Religion and Its Definitions
Prof. Dr. K.H. Nasaruddin Umar, M.A.
Among contemporary religious issues, one recurring question is fundamental: What is religion, in essence? Who has the authority to define religion? What authority determines whether a teaching qualifies as a religion or not? What are the criteria of religion, and who has the right to establish those criteria?
A related question follows: What constitutes a deviant sect? Who determines whether a belief system is deviant? On what grounds is such a label applied? If a group is declared deviant, must it be dissolved? By whom, through what mechanisms, and based on what authority?
Further questions arise regarding the relationship between religion and the state. How does the state define religion? Conversely, how does religion define the state? What actions are permitted or prohibited for the state in regulating religion? What limits should religion observe in influencing state affairs?
Both religion and the state demand full loyalty from the same society. When tensions arise between religious and state authority, who is responsible for resolving them? On what basis should such conflicts be settled? Is it possible for both religion and the state to coexist harmoniously in securing public loyalty? Where do the roles of religious leaders (ulama) and state leaders (umara) diverge?
How does constitutional law bridge the authority and autonomy of religious law (shari‘ah) and national law (positive law)? In the event of legal disputes between the two, which institutions are competent to resolve them? Can the Constitutional Court legitimately adjudicate conflicts between religious and state legal systems?
Beyond these conceptual issues, more practical questions demand answers. How does the state define religion, and how does religion define the state? What is meant by a religious state, and what constitutes a state religion?
Further still, what is the appropriate scope of state involvement in religious affairs? Conversely, to what extent should religion influence state governance? What becomes of religion when the state regulates it too rigidly? And what becomes of the state when religion exerts excessive control over political authority?
At the societal level, an unresolved conceptual challenge remains. Both religion and the state claim singular loyalty from the same citizens. Can one society offer absolute loyalty to two distinct value systems simultaneously?
Loyalty
The state has the right to demand genuine loyalty from its citizens as a consequence of sovereignty. Religion likewise demands total loyalty as a foundation of faith, rooted in absolute devotion to God Almighty.
To date, no fundamental conceptual conflict has emerged between religious institutions and law on the one hand, and state institutions and law on the other. When tensions have arisen, they have largely been resolved informally, as both systems draw from shared legal and moral sources. Moreover, Indonesia’s historical experience—marked by collective struggle across religious and ethnic boundaries—demonstrates a strong tradition of solidarity, including resistance against colonial rule.
Many historical actors remain alive, and Indonesia’s cultural civilization remains resilient. From Sabang to Merauke, the nation remains united under the framework of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, bound by a common language—Bahasa Indonesia—and the national philosophy of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity).
However, as historical witnesses pass away, social and cultural values evolve rapidly, and globalization and information flows intensify, issues once considered taboo may surface more easily. The rise of post-truth phenomena—where subjective authority wields extraordinary power—can relativize established truths.
Control of Authority
History offers many examples in which intellectually valid authority loses out to authority that lacks intellectual legitimacy. This raises a critical question: what happens to a society governed by authority that is weak or invalid in substance?
Resolving issues surrounding the definition of religion is far from simple. Contemporary social realities affect national elites—religious, political, cultural, and traditional alike—amid the influence of political power, financial capital, social media, and international political pressures.
New elites often emerge suddenly, propelled by their ability to manipulate political games, either directly or through costly consultants. Yet religion remains, and will likely remain for decades to come, an issue of profound importance and sensitivity—often more sensitive than ethnic or regional identity. When religious narratives are mobilized, their impact can be difficult to contain, driven by the ethos of “living honorably or dying as a martyr.”
A Double-Edged Sword
Religion, like a double-edged sword, holds the potential to unite the nation, as demonstrated in Indonesia’s past. Religious symbols and calls once mobilized resistance so powerful that colonial forces were overwhelmed, even when the people wielded nothing more than bamboo spears.
Yet history also shows that religion can become a force of severe disintegration, as seen in conflicts in Ambon, Poso, and Sampit. This reality demands caution in deploying religious language within practical politics.
What is urgently needed today is for religion to function as a centripetal force—uniting the nation and inspiring collective progress—rather than as a centrifugal force that accentuates doctrinal divisions between faiths.
It is within this context that the Ministry of Religious Affairs introduced the Curriculum of Love, aimed at internalizing compassion and mutual respect across different beliefs. Its emphasis lies in teaching methods and content that do not highlight differences, let alone provoke confrontation between religions.
For a plural society like Indonesia, indoctrinating difference—especially hostility toward followers of other faiths—is deeply dangerous. Unfortunately, educational materials and teaching practices still occasionally promote exclusivist claims that portray one religion as solely true while branding others as deviant.
Ultimately, the Curriculum of Love aspires not only to foster compassion among humans regardless of religion, belief, ethnicity, or nationality, but also to cultivate love for all living beings—animals, plants, and the natural environment.
This vision is embodied in the concept of Eco-Theology, one of the Ministry’s current priority programs. Together, Eco-Theology and the Curriculum of Love are expected to nurture a genuine culture of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika.
Looking ahead, these principles should not remain confined to the Ministry of Religious Affairs alone. They deserve to become an integral spirit within the President’s Asta Cita, implemented holistically across all state institutions.
Moreover, Indonesia must consider enacting comprehensive legislation specifically governing interfaith harmony. At present, reliance on the 1965 Law on the Prevention of Religious Abuse and Blasphemy—with only four articles—is insufficient to address the complexities of an increasingly plural society.
The author is the Minister of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia and the Grand Imam of Istiqlal Mosque, Jakarta. The article was published in the opinion column of KOMPAS on December 8, 2025.