use of religious symbols, and blasphemy. The most important lesson is not whether one agrees or disagrees with the verdict. The lesson is that in a state of law, punishment must be built on the elements of the offence, evidence, intent, the context of the statement, and judicial consideration, not merely on the virality of an event. The case of Panji Gumilang also illustrates different complexities. In the Indramayu District Court Decision Number 365/Pid.Sus/2023/PN Idm, Panji Gumilang was found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to one year in prison on 20 March 2024. That case is important because it shows that religious expression deemed deviant or controversial is not automatically identical to a criminal offence. What must be tested is the act charged and whether the criminal elements are fulfilled under applicable law. This is where criminal law must work carefully.
Before 2026, blasphemy was primarily associated with Article 156a of the Criminal Code, which originated from Article 4 of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965. The formulation uses terms such as ‘hostility’, ‘abuse’, and ‘defamation’ against religion. The problem is that these terms contain broad room for interpretation. Since 2 January 2026, the National Criminal Code has been in force. Chapter VII of the new Criminal Code regulates criminal offences against religion, belief, and religious life, including through Articles 300 to 305. Article 300, for example, regulates acts in public that are hostile, expressions of hatred, or defamation against religion.