"Indonesia facing fresh religious unrest   Print By Karen Michelmore | July 08, 2008
INDONESIA is at risk of fresh religious unrest as hardline Islamic groups gain increasing influence over the government, a new report warns.

Brussels-based think-tank, the International Crisis Group (ICG), says radical Islamic groups are waging intensive campaigns to influence Indonesian government policy.

And they are winning, enjoying a level of influence disproportionate to the support they have in the wider community, the ICG says.

A recent Indonesian government decree restricting the activities of the controversial minority Islamic sect Ahmadiyah was the result of five years of lobbying, it said.

"We find it a matter of some concern that some of the radical groups have become so influential, out of proportion to their numbers or the support that they have in the wider Indonesian population," said ICG's South East Asia project director John Virgoe.

"Some of the hardline groups have become very effective at advocating for their point of view - some of the techniques they use are classical civil society organisation or lobbying techniques.

"The danger is that more mainstream segments of society are not organised in the same way and don't have the same effectiveness as advocates."

Under the decree, Ahmadiyah members face jail terms if they do not "stop spreading interpretations and activities which deviate from the principle teachings of Islam".

Some Islamic leaders have branded the sect "deviant" and "blasphemous" because it disputes the central Islamic concept that Muhammed was the final prophet.

The ICG says the decree "increases the likelihood of religious vigilantism," with government officials saying the public will act as the "watchdog" to ensure the decree is enforced.

At least part of the radical groups' success is attributed to the Indonesian government's "unthinking support" of the conservative Indonesian Islamic Scholars Council (MUI).

The ICG says leading members of the MUI also represent hardline groups, meaning there is a "direct line to policy makers".

"We think the government should think quite hard about the influence which they have permitted the MUI," Virgoe said.

"We see in the Ahmadiyah decree how that influence can be used to start turning Indonesia into a less tolerant society or less tolerant government than it traditionally has been.

"The hardliners have other agendas as well and other minority religious groups may find themselves the next target.

"There are other areas of public life which the hardliners are interested in influencing.
"The hardline groups have an agenda which is ultimately around the imposition of Sharia law in Indonesia.

"They have shown ... that they are effective at pursuing that agenda.

"Having won this victory, they'll look for others."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23986073-12377,00.html


Malik, I and others like having Abu and you here.
Despite our differences we do appreciate your time and effort.
But things like this article are a regular thing,

for as long as this sort of thing happens, we will probably disagree.

This is in total agreeance with the thread I posted on muslim %ages and with the initial posting in this thread.




"IT may begin with a chuckle, but it could easily end in tears. At least, if we are not careful. One may be tempted to scoff at the demand to legalise polygamy made recently by Khalil Chami of Sydney’s Islamic Welfare Centre. But with the recent announcement by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that the adoption of sharia law in Britain seems unavoidable, the joke may turn out to be on us, Brett Mason.


Britain provides an instructive lesson on the interaction between increasingly radicalised sections of the Muslim diaspora community and its Western host society.

From Dundee to Dover, traditional British values, already weakened to the point of collapse by a decades-long elite infatuation with mushy multiculturalism and cultural relativism, cannot provide resistance against the growing tide of extreme demands by radical self-styled community spokesmen.

The same way that the claim of racism has been used to shut down any debate on cultural identity, immigration and social cohesion, so is Islamophobia increasingly used to silence dissent. To merely raise certain issues is to give offence, and offending sensibilities is a hanging offence in our postmodern times.

While radicals agitate, a politically correct establishment, at pains to prove how enlightened and tolerant it is, even if it means tolerating the intolerance of others, usually stands on the sidelines, if not actively cheering on another challenge to the ostensibly oppressive, hegemonic Western culture and polity.

In January last year, Britain’s Channel 4 television broadcast a documentary on jihadi incitement in mosques throughout England. The material revealed by this undercover investigative report was quite incendiary in nature. One Saudi-trained imam called for British Muslims to “dismantle democracy” by “living as a state within a state” until they are “strong enough to take it over”.

Another Islamic radical praised the Taliban for killing British soldiers and argued that women who declined to wear the burka should be beaten into submission.

After the program was aired, British authorities wasted no time springing into action. The West Midlands Police lodged criminal charges, not against the extremist imams but against the TV network. Responding to a complaint by the Muslim Association of Britain, the police accused Channel 4 of inciting racial hatred by means of an ostensibly distorted documentary that demonised Islam. When the Crown Prosecution Service ultimately declined to pursue the matter, police referred the complaint to the British government broadcast oversight agency, OFCOM.

Earlier this year, an officer from the Wiltshire Police ordered a motorist to remove England’s flag of St George from his automobile because it was “racist towards immigrants”.

Stand-up comedian Ben Elton recently asserted that fear of “provoking the radical elements of Islam” caused the BBC to censor jokes about Muslim clerics. “There’s no doubt about it,” Elton said, “the BBC will let vicar gags pass but they would not let imam gags pass.”



http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/western_societys_war_within/



The west is a naieve idiot to give one inch on any muslims demand within any western society.
If they don't like it, they can leave.

True.

If only all Christians weren't as smart as you at catching us out

Abu - sorry mate   


malik - I would not murder anyone who wanted to leave christianity.
Nor would any christian.
But many muslims are keen as mustard to cut their own brothers neck open to prove their "sincerity"
You got any brothers ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 1:26am:


Answer the question...

Would you accept Joseph Smith as your prophet because he said he was and would you accept someone as a Christian who doesn't believe that Jesus is God, son of God or the Massiah?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 1:33am:

My brother did become a non Muslim actually.. He's still alive and well and I love him dearly.

Probably not? That's not an answer Sprint, are they Christian or not? Is Joseph Smith a Prophet of God and is a person who calls themself a Christian but believes that Jesus wasn't God nor the son of God nor the Massiah?

Answer yes or no.. I want a definite answer, not something vague..

malik - good on you. You are one of the muslims that believe one way, others believe the other.

"probably not", that is my answer.  You can work it out.


Abu - the west is the bastion of freedom of speech.
neither would any xian I know or who has lived for quite some time !!!!

So who is right ?
The ahmadiyyas, the saudis or you ?
Or just whoever kills the others first?

Seems to be the idea behind that quote i gave about one brother being happy to kill the other.