Ahok Case and 4thIslam Acts Action Potential

It was never imagined that there would be reaction among Muslims such a massive on the issue of religion defamation. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands to millions of people rallied in various areas demanding that BasukiTjahajaPurnama or Ahok soon be trial over allegations of religion defamation.

Although Ahok has apologized on October 10th, 2016 about words considered as insulting Al-Quran and the clarification that he did not mean to insult Islam, does not necessarily make the problems already surfaced ceased. In fact, the demand that Ahok dragged to court even more powerful is accompanied by a wave of protests that is popular with the 1stIslam Acts Action(October 14, 2016), the 2ndIslam Acts Actionor action 411 in front of the Palace by the hundreds of thousands of Muslims, and 3rdIslam Acts Actionor Action 212 "Super Peace" the end of 2016.

Religion defamation case by Ahokbegan from the speeches while reviewing the grouper fish farming development program in Pramuka Island, SeribuIslands on September 27th, 2016. In his speeches, there is a sentence that is not really relevant to the purpose of the working visit, and eventually sparked Muslim anger, namely "So do not believe the same person, you might not choose me by your heart. You were lied bySurah Al-Maidah verse 51, all kinds of it. That's your right ladies and gentlemen".

Ahok speech video footage quickly became viral on social media after BuniYani uploaded by Facebook account allegedly been edited to remove the word "disposable". Police itself has set BuniYani as a suspect alleged violation against Article 27 (paragraph 3) relating to insult and defamation, and Article 28 (paragraph 2) deals with sedition related to ethnicity, religion, race and intergroup (SARA) in Constitution of Information and Electronic Transactions (UU ITE).

Like a snowball that kept rolling, Ahok reap the result of his own behavior that often sparked controversy. The group of lawyers from the Advocate Cinta Tanah Air (ACTA) on October 6th, 2016 reported Ahok to the Police with blasphemy issue.Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI) issued a fatwa that Ahok obviously have despised religion in a statement citing the translation of Surah Al Maidah verse 51.Ahok also accused had insulted the Qur'an and the scholars so that MUI recommended that the government take firm action against the perpetrators of blasphemy and requested the Police to be proactive in strict enforcement, quickly, professionally, and with regard to this sense of justice. Fatwa MUI then responded by a number of Islamic organizations led by FPI that led by Habib Rizieq by forming the National Movement Guards MUI Fatwa or GNPF-MUI.

It should be recognized that Ahok case has sparked political and social shock in nasional.Pros and cons growing in local communities with a variety of issues associated with the threat diversity, intolerance, and the emergence of radical groups who infiltrated and intimidate the situation. Politicalcompetition situation in Election become a little more participate inescalating Ahok case considering the position of Ahok as the incumbent who ran in the election of Jakarta in 2017. This is further complicated when an intense community with information technology almost every time exposed to a variety of information through mass media and social media are confusing and can distort the main issue Ahok law enforcement cases.

Complicating Law Enforcement

Although many people deplore the attitude of the government is considered to be slow in responding to the aspirations of the people on the issue of defamation of religion by Ahok, but a step forward has been taken by Jokowi in response to the demands of the Muslims on November 5th, 2016 via press conference which requested that the police quickly solve the Ahokcase in lawful way was appreciated. This shows that the government has no independent consideration solely subject to the pressure of the masses.

However, the President also regretted the politicization of Muslim aspirations articulated by political actors that could potentially harm the purity of movement of Muslims and potentially cause a riot. In addition, a number of actions were organized by various groups of people with the intention of rekindling the spirit of diversity, tolerance and unity. This form of moral force put the Ahokcase in nothrive conditions so that it could endanger the unity of the country.

Now, the ball is in the hands of the court which hears the Ahok case. After his case is conducted openly, police finally set Ahok as a suspect case of religion defamation. In a process of investigation, police have interviewed 29 witnesses and complainants reported as well as 39 experts from various fields among others, religious scholars, language, and digital forensics. Prosecutor himself then ensnare Ahok with alternative charges of blasphemy clause between the Article 156 letter a Penal Code or Article 156 of the Criminal Code with the threat of imprisonment of 5 years in prison. The court process itself is now rolling after Ahok exception was rejected by the court.

If you look at developments during the court proceedings, it seems clear that the Ahok case will be the spotlight of various Muslim groups, especially commanded by GNP-MUI is determined to ensure that the trials run in accordance with the law and meet the demands for social justice. No less than the mass of thousands of anti-Ahok present escort court and dealt with supporters Ahok only in the dozens. The group led by GNPF-MUI will exert even calling for greater action if Ahok not sentenced to jail. The law will be considered to work well and be unfair to assign Ahok convicted and go to jail as a result of proven outraged religion.

Ahok court would be a dilemma because any decision would potentially trigger the pros and cons in the community. The greatest risk would arise if the court does not impose imprisonment verdict against Ahok. Muslim reaction will be greater than before in view of the emergence of various issues concerning subsequent of 4thIslam Acts Action. Legal and political pressure on GNPF-MUI and Rizieq will foster solidarity and strong militancy to mobilize a larger mass.

If the 4thIslam Acts Action occurs, it will be difficult to remember to control the mass movement that very potential to be infiltrated with political agendas that can be directed to delegitimized power and can end up with the greater socio-political shocks. Learning from the experience of previous actions, great mass mobilization was not only involve Muslims who formally bound by an affiliate organization specific, but has attracted solidarity wide of individuals who moved voluntarily driven by the awareness of theological when faced with the issue of defamation of religion. It is quite possible that people who move voluntarily this amount is greater than that mobilized for the membership of certain organizations.

There are currently already growing perception that Ahok case should end with prison sentences, let alone be a referral of cases of blasphemy in the past. For the record, HB Jassin sentenced to probation for one year because of short stories titled Langit Makin overcast, 1968, is considered an insult to the religion because of the depiction of God, the Prophet Muhammad and the Angel Gabriel. Arswendo atmowiloto jailed for 4 years and 6 months of blasphemy charges as a result of a survey by the readers of the tabloid figure Monitor puts the Prophet Muhammad in the eleventh, while the number one is occupied by the President of the other Soeharto. Other case is Lia Aminudin or Lia Eden who claimed to be Imam Mahdi and got revelation from the Angel Gabriel, and claims to have met Mother Maria.Lia Eden accused of debasing religion and sent to prison in 2006 and 2009.

Legal precedent in the past where the blasphemy case that gets the public's attention almost certainly end up with a prison sentence. It becomes a kind of justification that justify the demands of the masses that because it is synonymous with law enforcement to make sure Ahok go to jail. It was intertwined with the development of the belief in the advent of the enemies of Islam are considered to be getting bigger and are behind Ahok if Ahok escape the law. This situation makes it difficult for people to see the principal case with clear and objective, and will affect the trial process itself.

Sociologically, the case has dragged Ahok subjectivity of society in religious beliefs that encourage group and out in group and create a clear demarcation line between Muslims and what is perceived outside as in Islam. Factors latent called George Simmel, the German sociologist of the 19th century, has emerged and potential social unrest from escalating into conflicts.

However, if the court decides Ahok be punished, of course it is also not spared from the counterview. Critical group would opine that the judiciary is not running in a fair since bowed to pressure from the masses or trial by the mob. Decision will regarded as counter-productive precedent for freedom of religion, and it fosters growing intolerance. On the one hand it can create social stability, but on the other hand will affect the perception among the minorities about the existence assurance. Because, Ahok perceived as a representation outside the majority of which threatened its existence as a result of mass pressure. This perception can be missleading, since a disputed by Muslims is not atributal attached to Ahok, whether of race or religion, but rather on the personal behavior of Ahok itself.

Now, the court has to walk in order to explore the facts and determine the result of the demands of the prosecutor. Law enforcement in the Ahokjudicial process of course in the end is to take risks, but with the legal provisions applicable equitably rests on credible facts.

Legal maxim that says "Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum, stands for justice though the heavens fall". This shows that there is always a side of law enforcement and all are risk selection. Whether the results will define precisely Ahok as a convict or release him from the demands, necessarily have to go through the legal process that is fair and credible. Therefore, it becomes important for all parties to be able to give a chance to the legal system in Indonesia work in a professional and transparent so that the public can judge that the law can be trusted as a mechanism to seek justice.

*) The author is an alumnus of the University of Udayana, Bali. Former Director of Mass Communication in LSISI Jakarta.