"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.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 2:10am:

Who was right when the catholics and protestants were massacring each other? When whole populations were murdered.

The Ahmadiyyas are completely wrong because they believe in another prophet. It clearly takes them out of the fold of Islam and the saudis are extreme based on cultural and tribal practices, the very thing that the prophet pbuh came to get rid of.

in addition to that, sprint you are in no place to talk.. according to your own book the God of the OT who is your saviour, Jesus pbuh ordered for the little children of samaria to be cut in pieces and the pregnant women to have their wombs ripped out and brutally murdered along with their unborn babies.. those are Godly actions according to your own book.. now i see the justifications from the side of the catholics and protestants when they started trying to wipe each other off the face of the planet.

We will disagree as long as you can't accept the simple fact that Muslims should be able to run their own countries the way they like.

Does that include outlawing sects that teach things you don't like? You think they should do that?

What if a person called themselves a Christian and said that they believe Muhammad was the last prophet and that Jesus pbuh wasn't the massiah, the son of God nor God? Would they be a Christian?

They wouldn't be banned. There's a difference between refusing to call someone a Christian or a Muslim, and putting them in jail for blasphemy.

in islam we don't accept people trying to pervert the faith by introducing extra prophets into it thus we don't consider them muslim in the first place, and if they call themselves muslim and their religion islam then we will take action against them.. terrorists and those who pervert the faith with such blasphemy are both guilty of serious crimes..

What is the penalty under Islam? Should they be stoned to death?

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 1:56am:


While I may agree with many of your assertions with regards to Islam, Muslims and trans-faith hypocrisies I'll have to disagree with the direction your assertion is heading with this.

In a live and let live attitude, tolerance and/or acceptance works both ways. While Christians believe that the last prophet was Jesus and don't accept Mohammad they should accept the Islamic faith and allow its practice without Western interference. This I believe is what you and Abu have been arguing for. Freedom of religion within Australia and freedom from state interference for Islamic nations. I certainly agree with that right. However, it works both ways. Muslims may not accept the teachings of Ahmmadiya but they should accept their right to practice it. They too have a freedom to practice as they see fit without interference.

The Branch Dividian was a minority Christian group whose leader claims to be Christ re-intergrated into this material world. However ludirous this sect was, it was not banned because of the freedom to worhip. They were investigated only after it was alledged to sex with minors and other felony charges.

Koresh: "What is Christ revealed as, according to the fourth seal?"
FBI: "Pale... a rider on a pale horse."
Koresh: "And his name is what?"
FBI: "Death."
Koresh: "Now, do you know what the name Koresh means?"
FBI: "Go ahead..."
Koresh: "It means death."

They are British and Irish.

They're all Irish, it's just that the Protestants are loyal to Britain and want British rule over Northern Ireland.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 8:31pm:


Thats not true the Real IRA are still resisting and haven't given their weapons up.

So what defines a class struggle and religious struggle? In Islam we are obligated to defend our lands. That means that if Australia was attacked and occupied by an oppressor I'd fight the oppressor because not only is it my civic duty, but I'd do it for the sake of God and it'd be considered a Jihad and my obligation to defend this land against tyranny.

By those standards, while the Iraqi's and Afghanis are fighting to free their land from occupiers, it's still their obligation to God to do so.. Thus a war of liberation.

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 9:36pm:

The West..

freediver, where have you been for the past 6 years?
Who are they fighting?? 

From what I can tell they fight each other just as often - eg sunni vs shiite. The US has given them democracy. They may not like it, but they just have to vote to get whatever they want. Maybe they are just really stupid and haven't figured out how it works yet. The sooner they stop blowing things up, the sooner the US will leave. We don't actually want to be there, holding their hands.

Or, more likely, the Iraqis support what the US has given them.

The funny thing about this is that it's not just Muslims fighting in Iraq against the occupiers, My friend went to Iraq as a part of the Australian Army and said that in addition to Muslims fighting, that it's also Iraqi Christians and Jews fighting against the occupiers too.

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 9:49pm:

Democracy? That is the biggest load of crap that I've ever heard. The US has given them a shamocracy just like it did with so many of it's puppet regimes in Latin America in history.

Most Iraqi's, in fact more than 80% want the US out, if they had democracy do you think the US would still be there?

In addition to that, the West has been directly implicated in fuelling the civil war in Iraq, with 2 UK SAS soldiers caught at a police road block with Arab clothing on and wigs who then shot the police officer and then were captured by the police.

In addition to that we know that the British fuelled the war in Northern Ireland and provided UDF forces with names and addresses of Irish Catholic's sympathetic to the Irish cause, having them tortured and executed.

The West has always tried dividing and conquering people, they did it in WW1 and haven't stopped since.

Quote:


It's really quite amusing that you still think they're there for us.

They're there for themselves and themselves only. That's why the price of petrol has skyrocketed since they seized control of the oil fields. And guess what? US oil companies profits have skyrocketed since they went there too, and we, the poor little Aussies are now paying about twice as much for tol fill our tanks. Where do you think our money is going to?

At least Rudd kind of realised Australia has been duped, and has pulled some troops out, Howard would've kept us there for the long haul, just so he could visit the ranch in Texas and get his photo taken next to his hero.

Abu you conspiracist, petrol is far cheaper than a war.

Aussie is insignificant in the world.



malik - would you mind naming your "freedom fighter"  aka terrorist friends ?
your true colours are showing.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 10:39pm:

Which freedom fighter/ terrorist friend?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 10:58pm:

So now Australian soldiers serving their country are terrorists now Sprint? Wow you really WOULD fit in with Al-Qaeda.

It just shows that you read only what YOU want to see on the page Sprint and can't be objective even when it comes to black and white writing.. You tool...

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 11:27pm:

I'm not sure who they were, they captured them fighting against the Coalition soldiers..

Sprint, honestly your a troll. So I'll treat you one.. You don't deserve any respect on this forum because it's obvious that you are so full of hate and poison that you're incapable of having proper beneficial dialogue.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 12:00am:

Crocodile tears!

Many people here have asked and queried about Muhammad pbuh.. I don't mind that at all. You do no such thing, you try and make yourself look innocent but we all know the fact remains that your only intention for dialogue is to incite hate against Islam and Muslims. You hate us and there is no denying it and the evidence is all over your posts.. 

Don't act like a victim mate because everybody here is well aware of your intentions..

I found the original article and copied it here.

In 2001, nearly two months before the 9/11 attacks, the European Court of Human Rights determined that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-RefahPartisi200...

On 16 January 1998 the Constitutional Court made an order dissolving the RP on the ground that it had become a "centre of activities against the principle of secularism". It also declared that the RP’s assets were to be transferred by operation of law to the Treasury. The Constitutional Court further held that the public declarations of the RP’s leaders, and in particular Necmettin Erbakan, Şevket Kazan and Ahmet Tekdal, had a direct bearing on the constitutionality of the RP’s activities. Consequently, it imposed a further sanction in the form of a ban on their sitting in Parliament or holding certain other forms of political office for a period of five years.

The Court considered that, when campaigning for changes in legislation or to the legal or constitutional structures of the State, political parties continued to enjoy the protection of the provisions of the Convention and of Article 11 in particular provided they complied with two conditions: (1) the means used to those ends had to be lawful and democratic from all standpoints and (2) the proposed changes had to be compatible with fundamental democratic principles. It necessarily followed that political parties whose leaders incited others to use violence and/or supported political aims that were inconsistent with one or more rules of democracy or sought the destruction of democracy and the suppression of the rights and freedoms it recognised could not rely on the Convention to protect them from sanctions imposed as a result.

The Court held that the sanctions imposed on the applicants could reasonably be considered to meet a pressing social need for the protection of democratic society, since, on the pretext of giving a different meaning to the principle of secularism, the leaders of the Refah Partisi had declared their intention to establish a plurality of legal systems based on differences in religious belief, to institute Islamic law (the Sharia), a system of law that was in marked contrast to the values embodied in the Convention. They had also left in doubt their position regarding recourse to force in order to come to power and, more particularly, to retain power.

" In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination. A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call "Islamophobia." Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own "ten-year program of action" which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan's Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, "Fitna" — Wilders' short documentary film that ties certain Koranic passages to Islamist terrorism — is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code. Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.

Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the "Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign" which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has "confirmed that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed." In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned "Islamophobes" like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this sort of coercion — a status known in Islam as "dhimmitude." Western officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents from "politically incorrect" to "criminally punishable" activity.

For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using various techniques to discourage — and in some cases, prosecute — those who do. We are witnessing the spectacle of authors' books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists hauled before so-called "Human Rights Councils" on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other "Islamophobic" conduct. Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts. And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of "Shariah-Compliant Finance."

Let's be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22: If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering.

On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that theo-political-legal program. If you don't, you can legitimately be killed. It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about — ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being Islamophobes!

If we go along with our enemies' demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond recognition. Ultimately, today's totalitarian ideologues will triumph where their predecessors were defeated.

To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious program the Islamists call Shariah — and all efforts to impose its 1st Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of preventing Western Islamophobia."


I believe from the JEWISH World review