Why the controversy over Poso three?
Daniel Hummel, Omaha, Nebraska,
Jakarta Post , September 20, 2006

The recent controversy surrounding the executions of the Poso three, the men accused of perpetrating the massacres of Muslim men, women and children in Poso, Central Sulawesi has not been surprising.
In recent articles in The Jakarta Post this has become more and more clear. In an article titled Religious heads differ on death penalty on Aug. 24, a Catholic priest argues against the death penalty. In that same issue in the opinion column a political risk analyst highlights the ineffectiveness of the death penalty to deter crime. In another issue on Aug. 26 an article titled Christian party wants Poso executions stayed showed political opposition.
These three articles were only the few out of many underlining opposition to the executions. Arguments such as international pressure, possible sparking of violence, incomplete evidence, and even a complete rearranging of the judicial system to eliminate the death penalty from the books has been voiced. These arguments have been produced by both Christians and Muslims and one argument in particular will be addressed here, the legality of the death penalty.
First, does Christianity support the death penalty? In the history of Christianity as an organized force it has been in full support of capital punishment. From the textual aspect the Bible is full with capital punishments, but even if the Mosaic law is set aside, which Jesus never intended, the injunction to "shed" the blood of man who sheds blood is in Genesis 9:6 which belongs not to Mosaic law but to the general creation stories accepted by both Christians and Jews.
The only possible rejection of capital punishment in the New Testament is the story of Jesus allowing the adulterous woman to avoid the capital punishment for her crime in John 8: 1-11. This story however inspirational has been found to be a corruption of the original text of the Gospel of John as it states in the New International Version that, "The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11".
Second, does Islam support the death penalty? Islam also supports the death penalty from an organized and scriptural perspective. Muslims benefited from having a complete system passed onto them in the Koran and hadith (traditions of the Prophet Muhammad) and real-life examples set by the crown-jewel of the Muslim world and history, the city-state of Medina.
In Chapter five (The Table) of the Koran there are several verses that are applicable to this discussion. In verse 45 the concept of Qisas (equal punishment) is elucidated with the "life for life" paradigm. This verse is preceded and followed with examples that this was the justice of Moses in the Torah and it was further confirmed by Jesus with a clear line drawn to the Koran (Chapter 5: 44-50).
In that same verse (45) about Qisas there is a strong urge to remit the punishment of the guilty by way of charity and "it shall be for him an expiation (English translation of the Koran)." Here the "him" is the closest relatives of the victim or the victim himself and the "expiation" is in reference to his (the victims relatives or the victims) sins. This doesn't ignore the legality of it, or the human need for justice.
In the Poso three case the men guilty of the crimes are Christian and the crimes they committed were against Muslims. In sharia they would be held to Islamic principles of justice, but even falling back on their own laws, the case would remain the same.
This could be taken a step further by pointing out that in Romans 13: 1-7 the Christians are told to submit themselves to the authorities and in this case the Poso three have been convicted of mass-murder and the justice in this land is capital punishment. The reality is though that this is not about scripture, doctrine, right and wrong, or faith, this is about polemic.
This polemic exists world-wide and is not isolated to Indonesia. The fact is that most polemics are political, for instance, the polemics during the collapse of the Caliphate (Leadership) in Islam was because of political rifts between Ali (succeeding Caliph after the assassination of Uthman the third Caliph) and Mu'awiya (the governor of what is today Syria) and this continues today with the Shia (party of Ali) and the Sunnis as witnessed in the blood-shed in Iraq recently.
In Christianity, polemics split the religion into a thousand different sects, even at the beginning when there was debate about whether Jesus was the literal "son of God" or not (See Arianism and a great article written by Dr. Robert D. Crane titled The political origins of heresy during the first six centuries of Christianity).
In Indonesia here we have these two religious groups in a secular country. Instead of following the scriptures of the faiths they profess, they treat them like fraternities or clubs. One is either in it or not. And just like in sports, argue any call so long as it affects the team's chances of winning.
It would be nice to see the Vatican offer condolences for those killed in the bloodshed, instead of trying to put international pressure on the Indonesian government to allow the convicts go. If this was a Sharia State, the verdict would be completely left to the relatives of the victims and their verdict is clear.

The writer is a Masters student at the University of Nebraska Omaha in Public Administration, with special interests in Public Budgeting and Sharia State. He can be reached at neworleans_la@hotmail.com.