I hope we henceforth see much more of this, around the world. "Alliance to report Maftuh to police," from The Jakarta Post, with thanks to RG:
A group campaigning for the freedom to worship is planning to report Religious Affairs Minister Maftuh Basyuni to the police for his recent comments about the Ahmadiyah sect.The Alliance of Religious Freedom sent a warning to Maftuh on April 17, demanding the minister make a public apology for his offensive statement against Ahmadiyah, a small Islamic sect that was declared heretical last year by the Indonesian Ulema Council.
The warning in the form of a letter was signed by more than 300 people, including Muslim scholars, journalists, artists and activists from non-governmental organizations.
It gave the minister a week to apologize to the sect through media and affirm his commitment to religious pluralism in the country or the alliance threatened legal action.
Maftuh was quoted by several national newspapers calling Ahmadiyah a deviant faith, and saying its teachings went against Islam.
The minister also said he would issue a new decree to reconfirm the state's recognition of only six faiths -- Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confuscianism.
Moderate Muslim scholar Dawam Rahardjo, who leads the alliance, said the minister had failed to respond to the letter.
"Last Tuesday was the deadline. We will report this case to police. We are still discussing the exact time (to do so)," he said....
He said Maftuh should treat all religions and beliefs in Indonesia equally, and should not have made disparaging statements remarks about any faith.
"A (religious) minister must protect all religious believers from discrimination," Dawam added.....
Dawam urged Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, the country's two largest Muslim organizations, to join the action again the minister.
Under the Constitution, people had the right to believe in whatever religion they chose and this also meant choosing new faiths, the group said.
see naseem,your NOT a muslim
yes, some of the people using the Naseem account are not Muslims and some othters are even apostates.
Welcome to the dar al harb.... lie down with the rest of us infidel dogs and relax for a while -we don't bite.
Somehow, on this site, Naseem has become the face of the Ahmadiya - one can't think of this sub-sect of the cult, without thinking of her. I don't know of anybody else on this site who personifies her/his religion. (One doesn't think Eliyahu when one reads Jew, Paulo when one reads Catholic, Killerbee when one reads Mormon, Hugh when one reads Athiest, or even Mohideen when one reads Muslim...)
But my question from yesterday remains. If an Ahmadiya citizen of a Muslim country were to apostate, would (s)he be subject to the same legal retributions as a regular Mohammedan? Or would it be like, say, an Indonesian Christian converting to Hinduism, or vice versa? I would assume that if the latter happens, the state wouldn't care. Or would it?
Nice to see some fightback going on in Indonesia, but I do wish Bali, Lombok, Kalimantan, Sulawesi and all other non-Muslim islands of Indonesia are supported by the international community in breaking away, so that no more infidels are persecuted. Let Java and Sumantra rot in Shariah if they so choose - no reason why innocent Christians and Hindus should suffer. Ditto for Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia.
If Islam is allowed to consolidate itself there, it's only a matter of time before it threatens Thailand, Myanmar, and adds to the threat India faces.
I forgot to add - the model for infidel secession in Indonesia and Malaysia being East Timor.
"...Hugh when one reads Atheist"
-above
Hugh advocated teaching Christianity in Islam's stead in US prisons as well as disclaiming the dangers of Islam to potential 'reverts' in the big house. That position does not strike me as a viable solution to the (obvious) problem of Islamic proselytizing in prison. More importantly, it does not sound like anything a nonbeliever would advocate. So when Mr. Spencer says his staff has a Jew, a Christian and an atheist in his group, I don't see Hugh as occupying that third position. Rebecca is clearly a Christian. Mr. Spencer likewise appears to be a Christian. Who is that atheist?
Please note that this is not to impugn Hugh’s (or anyone at JW for that matter) integrity in any way, he is learned and enjoyable to read, even when I disagree with him (occasionally).
Kafir
My apologies - I should have cited you instead.
But how is Becky a Christian? Sure, she has been skeptical about Athiesm being a viable alternative to Islam, but how is that a Christian, as opposed to a Jewish, viewpoint?
Also, in the thread on whether Islam is compatible with democracy, you missed the part where Hugh stated that God doesn't exist. Isn't that the essence of Athiesm, or am I missing something?
Infidel, forgive my ignorance. Kindly direct me to where I can read it. My interest in Hugh's work is nearing a crescendo. I had always been interested in his work, particularly when he touches on history (my greatest interest and obsession) and some literature, but now more than ever. Besides, he is more fun to read than even Atimes' mysterious Spengler.
Hugh stated in a recent thread that he does not believe in God. I would consider that a declaration of atheism. Mr. Spencer once commented that Hugh was a "non-believer" (I think those were his words).
As for teaching Christianity instead of Islam in prisons, I think we can all agree that Christianity is preferable to Islam in any setting, especially one that houses violent, anti-social criminals. Islam is hardly condusive to rehabilitation. Christianity is hardly in the same league as Islam; Christians may disapprove of homosexuality but they don't kill homosexuals.
I follow the Ahmadiyah issue in Indonesia in some depth and can tell them that they shouldn't hold their breath waiting for a response from that minister.
Kafir
In case you were wondering, here is the thread. Just read Hugh's responses to Arizona.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011181.php#comments
I stand with Hugh out of reason, not out of some sort of silly alliance that I anticipate some may claim based on a ridiculous notion of 'brotherhood of disbelief' (how ridiculous is that?). I have disagreed Hugh in the past, but this time he is right on. One cannot impose democracy or democratic values on others because the values that underlie those revolutions must grow in fertile soil. Those conditions exist in only a handful of Moslem lands.
One is reminded of countries like Poland or Romania in such a discussion. Why did nations such as those so strongly desire to bring about revolutions, which ultimately led to governance which closely resembles Western style democracy? Firstly, those Central European nations were unnaturally ripped away from Western Europe and had always felt as though they did not belong in the Soviet/Russian sphere. Moreover, they experienced failure in their own midst. As if they needed a reason to escape communism’s grip, they also witnessed first hand communism’s abysmal failure. But Russia, which experienced the same (or even greater) humiliation, never really gave up on its doctrine. I submit that the difference is cultural, with Central Europe longing to be part of the West, and Russia knowing it cannot really easily emulate the West. This is not to say that Poles are somehow superior to Russians, or that there is anything magical about Polish soil. What I am suggesting is that the stepping-stones for Western style democracy do not yet exist in toto in Russia, whereas they were considerably more ripe in a place like Poland. This is not just a question of geography, but of history. When one adds the complication of Religion to the mix, the differences become far more pronounced.
Admittedly, communism and ‘Islamism’ are far from identical, but a theocracy is certainly a form of tyranny that resembles communism at times. However, in both cases, they must be allowed to self-destruct and implode. In order for those circumstances to exist, Islamic nations must be allowed to experiment with their systems. I am not suggesting that there be no consequences for ompisiton of say, Sharia law, but allow them to do so nonetheless. Let them impose the Sharia and let the tyranny begin. Only then will people cry for freedom. We ought not fight the battles of the reformers as surrogates.
Hugh is correct that the Moslem world must be left alone to deal with it's own demons. The West cannot impose its belief system on them anymore. To do so is would be seen as nothing more than colonialization. Western Europe demanding reforms of Eastern Europe will never be viewed historically as colonialization. However, our demands upon Moslem lands will be viewed in that way.
Consider also that the US’ position at the helm of the Western world makes it an easy target for the title: Crusader. Anything the crusaders bring will be viewed with enormous suspicion. Additionally, the era of colonialization has largely passed. You also cannot colonize an area as vast as the Moslem world. Lastly, any minor ‘democratization’ that you are successful in implementing (at enormous cost in terms of both human lives and money) will be seen as foreign and thus subject to being expunged/expelled/purified from the societal norms.
Those of you here who criticize Hugh presuppose that the Moslem world is not familiar with Western ways and democratic forms of government; that they are all starving for democracy and freedom from tyranny. Without a doubt, people in these countries want freedom, but not freedom resembling anything we have in the West. Oh, but they want democracy all right! They want the purple finger kind that allows them to bring in Moslem fundamentalists into power by ‘will’ of the people. My friends, most of them are also (superficially) familiar with the West, yet they repudiate our values. Yet, some of you believe that by showing them love and kindness (and occupation and jizya), you will magically transform them into say, Europeans?
If we follow the Bush model of intervention followed by occupation, we might see some short-term improvements at enormous cost to the US and perhaps other countries. However, no amount of money will ever cause anything to develop that even remotely resemble our own Western style democracies. Moreover, the US has finite resources. This mission into the Moslem world to democratize it is folly and will cost us to experience a tremendous power loss and economic decline. This will strengthen China and Russia. Are you all unfamiliar with Algeria? Haven’t the French made the same mistakes in Algeria, albeit on a smaller scale than the US, only to see their century plus efforts gone to waste? Worse yet, they are hated even more as a result of their occupation and colonialization. We too will be blamed for every misstep and every problem in the Moslem world. Let us leave and let them fight out their differences. Let us force their reformers to risk their lives to stand in the way of 'radicals'. We also make it too easy for those potential reformers to simply emigrate to the West.
I would take a very firm line with the Iraqi government. I would tell them that we have no more patience; that they must abide by all of our demands or we will pull out and leave them to their own devices. While that may seem advantageous to them at first glance, the reality will soon set in.
The question then becomes just how much we are willing to help if the nations living under our occupation decide they want us to stay. That, of course, is a different scenario. I am not advocating an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Rather, I am suggesting that the conditions and demands that we make of our subjects change dramatically. If they fail to reform, then they must accept the consequences. One consequence might be our near total withdrawal or troops and financial support. I also utterly repudiate the Bush vision of a ME democracy, that will "resemble their own traditions." What the hell is that? Those same exceptions were not made for Poland and Romania.
This is pretty funny dhimmitude for anti-dhimmitude. We have to thank the Ahmadiyyas for being early propagators of Islam in North America. Their first office opened in Chicago in 1919. They were important in the conversion of African American Jazz musicians in the late 40s and early 50s some of whom went on to become Sunni Muslims.