Interreligious Marriage in Indonesia

journal of religion and demography 6 (2019) 189-214

<UN>

brill.com/jrd

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/2589742X-00601005

Interreligious Marriage in Indonesia

Noryamin AiniUniversitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah [email protected]

Ariane UtomoThe University of Melbourne [email protected]

Peter McDonaldThe University of [email protected]

Abstract

Indonesia – home to the world’s largest Muslim population – is an ethnically diverse archipelago with sizeable non-Muslim communities. There is a dearth of demographic study on how religions shape patterns of marriage partnerships in Indonesia. We use full enumeration data from the 2010 Indonesian Population Census to examine the incidence, regional variation, pairing patterns, and socio-demographic correlates of interreligious marriage (irm). We derived a subset of over 47 million co-resident heads of household and their spouses from the 2010 Census. About 228,778 couples (0.5%) were enumerated as having different faiths at the time of the Census. Rates of irm are higher in ethnically diverse provinces. Such findings are likely to underestimate the prevalence of interreligious marriage due to existing regulations and norms that effectively discourage irm, and the associated practice of pre-marital conversions. Our multivariate analysis focused on three provinces with the highest rates of irm: Jakarta, North Sumatra, and West Kalimantan. In Jakarta and North Sumatra, the likelihood of irm is higher among non-Muslims and among those at the higher end of the educa-tion spectrum. In these provinces, the likelihood of irm is lower among younger birth cohorts, supporting speculation about stronger institutional barriers against irm over time. This is the first study attempting to derive national and regional estimates of patterns of irm in Indonesia. Given the increasing polemics related to irm and the In-donesian Marriage Law, setting out this research is an important initial step for further study of this issue.

aini, utomo and McDonald


<UN>

190

Keywords

interreligious marriage – assortative mating – Muslim – Islam – demography of religion – Indonesia

Despite being home to the world’s largest Muslim population, Indonesia has sizeable non-Muslim communities. The 2010 Population Census indicated that about 13% of the Indonesian population were non-Muslims (bps - Statistics Indonesia 2011a). While Islam is the majority religion in most regions of Indonesia, there are notable pockets where it is not. These include the Hindu majority province of Bali, the Catholic majority province of East Nusa Tengga-ra, the Christian majority provinces of North Sulawesi, West Papua, and Papua; and other areas where there are similar proportions of Muslims and Catholics populations like that of Maluku (bps - Statistics Indonesia 2011b).

As is the case in many Muslim-majority countries, religion plays a central role in regulating the universality of marriage and in shaping a persistent norm of religious endogamy in the vast Indonesian archipelago. Socio-religious dis-tance and ethnic prejudices challenge intimate relationships leading to inter-religious marriage (irm) in Indonesia. It is widely reported that the majority of religiously intermarried couples are also in inter-ethnic unions (Nurcholish and Baso 2010). A recent study using the 2010 Population Census finds that ethnic endogamy is still the prevailing norm for marriage, given that 89% co-resident married couples in Indonesia were found to be in ethnic endog-amy (Utomo and McDonald 2016). Given the relatively small proportions of ethnic intermarriage, it is reasonable to assume that the incidence of irm is relatively small in Indonesia.

Existing laws and regulations concerning marriage effectively discourage interreligious marriage in Indonesia. Article 2(1) of the 1974 Marriage Act states “a marriage is legitimate, if it has [been] performed according to the laws of the respective religions and beliefs of the parties concerned”. Reemphasizing this point, Government Regulation Number 9, 1975 on marriage states that “the marriage ceremony shall be performed according to the laws of the respective religion or faith” (Article 10/2), and “shall be performed before the official mar-riage registrar” (Article 10/3). The indirect impact of the provisional enact-ment of this legislation is that interreligious marriage is strongly discouraged by most official religions in Indonesia (see Jones, et al. 2009; Connolly 2009).

Debates around the role of religion and the state in regulating who should marry whom have been gaining traction in recent years. Indonesian couples in interfaith relationships, regardless of their religions, usually face strong opposition from their families, religious leaders and institutions, society, and

191Interreligious Marriage In Indonesia


<UN>

state officials (Baso and Nurcholish 2010; Aini et al. 2017). While there are no legal sanctions for interreligious marriage, the difficulty in registering such marriages have profound legal implications. For example, without a marriage certificate, a couple cannot register the birth of their child and consequently without a birth certificate the child cannot be enrolled in school. In June 2015, the Indonesian Constitutional Court rejected a petition for a judicial review of the 1974 Marriage Law where plaintiffs argued that the current interpretation of the law violates the rights of interfaith couples to get married.

On the one hand, it is reasonable to assume that civil society’s rising inter-ests around the polemics of irm are indicative of forces of change brought by modernity and globalisation. Western theories on assortative mating propose that religious, racial, ethnic and kinship endogamy declines with development and the processes associated with it (Kalmijn 1998; Rosenfeld 2008). Education expansion, extended schooling, increasing geographical mobility, and the declining influence of parents and extended families in deciding whom one should marry are bound to encourage inter-group social interactions, roman-tic relationships, and ultimately, marriage. But, given rising concerns over ethno-religious sentiments and conflicts across the nation over the last de-cade, should we expect this hypothesized relationship between development, modernization and religious endogamy to also hold in Indonesia?

Despite their importance in providing insights into the nature of social stratification in Indonesia, statistics on the prevalence and the patterns of interreligious marriage are largely absent. Existing studies of irm are dominat-ed by research that is predominantly concentrated on normative, especially religious and legal concerns (Thomas 2009; Prasetyo 2007). One exception is a pioneering study that is engaged in researching the prevalence of irm in the special province of Yogyakarta, on the island of Java (Aini 2008).

In this paper, we examine the interplay between religion and prevailing patterns of who marries whom in Indonesia using the relatively limited data provided by the Indonesian Population Census 2010. We examine the national and regional rates, patterns and socio-demographic correlates of irm using the full enumeration data from the 2010 Indonesian Population Census. We argue that a demographic inquiry into interreligious marriage, or the lack thereof, offers novel insights into the nature of social boundaries and stratification in this ethnically diverse archipelago.

Challenges in Estimating the Prevalence of irm in Indonesia

To date, there are no official statistics on irm. The absence of nationally repre-sentative, demographic data on irm data is attributed to a group of interrelated



<UN>

192

1

1 Although Islamic law punishes apostasy with death penalty, no former Muslims have ever been executed in modern Indonesian history. Furthermore, Muslims who had converted to other religions are able to enjoy their individual lives freely either in terms of legal, social, and political affairs.

factors. First, the aforementioned legal construction of marriage within Indo-nesian Marriage Law means that it is very difficult to register an interreligious marriage. Under the existing law, Indonesian nationals and foreigners may get married in Indonesia provided they hold one of Indonesia’s official religions. Marriage may be authorised by religious ministers, the Civil Registry Office (Kantor Catatan Sipil) or the Sub-District Office of Religious Affairs (Kantor Urusan Agama – kua). The latter administers marriages between Muslims. In spite of polemics, a majority of Indonesian scholars (ulama) argue for the pro-hibition of irm. Following the Indonesian Ulama Council’s fatwa prohibiting irm, officials of the Sub-District Office of Religious Affairs are not allowed to register an Islamic marriage that involves a non-Muslim (Patricktts 2010).

Until recently, the Civil Registry Office, which by law is exclusively autho-rised to register non-Islamic marriages, had always refused to register irm. Marriage statistics documented by the Civil Registry Office only record a small percentage of irm. Typically included in this small percentage of recorded irm are those initially registered overseas or the few marriages registered by couples who were brave enough to challenge the bureaucratic complexities, the social taboo, and oppositions to do so from parents, extended families, and religious leaders.

Second, because the legal process of irm is complicated, religious conver-sion is quite likely to occur prior to a marital contract. There is barely any legal option for conducting irm in Indonesia, especially for Muslims. Instead, to obtain a marriage certificate, it is common for one party of the would-be inter-faith couple to convert to his/her partner’s religion to meet the requirements of the law and for him/her to revert to his/her original religion after the mar-riage has been legally performed and registered. Between 1991 and 2008, one Gereja Kristen Jawa (Javanese Christian Church) in the city of Salatiga in Cen-tral Java gained 75% of its new members due to religious conversion prior to marriage. However, during the same period 72% of those who left the church had reverted to Islam following their marriage (Seo 2013:90). The reconversion practice has flourished since there was no harsh punishment executed to those who have reconverted.1 This may provide an explanation as to why the rate of irm registered in public offices was extremely low or even zero for many



<UN>

years. Hadi (1996) found that 65% of irm amongst Catholic adherents cele-brated at church were not registered at the Civil Registry Office of Yogyakarta. These limitations of administrative data are less relevant to census data be-cause time has elapsed to enable partners to revert to the religion they held prior to the conversion that was required for registration. At least in theory, in contrast to administrative data, the Census allows couples in mixed marriages to be enumerated under their respective beliefs.

Third, available data on the prevalence of irm tends to be compartmental-ised or issued exclusively by a certain religious institution, such as the Catholic Archdiocese of Jakarta, or based on a non-representative sample. In Jakarta, the capital, there were 3,447 interreligious married couples (or 138 cases annu-ally on average) who registered marriages at the Civil Registry Office between 1975 and 1999 (Maningkam 2000). Aini’s (2008) study utilising samples from the Indonesian Census Data of 1980, 1990 and 2000 found some critical points. In 1980, at least 1.5% of married couples in Yogyakarta were interreligious (Aini 2008: 20–21). That number increased to 1.8% in 1990. Among non-Muslims, the rate was much higher, around 5% in 1980, 1990, and 2000. Other studies found extremely high rates of interreligious unions among Catholics. Wiludjeng (1991), using data from the Catholic Archdiocese of Jakarta, 1981–1989, found that one-third of Catholic marriages were interreligious. The figure increased slightly to 34.6% in 2007 (Rukiyanto and Ramadhani, 2009: 149). Tjahaja (2000: 100) found that irms made up 43% of unions involving Chinese Catholics in Jakarta in a particular year. Most recently, Sri Wahyuni (2015: 7–8), using data from the Central Jakarta Civil Registry Office of overseas marriages, found that irm constituted 8.9% of marriages in May 2011, and 12.5% in the following month. In the absence of legal and social obstructions to irm, higher rates of interreligious marriage among non-Muslims are expected. Given their large numbers, the statistical likelihood of endogamy among Muslims would be high even when we assume that individuals in the marriage market have no preference over the religion of their prospective partner.

Lastly, estimates of the rates of irm depend on the number of categories used to define religions. Existing studies on irm in Western settings use dif-ferent numbers of categories to estimate the prevalence of irm. In studying irm in Australia, Heard et al. (2009), for instance, divides Protestant into: An-glican, Uniting Church, Presbyterian and Reformed, Eastern Orthodox, Bap-tist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, and other Christians. Meanwhile, Hayes (1991) only divides Protestant into: Anglican, Liberal and other Protestant. Because of the discrepancy of religion categorisation, their research shows significant differences in the prevalence of irm in Australia



<UN>

194

The 2010 Indonesian Population Census records seven categories of reli-gion: Islam, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhism, Confucianism and others.2 Thus, the Census cannot provide statistics that capture theological canonical (denominational) discrepancy within a major religion. For example, there are many Protestant denominations in Indonesia including: Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Adventists, Calvinists, Latter-day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so on. In addition, there are also ethnic and region-specific al-liances within the churches, for example, the North Sulawesi Christian Church (Gereja Masehi Injili Minahasa – gmim), the Batak (North Sumatra) Protes-tant Church (Gereja Huria Kristen Batak Protestant – hkbp), the Javanese Christian Church (Gereja Kristen Jawa – gkj). Furthermore, the Census cat-egory, “others” subsumes all local beliefs such as Kejawen and other religions including Judaism, Sikhism, Taoism, and Baha’i. The category, Islam, also does not distinguish between divisions within Islam such as Sunni and Shia. The majority of Indonesian Muslims are Sunnis, and Shia Muslims are among per-secuted minorities in Indonesia (Makin 2017; Marshall 2018).

In this manner, any analysis to estimate patterns of interreligious marriage at the national level are thus limited by the way religions are defined and cat-egorised by the Indonesian state. Such categories are subject to change over time and have profound statistical implications. A case in point is the addition of Confucianism as an official religious category in the 2010 Population Census. Confucianism was de-recognised as an official religion in 1979 and in the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses, its followers were enumerated as either Buddhists or Christians (see Pausacker 2007). When compared to other state administrative processes, the Population Census appears to be more liberal, offering an option for Indonesians to be enumerated under the category of “others”. In practice, most Indonesians still do not have the choice to not have a religion. For some, religion is merely a matter of having a formal identity. This point is indicated 2

2 It should be noted that the categorization of religion applied by the 2010 Indonesian Popula-tion Census separates Catholic and Protestant although they are both a part of Christianity. Protestantism and Catholicism have been officially treated as distinct religions in Indonesia for several reasons. First, the history of the presence of the two religions coming to Indonesia was also through different projects. Second, the top organization of the two religions at the national level are also different, namely, the Communion of the Church of Indonesia for Protestants and the Conference of Indonesian Guardians for Catholics. Third, state regula-tions formally separate the two religions in formal bureaucracy, such as the separation of the Directorate Generals of the Ministry of Religious Affairs in charge of serving the interests of the two religions and their adherents, and separates the two religions in official state docu-ments, including in the population census. Thus, Protestant-Catholics marriages are treated as interfaith marriages.



<UN>

by the fair numbers of religious conversion amongst Indonesians that were done for a pragmatic reason, including to fulfil an administrative condition of marriage (Seo 2013: 85). In recent years, there has been considerable de-bate whether religion should remain a mandatory field in the national identity card, and whether followers of any non-recognised religions must somehow choose from one of the recognised options. In 2017, the Constitutional Court decreed indigenous religions to be officially acknowledged by the state, en-abling it to be listed as one’s religion in his/her national identity card, marriage certificate, and family registration card – which are key documents that enable access to government services, education, jobs, and travels.3 The complexity associated with religious identity in the everyday life of Indonesians and the changing identities owing to the shifts in official categories, pose a challenge in comparing the national trend of irm across time, let alone in deriving a reli-able estimate at any given point in time.

Current Study

Bearing the above limitations in mind, we use full enumeration data from the 2010 Indonesian Population Census to examine the incidence, rates and correlates of interreligious marriage (irm). In this paper, we define irm as a marital union in which the husband and wife who were enumerated as either the head of the household or the spouse, were living in one household and proclaimed they embraced different faiths at the time of the data collection for the 2010 Indonesian Population Census. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first study to derive national and regional estimates of patterns of irm in the country. As outlined in the previous section, we are fully aware of the challenges associated with deriving national estimates of irm. However, given the increasing polemics related to irm and the Marriage Law in Indone-sia, setting out this research is an important initial step for further inquiries in this field.

With Indonesia’s ethnic heterogeneity, its political trajectory as a young democracy, and its standing as a secular Muslim-majority nation in Southeast Asia, Indonesia is a prime candidate to test the applicability of theories on religious assortative mating outside of Western contexts. Our hypotheses are as follows:

3

3 https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/11/07/constitutional-court-rules-indigenous-faiths-acknowledged-by-state.html

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/11/07/constitutional-court-rules-indigenous-faiths-acknowledged-by-state.html

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/11/07/constitutional-court-rules-indigenous-faiths-acknowledged-by-state.html



<UN>

196

H1: irm rates would be higher in more ethnically diverse regions

There is wealth of literature supporting the notion that in Indonesia religion is coterminous with ethnicity (see Goebel 2015). We expect that irm would be correlated with corresponding measures in interethnic marriage, and they would both be higher in urban areas, and in more ethnically diverse provinces in Indonesia.

H2: Muslims have lower odds of being in irm

Although other religions disfavour irm (Seamon 2011: 50–55), Islam harshly discourages interreligious marriage for men (Friedmann 2003: 190–193; Anshor and Sinaga, eds. 2004) and it is forbidden for women. In 1980, the Indonesia Ulama Council issued a fatwa declaring a marriage between a Muslim and non-Muslim as unlawful (Number 4/munas vii/mui/8/2005). Furthermore, we hypothesise that due to their relatively large numbers in marriage markets, Muslims have the lowest probability of being in an interreligious marriage. Even when a Muslim has no specific preference to marry another Muslim, the chances of meeting a potential spouse who happens to be Muslim would be much larger than meeting a non-Muslim.

H3: The likelihood of being enumerated as being in an irm is higher for a man/woman who lives in an urban area, is from a younger age cohort, and who has relatively higher levels of education

The modernization hypothesis suggests that development and its associated processes, such as expanded years spent in formal schooling, the relative ab-sence of cultural constraints in urban areas, increased geographic mobility, and the reduction in parental/kin control in determining whom one should marry, would predict that the rate of irm would tend to be higher in the more educated, urbanised and younger age cohorts.

However, the 1974 Marriage Act operates in contravention of these hypoth-eses. There is considerable scholarly agreement that the 1974 Marriage Law has made it more difficult for interfaith couples to get married than before its promulgation but there is a dearth of empirical evidence to support these claims. Measurement for a cross-section of married men and women of dif-ferent age cohorts is one way to assess whether rates of irm are lower post 1974. However, in addition, recent studies have argued that following the fall of Suharto’s New Order regime and the ensuing political reforms in 1998, con-servative forces are making their mark in Indonesia. Much has been written about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and militancy globally and within



<UN>

Indonesia (Rumadi 2015; Hasan 2013). With studies indicating a marked in-crease in the importance of religious identity in Indonesia (Hasan 2006), it is reasonable to assume, in contradiction to the original hypothesis, that the like-lihood of being in an irm would be even lower for the youngest age cohorts.

Data and Methods

The 2010 Census is the second complete enumeration of the Indonesian popu-lation. Prior to the year 2000, population censuses in Indonesia were, in fact, sample surveys. As opposed to dealing with sample surveys, having access to the complete enumeration files of the 2010 Census enables us to move closer to obtaining true measures for the population. However, in providing measures of interreligious marriage, the statistics derived in this paper are of course still sub-ject to potential bias arising from other measurement errors. Some examples of these errors include under-enumeration of population groups in remote loca-tions and miscoding of religions and other individual characteristics used in the analysis. Despite these potential shortcomings, the 2010 Census is among the best available tools to produce measures of interreligious marriage in Indonesia.

We derived various subsets from the Census for our analysis (see Table 1). The first subset (1) consists of married co-resident primary couples in house-holds (N=47,881,745 couples). “Primary couples” are those in which one of the partners was enumerated as the head of the household, and the other as the spouse of the head of the household. We defined married couples in our analy-sis in such a way because it was difficult to ensure the correct pairing when other married individuals were present in the household.

Using subset 1, we identified the number of co-resident primary couples who were enumerated as having different religions to answer the first three

Table 1 Subsets used in the analysis.

Subsets from 2010 Population Census N (couples)

National subset: all co-resident primary couples (1) 47,881,745Provincial subsets: all co-resident primary couplesJakarta (2) 1,768,940North Sumatra (3) 2,419,178West Kalimantan (4) 838,189

Source: Subsets derived from series 3 of individual-level dataset, 2010 Indonesian Population, bps-Statistics Indonesia.



<UN>

198

research questions of our paper. We define the rate of irm for Indonesia as the number of co-resident couples who were enumerated under different re-ligions as a percentage of all co-resident married couples. To assess regional variations in irm, we calculated the incidence and rate of irm for Indonesia’s 33 provinces. We then ran simple pairwise correlations between provincial irm rates and the provincial index of ethnic fractionalization. Here, we ex-amine the proposition of the coterminous nature of ethnicity and religion in Indonesia. We expect that more ethnically diverse regions would have higher rates of irm.

To examine the socio-demographic correlates of interreligious marriage, we conduct both bivariate and multivariate analysis. First, we use subset 1 to examine the national rate of interreligious marriage by urban/rural areas, by age cohort and sex, and by highest completed level of education. To follow, we use logistic regression to test the associations between certain socio-demographic variables and the likelihood that a man or woman was enumerated as hav-ing a different religion to his/her spouse. Due to the large volume of data in our national couple subset, we limited our multivariate analysis to three prov-inces with relatively high rates of interreligious marriage (subsets 2–4): Jakarta (N=1,768,940 – total of all co-resident couples), North Sumatra (N=2,419,178), and West Kalimantan (N=838,189). We ran the regressions separately for men and women in each province using religion, urban/rural location, age cohort, and highest completed education as independent variables.

Variables

Religion. The Census enumerated individuals under seven categories of reli-gion: Islam (accounting for 87.18% of the total population), Christian (6.96%), Catholic (2.91%), Hindu (1.69%), Buddhist (0.12%), Confucian (0.05%) and other (0.13%).4 At the individual level, the religion dummy reflects the size of each religious group in each province at enumeration. We do not have infor-mation on group size at time of marriage since we have no data of when and where an individual’s current marriage took place.

Interreligious marriage (irm). In discussing our results, we use the terms interreligious marriage, religious exogamy, and interfaith couples/households interchangeably to refer to co-resident husbands and wives enumerated as having different religions. In our logistic regression, we assign the value 0 to couples enumerated under the same faith and the value 1 to interfaith couples.4

4 http://sp2010.bps.go.id/index.php/site/tabel?tid=321&wid=0.

http://sp2010.bps.go.id/index.php/site/tabel?tid=321&wid=0



<UN>

Ethnic fractionalization index (efi). We calculated the ethnic fractionaliza-tion index for 33 provinces in Indonesia using the most detailed ethnicity cat-egories available in the 2010 Census (1,340 ethnic categories) (see Utomo and McDonald 2016). The values for the efi ranged from 0 to 1, and it is interpreted as the likelihood of having two randomly selected individuals enumerated un-der different ethnicities. The closer the efi is to 1, the more fractionalised is a province.

Interethnic marriage. Using the 1340 category detailed classification of eth-nicity from the 2010 Census, we calculated the percentage of interethnic mar-riage (ethnic exogamy) in each province.

Urban/rural. We use the census variables of urban and rural to identify whether a household resides in an urban or rural location. Statistics Indonesia assigned scores to each village unit to determine its urban/rural status based on population density, the percentage of households in agriculture, and the availability or provision of urban infrastructure such as schools, markets, hos-pitals, sealed/asphalt roads and electricity.

Age cohort. In this paper, we present results of irm rates across five-year age groups for the bivariate statistics. For brevity, we present results for the regres-sion models in 10-year age brackets. The association between age group and the likelihood of being enumerated as being in an irm did not change whether we used five- or ten-year age groups.

Education. We use nine categories of highest level of education completed. The lowest category is ‘never attended schooling’. The highest category is ‘Mas-ters/Ph.D.’. About 38% of males and 41% of females in the analytical subsets only completed elementary schooling. The reference category for education in the multivariate analysis is senior high school, which is the education category with the second highest proportion of the subset population after elementary schooling. About 23% of males and 19% of females in the subset were reported to have completed senior high school education.

Results

Incidence and Rates of irmIn our analytical subset of over 47 million co-resident heads of households and their spouses in Indonesia, we found 228,778 couples (0.5%) who were enumerated as having different faiths at the time of the Census.

Table 2 outlines the incidence and rate of interreligious marriage by prov-ince. The five provinces with the highest rates of interreligious marriage were West Papua, Papua, Jakarta, West Kalimantan and East Nusa Tenggara.



<UN>

200

5

5 We also presented data on the number of couples deleted from the analytical subset due to missing data for religion. Here, we can see that a large proportion of the deleted couples are from West and East Java.

Table 2 Married co-resident couples in Indonesia enumerated as having different reli-gions: frequency and percentage.

Province Couple type Total couples

% Interfaith

Deleted couples due to missing religion data

Distribution of missing couples by province

Intrafaith Interfaith

Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam 801,055 348 801,403 0.043 0 0.00Sumatra Utara 2,407,284 11,894 2,419,178 0.492 191 0.55Sumatra Barat 896,598 1,290 897,888 0.144 110 0.32Riau 1,106,708 3,227 1,109,935 0.291 65 0.19Jambi 641,336 1,297 642,633 0.202 31 0.09Sumatra Selatan 1,518,651 3,268 1,521,919 0.215 198 0.57Bengkulu 357,079 543 357,622 0.152 273 0.78Lampung 1,620,679 4,195 1,624,874 0.258 604 1.74Kepulauan Bangka Belitung 216,476 1,418 217,894 0.651 152 0.44Kepulauan Riau 324,745 2,688 327,433 0.821 41 0.12dki Jakarta 1,737,292 31,648 1,768,940 1.789 207 0.59Jawa Barat 8,930,826 23,700 8,954,5265 0.265 20,308 58.37Jawa Tengah 6,825,595 29,190 6,854,785 0.426 0 0.00D I Yogyakarta 710,070 6,668 716,738 0.930 137 0.39Jawa Timur 7,989,611 26,230 8,015,841 0.327 11,422 32.83Banten 2,067,295 11,513 2,078,808 0.554 2 0.01Bali 828,108 4,598 832,706 0.552 0 0.00Nusa Tenggara Barat 907,219 990 908,209 0.109 3 0.01Nusa Tenggara Timur 756,763 10,508 767,271 1.370 17 0.05Kalimantan Barat 825,223 12,966 838,189 1.547 144 0.41Kalimantan Tengah 463,084 3,582 466,666 0.768 6 0.02Kalimantan Selatan 762,198 1,493 763,691 0.195 1 0.00Kalimantan Timur 703,967 4,124 708,091 0.582 239 0.69Sulawesi Utara 470,087 5,168 475,255 1.087 8 0.02Sulawesi Tengah 504,927 2,602 507,529 0.513 119 0.34Sulawesi Selatan 1,386,483 6,625 1,393,108 0.476 125 0.36Sulawesi Tenggara 390,231 1,482 391,713 0.378 253 0.73Gorontalo 204,883 415 205,298 0.202 40 0.11Sulawesi Barat 203,050 662 203,712 0.325 71 0.20



<UN>

Figure 1 Rate of interreligious marriage and ethnic fractionalization index by province.Source: Subsets derived from series 3 of individual-level dataset, 2010 Indonesian Population, bps-Statistics Indonesia.

In Figures 1 and 2, we show that the rate of irm is lowest in the province of Aceh where a strict Islamic criminal code was enacted in 2015. Provinces with higher rates of irm are, as expected, those with a high index of ethnic frac-tionalization. However, it needs to be noted that indigenous ethnic groups

Province Couple type Total couples

% Interfaith

Deleted couples due to missing religion data

Distribution of missing couples by province

Intrafaith Interfaith

Maluku 244,543 2,138 246,681 0.867 0 0.00Maluku Utara 175,822 1,238 177,060 0.699 10 0.03Papua Barat 130,534 2,422 132,956 1.822 9 0.03Papua 544,528 8,665 553,193 1.566 8 0.02

47,652,950 228,795 47,881,745 0.478 34,794 100




<UN>

202

from Papua, East Nusa Tenggara and West Kalimantan (Maunati 2004; Con-nolly 2009) have relatively large numbers of sub-ethnic categories in the Census ethnic classification system. Provinces with higher rates of irm also have sizeable non-Muslim communities and, not including West Kalimantan and Jakarta, are located in the eastern parts of the Indonesian archipelago. In general, the relatively strong correlation between provincial rates of irm and provincial measures of ethnic fractionalization supports the idea of strong in-terplay between religion and ethnicity in marriage. Yogyakarta stands out as a province with a relatively high rate of irm but low levels of ethnic fractioniza-tion and interethnic marriage. While Yogyakarta is heavily Javanese in its eth-nicity, it has a relatively high concentration of Javanese Christians.

Pairing Patterns by Religion

Table 3 presents a tabulation of wives and husbands by their respective religion. Supporting the thesis that religious endogamy is the prevailing

Figure 2 Interreligious marriage and interethnic marriage.Source: Subsets derived from series 3 of individual-level dataset, 2010 Indonesian Population, bps-Statistics Indonesia.



<UN>

norm, the table shows that most marriage pairing occurs on the diagonal of the matrix. In interpreting such statistics, we can claim that there is a pattern of religious assortative mating of some sort. We can confidently say that the norm is for co-resident couples to be enumerated under the one religion. The matrix is also supportive of the claims that the dominating social preference in marriage pairing works against irm. The sum of the number of couples in the off-diagonals corresponds with the national irm rate of 0.5%. It should be remembered, however, that since the enumeration occurred post-marriage and individuals may have changed their religion to marry without reversion after marriage, the statistics underestimate the prevalence of interfaith rela-tionships at the time the couple decided to marry.

Table 4 draws out the off-diagonals from Table 3. Looking at the raw num-bers, the most common irm pairing entails marriages between Muslims and Christians. Such pairings account for over one-third of irm couples identified in the subsets. While the number of Muslim men and women enumerated as irm makes up a significant portion of irm couples identified in the Census, the number translates to a very small proportion among the large population of married Muslim individuals. These raw frequencies may serve as initial starting points to explore further issues in socio-religious distance and the nature of social boundaries. We outline the rate of irm by religion, age group and education in the next section.

Table 3 Religion and marriage pairing patterns: Indonesia 2010.

Wife’s religion

Husband’s Religion

Muslim Christian Catholic Hindu Buddhist Confucian Other Total

Muslim 42,243,406 44,804 16,036 5,718 7,598 556 1,034 42,319,152Christian 42,901 2,987,273 25,862 1,076 12,282 853 1,574 3,071,821Catholic 13,947 23,074 1,195,285 698 11,159 943 623 1,245,729Hindu 2,713 479 344 855,400 335 16 44 859,331Buddhist 2,919 4,345 3,428 241 297,224 631 22 308,810Confucian 334 244 178 6 420 19,095 8 20,285Other 413 626 241 33 27 10 55,267 56,617Total 42,306,633 3,060,845 1,241,374 863,172 329,045 22,104 58,572 47,881,745

Source: Subsets derived from series 3 of individual-level dataset, 2010 Indo-nesian Population, bps-Statistics Indonesia.



<UN>

204

Socio-Demographic Correlates

In line with their larger share in the general population, the rates of irm among Muslim men and women are low compared to the rates of irm in other minority religions. Among the religions counted in the census, the highest rate of irm was found among Confucians.

Consistent with modernization theory, the percentage of individuals in in-terfaith marriage increases as education level increases6 and is much higher in urban areas than rural areas. However, counter to the hypothesis, the rate of irm tends to be lower among younger age cohorts. In broad terms (except at the oldest ages), the rates of irm are highest for those aged 50 and over who were likely to have married before the enactment of the Marriage Act in 1974, intermediate for those aged 30–49 who mainly married between 1974 and the

Table 4 Top ten interfaith pairing types.

Pairing Type Frequency %

Wife Muslim – Husband Christian 44,804 19.6Wife Christian – Husband Muslim 42,901 18.8Wife Christian – Husband Catholic 25,862 11.3Wife Catholic – Husband Christian 23,074 10.1Wife Muslim – Husband Catholic 16,036 7.0Wife Catholic – Husband Muslim 13,947 6.1Wife Christian – Husband Buddhist 12,282 5.4Wife Catholic – Husband Buddhist 11,159 4.9Wife Muslim – Husband Buddhist 7,598 3.3Wife Muslim – Husband Hindu 5,718 2.5Other interfaith pairings 25,414 11.1Total interfaith pairings 228,795 100


6

6 In terms of the raw numbers (not shown in this paper), the bulk of individuals in interfaith marriage consisted of men and women with high school qualifications (39% and 36% for men and women respectively). This is in contrast to the distribution of total individuals in the subset by their highest level of completed education, in which case those with primary schooling are still the majority.



<UN>

Table 5 Percentage and numbers of interfaith couples by religion, urban location, age group, education, and sex.

% irm Number in irm

Male Female Male Female

ReligionMuslim 0.15 0.18 63,227 75,746Christian 2.40 2.75 73,572 84,548Catholic 3.71 4.05 46,089 50,444Hindu 0.90 0.46 7,772 3,931Buddhist 9.67 3.75 31,821 11,586Confucian 13.61 5.87 3,009 1,190Other 5.64 2.38 3,305 1,350

Urban/rural residenceUrban 0.72 0.72 164,979 164,979Rural 0.26 0.26 63,816 63,816

Age group15–19 0.49 0.33 229 1,82420–24 0.40 0.35 4,041 11,66925–29 0.38 0.40 15,521 26,00930–34 0.42 0.44 26,793 33,55935–39 0.43 0.46 31,699 34,70540–44 0.46 0.50 32,967 33,70845–49 0.49 0.52 30,760 29,16250–54 0.55 0.59 28,837 24,35655–59 0.59 0.64 23,331 16,47960–64 0.60 0.57 15,024 8,86565–69 0.53 0.53 9,613 4,89370–74 0.50 0.52 5,654 2,34275–79 0.48 0.48 2,634 85780–84 0.41 0.46 1,157 27785+ 0.39 0.35 528 90

Highest level of completed educationNever attended schooling 0.24 0.26 8,323 10,691None 0.28 0.30 10,622 11,320PS 0.22 0.23 39,338 45,628jhs 0.44 0.46 34,386 38,816shs 0.81 0.90 89,251 81,229



<UN>

206

commencement of the democratic era, and lowest for those under age 30 who would have married mainly in the democratic era. This is consistent with the counter hypothesis above.

Multivariate Analysis

Table 6 sets out the results of our multivariate analysis of the factors associated with irm in three provinces. The results for Jakarta and North Sumatra gener-ally support the hypothesis that non-Muslims, individuals living in urban ar-eas, and those with higher levels of education have a higher likelihood of being enumerated as an irm couple. The positive associations between education and the likelihood of irm is particularly significant for males in North Suma-tra. Here, controlling for other factors, the odds of being in an irm is between 1.12 and 1.25 times higher for a male with an Associate Diploma (diii)/Bachelor degree than a senior high school graduate. Interestingly, the odds of being in an irm for a woman with a post-graduate degree in North Sumatra is 1.5 times the odds for a woman with a high school certificate.

In Jakarta, counter to the modernization hypothesis, the coefficients of the age dummies are in line with the earlier results from the bivariate analy-sis. The odds of married persons aged in their 50s being in an irm are higher than for those in their 30s. However, the rates for those aged less than 30 (those marrying in the democratic era) are not significantly lower than those marrying in their 30s, except for females in Jakarta. In North Sumatra, the likelihood of

% irm Number in irm

Male Female Male Female

di/dii 0.78 0.80 3,129 4,370diii 1.39 1.47 9,295 10,965div/Bachelor 1.29 1.39 30,228 23,921Master/PhD 1.48 1.87 4,223 1,855


Table 5 Percentage and numbers of interfaith couples by religion, urban location, age group, education, and sex. (cont.)



<UN>

Table 6 Likelihood (Odds Ratio) of being in an interreligious marriage: Jakarta, North Sumatra, and West Kalimantan, 2010.

Jakarta North Sumatra West Kalimantan

Male Female Male Female Male Female

Urban/ruralUrban (ref) n/a n/a ref ref ref refRural 0.716*** 0.671*** 0.769*** 0.327***Age group10–19 1.999* 0.949 1.676* 1.231* 0.787 1.171*20–29 0.999 0.952** 1.102*** 1.012 1.030 1.065**30–39 (ref) ref ref ref ref ref ref40–49 1.060*** 1.101*** 1.033 1.017 0.912*** 0.866***50–59 1.186*** 1.255*** 1.116*** 1.124*** 0.757*** 0.831***60–69 1.096*** 1.142*** 1.124*** 1.126** 0.636*** 0.835***70–79 1.022 1.075 1.059 1.069 0.581*** 0.796*80+ 0.956 0.990 1.032 1.228 0.448*** 0.482ReligionIslam (ref) ref ref ref ref ref refChristian 23.976*** 14.405*** 4.134*** 4.188*** 9.755*** 19.537***Catholic 34.394*** 25.373*** 15.155*** 10.531*** 5.636*** 12.127***Hindu 45.899*** 7.966*** 19.780*** 11.974*** 53.369*** 30.329***Buddha 57.997*** 11.590*** 9.344*** 3.980*** 24.815*** 5.903***Confucian 109.903*** 23.594*** 61.510*** 64.253*** 50.062*** 10.208***Other 135.082*** 30.162*** 29.036*** 16.408*** 72.988*** 61.393***Highest completed educationNever attended school

0.655*** 0.669*** 0.794*** 0.712*** 0.566*** 0.577***

Less than PS 0.668*** 0.806*** 0.854*** 0.802*** 0.684*** 0.723***PS 0.721*** 0.727*** 0.783*** 0.754*** 0.663*** 0.729***jhs 0.881*** 0.970 0.883*** 0.857*** 0.859*** 0.916***shs (ref) ref ref ref ref ref refdi/dii 1.009 0.943 1.013 1.048 0.950 0.744***diii 1.099*** 0.953* 1.245*** 0.969 1.091 0.818***div/Bachelor 1.034* 1.007 1.124*** 1.055 0.998 0.746***Master/PhD 1.048 1.012 1.229 1.536** 0.656* 0.497*



<UN>

208

irm is also higher for persons in their 50s and 60s relative to those in their 30s. But, although the magnitude of difference is smaller, those in their 20s and under also have higher odds of being in an irm than individuals in their 30s.

The results for West Kalimantan are somewhat different. The urban-rural differential of the likelihood of being in an irm paints a similar picture to the situation in North Sumatra. The effects of current religion on irm are also similar. But compared to the other two provinces, we do not observe such a clear gradient in the odds of being in an irm across age groups and education levels. This suggests that the underlying dynamics of irm are likely to vary by geographic locations and the associated ethno-cultural constellations but this is a topic for further research.

Discussion

Our exploratory analysis using the full enumeration dataset from the 2010 Cen-sus of Indonesia suggests a low rate of irm of about 0.5%. This low percentage translates to a rather sizeable number of couples amounting to a little below 230,000. We propose that this rate and number both may underestimate the actual situation around interfaith relationships and marriages in Indonesia. As noted, the practice of conversion prior to marriage is common to overcome the legal and administrative barriers to irm. Further, our analytical subsets have a selection bias in that they only include currently married couples. If irm is legally and socially shunned, we suspect there would be other couples whose interfaith romantic relationships did not eventuate in marriage.

Looking at variations in irm across the 33 provinces in Indonesia supports claims of the intersection between religious and ethnic identities in Indonesia. We showed that areas with higher levels of ethnic heterogeneity had higher

Jakarta North Sumatra West Kalimantan

Male Female Male Female Male Female

_cons 0.003*** 0.006** 0.002*** 0.003*** 0.006*** 0.008***N 1,768,940 1,768,940 2,419,178 2,419,178 838,189 838,189

Notes: * <.05 ** <.01 *** <0.005

Table 6 Likelihood (Odds Ratio) of being in an interreligious marriage: Jakarta, North Sumatra, and West Kalimantan, 2010. (cont.)



<UN>

rates of interethnic and interreligious marriage, and that there is a statistically significant correlation between prevalence of interethnic and interreligious marriage at the province level. Our results are supportive of the idea that pat-terns in ethno-religious exogamy are influenced by structural factors in the de-mographic make-up within a particular region.

For the most part, our results also support the premise of modernization theory on religious endogamy. While there are exceptions to these results (e.g., in the multivariate analysis of married individuals in West Kalimantan), the rate and likelihood of irm is higher among men and women in urban ar-eas and among those with higher levels of education. This is in line with the premise that extended years spent in formal schooling are associated with the likelihood of marrying across social groups. This may be attributed to the ef-fect of education itself in promoting themes of citizenship and national unity over ethno-local identities, and/or the role of education in promoting toler-ance and pluralism (Parker, Raihani, and Hoon 2014). At the same time, at-tending a higher level of education is also a proxy of one’s geographic mobility. Universities and tertiary institutions are located in regional hubs and urban centres. Individuals, particularly those living in remote rural areas, may need to travel significant distances to attend post elementary education. Another plausible explanation is that higher education may open up pathways towards increased agency for individuals – particularly women – in selecting their mar-riage partners.

The bivariate analysis indicates that the effect of age on irm seem to ran counter to the modernization hypothesis. Interpreting the higher rates of irm for older ages it is plausible that this is attributed to the influence of the 1974 Marriage Law. However, we cannot test the causal effect of this legislation us-ing our current approach. Furthermore, the multivariate analyses suggest that such associations did vary across the three different provinces. At this point, it is also tempting to consider that the seemingly negative association between age cohorts and the likelihood of irm – for Jakarta at least – is indicative of the growing influence of political Islam in recent decades in Indonesia (Rinaldo 2008; Hasan 2009). Indeed, there is a growing scholarship on the rise of Islamic piety and youth identity following the fall of the New Order in 1998 (see Hery-anto 2011; Fealy and White 2008). One may speculate that the rise of public Islam in post New Order Indonesia may work to fuel stronger sentiments for religious endogamy. Given the limitations of the Census data, however, it is tenuous to attribute the relatively lower likelihood of irm among younger age cohorts in our analysis to such contemporary rise in religiosity and/or religious identity among young Indonesians.

While the rate of irm found in the Census data is lower for younger ages, we note however that its numerical incidence peaked among the 30–39 age



<UN>

210

group. First, this can be attributed to a considerable variation in cohort size. The populations aged 30–39 in 2010 is a relatively large cohort when compared with earlier cohorts. They represent the start of a demographic bulge among the younger cohorts (population aged 15–34 in 2010). Couples in their 30s make up the greatest proportion of irm couples, comprising over one-third of the currently married population. Given that a large proportion of younger men and women in the youth bulge cohort have not transitioned into mar-riage yet, we expect that the numbers for these cohorts will grow in the fu-ture. As increasing numbers of people question how their transition into love and marriage is constrained by religion, the Census analysis can only provide a partial explanation for the rising polemics around interreligious marriage in Indonesia.

Controlling for urban/rural locations, education, and age cohorts, we found large gaps in the likelihood of interreligious marriage among non-Muslims relative to Muslims. As outlined in our hypothesis, this is partly to do with the fact that Muslims represent the largest demographic group in the marriage market. By statistical chance alone, the odds of a Muslim man meeting and marrying a Muslim woman would be higher than for him to meet and marry a non-Muslim. In this paper, we do not include group size due to the concern of multicollinearity. Given the limited number of questions available from the census data, the variable “Religion” used in the multivariate analysis can be in-terpreted as reflecting a complex web of factors including group size, teachings and attitudes toward interreligious marriage.

The key strength of this study lies in its use of the complete enumeration data from the Indonesian Census. There is indeed a substantial trade-off in using the complete enumeration data of more than 47 million couples relative to drawing inferences from smaller surveys. Despite its exploratory nature and limitations, this study offers important insights into the patterns and corre-lates of interreligious marriage in Indonesia.

Our findings generate questions that can be addressed in future work. First, fu-ture data collection and analysis can aim to decompose the effects of migration, group size and religion-specific attributes in shaping marriage pairing outcomes. Second, to get a clearer picture of the prevalence of interreligious marriage in Indonesia, there are merits in having quantitative national and region-specific estimates on the prevalence of religious conversions prior to marriage. While data collection from different government and religious institutions on this matter may be logistically difficult to organise, surveys on this topic may record additional variables on religion prior to, at, and post-marriage, and map out religious transition over time for individuals. Addressing such data void would consequently encourage demographers to pursue quantitative examinations



<UN>

on the effects of religion and marriage pairing on fertility, well-being, and marital stability in Indonesia. Lastly, looking at marriage pairing patterns offers a unique window on the interplay between socio-political change and the nature of stratification in Indonesian societies. To this end, examining young adults’ at-titudes towards interreligious courtship and marriage, and the role of social me-dia and the Internet in contemporary courting/dating/spousal search practices, may shed further light on how marriage norms are intertwined with reported conservative turn in Indonesia following the political reforms in the late 1990s.

Acknowledgment

This work is supported by the Australian Research Council (LP120200381), the Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs, and Universitas Islam Negeri (uin) Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

References

Aini, Noryamin. 2008. “Inter-Religious Marriage from Socio-Historical Islamic Perspec-tive.” Brigham Young University Law Review 2008 (3): 669–705.

Aini, Noryamin, Cucu Nurhayati, and Munir. 2017. “Mata Rantai Transmisi dan Transformasi Ideologi Kekerasan Agama [The Chain of the Transmission and Transformation of Religious Radical Ideology].” Research Report. Jakarta: Lem-baga Penelitian dan Pengabdian pada Masyarakat, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

Maria U. Anshor and Martin L. Sinaga, eds. 2004. Tafsir Ulang Perkawinan Lintas Aga-ma: Perspektif Perempuan dan Pluralisme [A Reinterpretation of Interfaith Marriage: Women’s and Pluralism’s Perspectives]. Jakarta: Kapal Perempuan.

Baso, Ahmad and Ahmad Nurcholish. 2010. Pernikahan Beda Agama: Kesaksian, Argu-men Keagamaan, dan Analisis Kebijakan [Interreligious Marriage: Testimonies, Reli-gious Arguments and Policy Analysis]. Jakarta: KOMNAS HAM and ICRP.

bps-Statistics Indonesia, 2011a. Indonesian Population Census Datasets. Access to full enumeration individual datasets through Australian Data Archives, The Australian National University.

bps-Statistics Indonesia, 2011b. “Population by Region and Religion: Results from the 2010 Population Census.” Accessed January 2, 2019. https://sp2010.bps.go.id/index .php/site/tabel?tid=321&wid=0.

Clark, Warren. 2009. “Interreligious Unions in Canada.” Statistics Canada. http://www .statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006003/9478-eng.htm.

https://sp2010.bps.go.id/index.php/site/tabel?tid=321&wid=0

https://sp2010.bps.go.id/index.php/site/tabel?tid=321&wid=0

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006003/9478-eng.htm

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006003/9478-eng.htm



<UN>

212

Connolly, Jennifer. 2009. “Forbidden Intimacies: Christian-Muslim Intermarriage in East Kalimantan, Indonesia.” American Ethnologist 36 (3): 492–506.

Greg Fealy and Sally White, eds. 2008. Expressing Islam: Religious Life and Politics in Indonesia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Friedmann, Yohanan. 2003. Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Glenn, Norval D. 1982. “Interreligious Marriage in the United States: Patterns and Re-cent Trends.” Journal of Marriage and Family 44 (3): 555–66.

Goebel, Zane. 2015. Language and Superdiversity: Indonesians Knowledging at Home and Abroad. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hadi, P. 1996. “Masalah Perkawinan Beda Agama: Suatu Kajian Terhadap UU No.1, Tahun 1974 Dalam Rangka Ketahanan Nasional [Issues on Interreligious Marriage: A Study of Law No.1/1974 in the Context of National Security].” Unpublished MA Thesis Master, Gadjah Mada University.

Hasan, Noorhaidi. 2006. Laskar Jihad: Islam, Militancy and the Quest for Identity in Post-New Order Indonesia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Hasan, Noorhaidi. 2009. “The Making of Public Islam: Piety, Agency, and Commodifica-tion on the Landscape of the Indonesian Public Sphere.” Contemporary Islam 3 (3): 229.

Hasan, Noorhaidi. 2013. The Making of Public Islam Piety, Democracy and Youth in Indonesian Politics. Yogyakarta: Sukapress.

Hayes, Bernadette C. 1991. “Religious Identification and Marriage Patterns in Australia.” Journal of Scientific Study of Religion 30 (4): 469–78.

Heard, Genevieve, Siew-Ean Khoo, and Bob Birrell. 2009. “Intermarriage by Religion in Australia. People and Place 17 (2): 43–55.

Heaton, Tim B. 1990. “Religious Groups Characteristics, Endogamy, and Interfaith Marriages.” Sociological Analysis 51 (4): 363–76.

Heryanto, A. 2011. “Upgraded Piety and Pleasure: The New Middle Class and Islam in Indonesian Popular Culture.” In Islam and Popular Culture in Indonesia and Malay-sia, edited by A.N. Weintraub, 60–82. New York: Routledge.

Hoesterey, James B., and Marshall Clark. 2012. “Film Islami: Gender, Piety and Pop Culture in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia.” Asian Studies Review 36 (2): 207–226.

Gavin W. Jones, Chee Heng Leng, and Maznah Mohamad, eds. 2009. Muslim-Non-Muslim Marriage: Political and Cultural Contestations in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Kalmijn, M. 1998. “Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends.” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1): 395–421.

Larson, Lyle, and Brenda Munro. 1985. “Religious Intermarriage in Canada, 1974–1982.” International Journal of Sociology of the Family 15 (1–2): 31–49.

Larson, Lyle, and Brenda Munro. 1990. “Religious Intermarriage in Canada in the 1980s.” Journal of Comparative Family Study 21 (2): 239–50.



<UN>

Makin, Al. 2017. “Homogenizing Indonesian Islam: Persecution of the Shia Group in Yogyakarta.” Studia Islamika 24 (1): 1–32.

Maningkam, Dasman. 2000. “Studi Implementasi UU No. 1 Tahun 1974 Tentang Perkawinan: Studi Kasus Pelaksanaan Pencatatan Perkawinan Campuran Beda Agama di Kantor Catatan Sipil Provinsi dki Jakarta [A Study of the Implemention of Law No.1/1974 on Marriage: A Case Study on the Registry of Interreligious Mar-riage in Civil Registry Offices in the Province of dki Jakarta].” Unpublished MA The-sis, Gadjah Mada University.

Marshall, Paul. 2018. “The Ambiguities of Religious Freedom in Indonesia.” The Review of Faith & International Affairs 16 (1): 85–96.

Maunati, Yekti. 2004. Identitas Dayak: Komodifikasi dan Politik Kebudayaan [Dayak Identity: Commodification and the Politics of Culture]. Yogyakarta: LKiS.

Parker, Lyn, C. Y. Hoon, and Raihani. 2014. “Young People’s Attitudes Towards Inter-Ethnic and Inter-Religious Socializing, Courtship and Marriage in Indonesia.” South East Asia Research 22 (4): 467–486.

Patricktts. 2010. “Kebijakan Kriminal Tentang Perbuatan Pegawai Catatan Sipil Dalam Pencatatan Perkawinan Beda Agama [Criminal Conduct Policy for Civil Registry’s Employees in Registering Interreligious Marriage].” Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Sekolah Tinggi Hukum Bandung.

Pausacker, Helen. 2007. “The Sixth Religion.” Inside Indonesia 89 January-March 2007. https://www.insideindonesia.org/the-sixth-religion

Prasetyo, Adi Hendro. 2007. “Pelaksanaan Perkawinan Beda Agama dan Akibat Huk-umnya Dalam Hubungannya Dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 Tentang Perkawinan [The Conduct of Interreligious Marriage and Its Legal Lmplications in Relation to Law No.1/1974 on Marriage].” Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Law Faculty of Diponegoro University.

Rinaldo, Rachel. 2008. “Muslim Women, Middle Class Habitus, and Modernity in Indo-nesia.” Contemporary Islam 2 (1): 23–39.

Rosenfeld, Michael J. 2008. “Racial, Educational and Religious Endogamy in the United States: A Comparative Historical Perspective.” Social Forces 87 (1): 1–31.

Rukiyanto, B. Agus and T.A. Deshi Ramadhani. 2009. Menerobos Pintu Sempit: Nafas Ilahi Dalam Gereja kai [Breaking Through the Narrow Door: Divine Gust in the kai Church]. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

Rumadi. 2015. Islamic Post-Traditionalism in Indonesia. Singapore: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute.

Seamon, Erika B. 2011. “The Shifting Boundaries of Religious Pluralism in America Through the Lens of Interfaith Marriage.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University.

Seo, Myengkyo. 2013. “Falling in Love and Changing Gods: Inter-Religious Marriage and Religious Conversion in Java, Indonesia.” Indonesia and the Malay World 41 (119): 76–96.

https://www.insideindonesia.org/the-sixth-religion



<UN>

214

Sri Wahyuni, Sri. 2015. “Indonesian Interreligious Marriage in Foreign Countries (Pri-vate International Law Perspective).” Paper presented at 15th Annual International Conference on Islamic Studies. Manado, Indonesia, September, 3–6, 2015.

Thomas, David S.R. 2009. “Proses Perkawinan Antar Penganut Agama Yang Berbeda (Islam dan Kristen) (Studi Kasus di Pengadilan Negeri Surakarta) [The Process of Interreligious Marriage (Islam and Christian: A Case Study in Surakarta State Court].” Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Law Faculty of Muhammadiyah Uni-versity of Surakarta.

Tjahaja, Lia. 2000. “Pluralisme Hukum dan Masalah Perkawinan Campuran [Legal Pluralism and the Problem of Mixed Marriages].” In Hukum dan kemajemukan budaya, edited by E.K.M. Masinambow. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.

Utomo, Ariane, and Peter McDonald. 2016. “Who Marries Whom?: Ethnicity and Mar-riage Pairing Patterns in Indonesia.” Asian Population Studies 12 (1): 28–49.

Willits, Fern K., Robert C. Bealer, and Gerald W. Bender. 1963. “Interreligious Marriage Among Pennsylvania Rural Youth.” Marriage and Family Living 25 (4): 433–438.

Wiludjeng, Henny J.M. 1991. Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Pelaksanaan Janji Perkawinan Campuran di Keuskupan Agung Jakarta. Seri Laporan Penelitian [ Factors Affecting the Implementation of Mixed Marriage Oath in Jakarta Archdiocese. Research Report Series]. Jakarta: Lembaga Penelitian, Universitas Atmajaya.

Interreligious Marriage in Indonesia

Documents

Transcript of Interreligious Marriage in Indonesia