ABSTRACT
This chapter primarily discusses the judicial review of blasphemy law brought before the Indonesian Constitutional Court. Before examining the judicial review itself the chapter needs to discuss the shifting of defamation of religion in international human rights law and evaluates different arguments or ikhtilaf on blasphemy in Islamic law that influence the existence of blasphemy law in Indonesia. The judicial review of blasphemy law is examined to emphasise that as a theistic-secular state, Indonesia should protect religious freedom rather than protect religious doctrine. To give a more detailed discussion of the judicial review and how judges of the Constitutional Court decided the verdict, chapter arguments from amici curiae, or friends of the court, during the court hearing are discussed. This chapter, however, proposes different opinions from those of the Constitutional Court and proclaims that the existence of blasphemy law will always violate the rights of religious minorities. The main reason for this is that the laws have been monopolised and manipulated by the state on behalf of the majority, to discriminate against any kind of non-mainstream different religious interpretation.
