Gosh, they might as well just issue them shirts with a target painted on it to make it easier for the moderate indonesian moslems.
/sarc

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at April 7, 2008 9:00 AM

That the Wahid Institute played a part in commissioning this investigation, and that genuinely moderate and tolerant Islam seems to be a part of the firmament (alongside numerous extremist elements) in Indonesia, seems to me to be a cause for some celebration. What needs to be done in environments such as this, where there is demonstrable will on the part of believing Muslims to be a part of the defense of universal human rights, is they need to be brought into discussion as to which scriptures they use as the basis for their worldview, and how, if at all, they can help us neutralize the scripturally based arguments of the extremists.

Methinks this show of human decency by a Muslim foundation, as opposed to the various "interfaith outreach" efforts of, say, CAIR, is entirely unfeigned. We need not write this off. It is to our advantage to commune with such people, enter into dialogue with them, explain the contours of our mission (why it is not intended as a series of bigotries against Muslims) and then enlist them to help us. Genuine moderates do exist-- just not in the numebrs we'd like, it seems, and they don't boast scriptural arguments as airtight as the opposition.

Vigilance should be maintained, in regard to not only the massive campaigns of anti-Christian intimidation in Indonesia but similar efforts to terrorize other Indonesian minorities: the Balinese Hindus, the Bahá’ís and (yes) the Ahmadiyya. But the cultural Islam, reasoned and moderate, that has developed in Indonesia has some import in the country and in Malaysia. It need not be our enemy, and I think it should be taken into account when making decisions as to how to further the Counterjihad.

Posted by: Funky Child at April 7, 2008 11:21 AM

And if Christians burned a Mosque, it would be global news and Muslims would be protesting and killing in response.

Respect for the human dignity of non-Muslims is not big in Islam. They just don't have a golden rule, I guess. And given that love of God and love of neighbor is the summary of the Law of God, I must conclude that Islam is not of any true God.

Secularists are be aware, that without respect for the dignity of the other, Islam can never concede to universal human rights. Submission to Allah and to Sharia law will always triumph over human rights and therefore there can never be any universal respect for the dignity of humanity where Islam is widely practiced. This is why secularists must realize that while Christianity is problematic for your agenda, Islam will be deadly for it.

The average Imam makes the Pope look like Liberace!

Posted by: James Martel at April 7, 2008 11:27 AM

Further-- we cannot stop the demonization by these Muslims, for the moment, of the Israelis, but it may be possible to work with Yudhoyono and some senior, less-vituperative-than-Mahathir Malay statemen, or, better, to attempt to arrange meetings with Hindu or Chinese parliamentarians and notable public figures in Malaysia and Indonesia, to see whether they are willing to vocally oppose the jihadist groups and condemn the vilification of Israel. Not being myself a diplomat, I have no insider's knowledge of whether such meetings are possible, but perhaps this thought should be entertained?

Also, speaking to Mr. Fitzgerald: Insofar as the Ahmadiyya, and the Nizari Ismailis who follow the Aga Khan, will remain Muslims and will not desert their beliefs, have you any position or insight as to how the Counterjihad ought to deal with them? Given that both sects operate on the guidance of separate authorities whose interpretations have authority to mute or reframe the literal words of Qur'an and Hadith, they do not regard themselves as having any obligation to wage war on the kuffar or to regard them with hostility. The Ismaili Shia in particular do not absorb what you have referred to as the "attitudes and atmospherics" of Islam. In outlook they are universalist and panentheist, an esoteric order with no interest in subjugation or mistreatment of the kuffar whatsoever. Might it be possible, then, to explain to the Hazar Imam Aga Khan the meaning and portent of the Counterjihad movement, and have him issue public statements in support of its basic goals? Being that Ismailism poses no threat to us at all-- what can we do to work with them? Ought we to?

Posted by: Funky Child at April 7, 2008 11:32 AM

Under the revised decree, any group applying for a permit must have 90 adult members with identification cards, and ID numbers must be provided with the application. This requirement – along with the decree’s stipulation that at least 60 neighbors must give their written consent before an application is made – renders many small Christian churches easy targets for Islamic radicals and hostile local governments.

Not only that, but the 90 who give their ID cards and ID numbers will now become targets of persecution.

We blog anonymously on this website, because we know the danger which will ensue if the Muslim Mafia can identify those who dare to speak against the Muslim Mafia. Think of the danger that these Christians face by actually giving their ID information. All the Muslim Mafia has to do is to place one of their members in the Church Registration office, and another member in the ID Card office, and they can then easily develop their "hit list".

Jesus identified the Muslim Mafia spot-on, when he said, in John 16:2: "a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God." It truly amazes me how the Muslim Mafia not only seeks to kill Christians (like Jesus said), but also anyone with whom they disagree, even other members of the Muslim Mafia.

Here's another verse where Jesus identified the Muslim Mafia spot-on, in John 10:10: "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." He not only nails the Muslim Mafia spot on, but He distinguishes what He offers from what they offer.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at April 7, 2008 1:11 PM

Funky Child

The groups you are listing above are so miniscule in population that policies should not be framed based on them: rather, any exceptions that may be made should only be considered if and when such a confrontation arose.

Also, it's unfair on your part to bunch the Balinese Hindus with the Bahai and Ahmadiya: the former are Hindus, and have never had anything to do with Islam, while the latter 2 are offshoots of Islam. This difference may seem semantic to you, but the difference is that the Balinese Hindus didn't derive any of their beliefs from Islam, unlike the other 2.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 7, 2008 1:38 PM

Infidel Pride-- Fair point. In Islamic law I imagine the technical term applied to the difference would be murtadeen (apostates, turners-away from the True Faith) vs. mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, also a label applied to Buddhists and Sikhs.) They can't be grouped together in that sense, because according to Islamic law their offenses against God are subtly different, but they can be grouped together at least insofar as they receive similarly abominable treatment at the hands of many mainstream Muslims. That Ahmadis, Ismailis or Bahá’ís accept Muhammad as a Prophet and/or share certain beliefs in common with mainstream Islam doesn't mean violations against their human rights are less outrageous or worth speaking out against. What I will acknowledge is that it's much harder for counterjihadists to make the case to stand up for the rights of such groups, the two that identify as Muslim especially (Bahá’ís do not), reason being that, in the popular eye, our rhetoric is seen to be opposed to Islam in its totality, and ergo our standing up for the rights of marginalized Muslim groups might be seen as meretricious. The difficulty-- necessary, I think-- is to articulate an uncompromising critique of the elements of Islam we deplore, without discounting our continued partnership and participation alongside (at least some) Muslims to work toward a better world. The mistake made by our elites is to assume that criticism of Islam can never be nuanced, that all of it must ipso facto be intended as an expression of hatred. I don't see Jihad Watch as a project opposed to or in contempt of Islam; only with the elements of its history, scripture and traditions that are opposed to human rights. There may be unfortunately little left once these elements and the developments they prompted have been singled out, but that doesn't make them any less valuable. And Muslims, as human beings, are our equals and we cannot assume malevolence on their part without thorough investigation. We can make sure that awareness of Islamic doctrine informs our policy decisions. That's different.

Posted by: Funky Child at April 7, 2008 3:05 PM

What I'm saying, essentially, is that "cultural Muslims" are not our enemies in this process. I think we need to work with them-- something entirely different from obeisance to them-- to develop the kind of transparent anti-jihadist initiatives Robert recommends be undertaken. Not every mainstream American Muslim spokesperson is a Nihad Awad or an Ahmed Bedier. And to whatever effect those Muslim spokespeople are taken seriously as opponents of extremism, Robert is right to say that the actions of their co-religionists and fellow Muslim spokespeople in this country (cf. the terror convictions for people such as Sami Al-Arian and Ghassan Elashi) should be denounced unequivocally, and excuse-makers or kneejerk bigotry-pimps among them shouldn't be tolerated. Their opinions should be consulted not so we can be uncritically receptive of their blame-laying and accusation-hurling w/r/t "Islamophobia", but so that they can take our recommendations, listen to our advice, be made aware of the research we have done into what is prompting these terrors and be brought to work with us on an effort to remedy these problems. We don't need to demonize them. Where they come up short (as have Jamal Badawi and others in exchanges with Robert), it's not our business to continue to humour them. But others should be sought out, made aware that the see-through blather of their peers won't work, but still sought out as partners in this process.

Posted by: Funky Child at April 7, 2008 3:23 PM

Just to set the record straight

Earlier today as I was coming out the bankI was taken back by the stained glass windows featuring a cross in a church that is being built. my first thought was, how long will it be before the loonies wreck the place. Any way I took a drive around and I counted no less than five newly built churches and several that have been renovated.

Now this brought to mind that I have observed nearly all the churches that where destroyed in Situbonbo, in 1998, and incidentally, I witnessed this wanton destruction, have been rebuilt, I can also report that this is the case in all the big towns here in East Java including.

So if I make a rough estimate there have been several hundred churches built or renovated here in East Java.

Posted by: InfidelK9 at April 7, 2008 5:27 PM

"Also, speaking to Mr. Fitzgerald: Insofar as the Ahmadiyya, and the Nizari Ismailis who follow the Aga Khan, will remain Muslims and will not desert their beliefs, have you any position or insight as to how the Counterjihad ought to deal with them? Given that both sects operate on the guidance of separate authorities whose interpretations have authority to mute or reframe the literal words of Qur'an and Hadith, they do not regard themselves as having any obligation to wage war on the kuffar or to regard them with hostility. The Ismaili Shia in particular do not absorb what you have referred to as the "attitudes and atmospherics" of Islam. In outlook they are universalist and panentheist, an esoteric order with no interest in subjugation or mistreatment of the kuffar whatsoever. Might it be possible, then, to explain to the Hazar Imam Aga Khan the meaning and portent of the Counterjihad movement, and have him issue public statements in support of its basic goals? Being that Ismailism poses no threat to us at all-- what can we do to work with them? Ought we to?"
-- from a posting above

The Ismailis do appear to be a special group -- but a small one -- that really does not seem to suffer from the same distempers or offer the same dangers as other Muslims. I can't quite figure out why not, but possibly you, or others, can enlighten me. The Ahmadiyya Muslims, though forced to identify themselves not as "Muslims" but as "Ahmadis" in Pakistan, do not strike me as quite so hopeful from the Infidel standpoint. But they too are marginal, though they do condcut missionary work in Africa (and sometimes, once a population has been islamized by Ahmadi Muslims the Saudis come in, take over the mosques, and...). But my view is tentative, based as it is on distant observation, second-hand knowledge.

As for the Baha'is, mentioned by the same poster later on, I don't think of them as Muslims at all. But Muslims who wish to leave Islam but not go all the way -- to Christianity, or to unbelief, may find the faitgh of Bahai' a comforting, close-at-hand, not altogether unfamiliar possiblity.

Posted by: Hugh at April 7, 2008 7:50 PM

More proof that Indonesia is NOT ruled by Jakarta and its 'democratically-elected Partliament, but by powerful Islamist elements in the Middle east.

Posted by: pythagoras at April 8, 2008 3:09 PM

and Muslim taxi drivers turned the companys breakroom into a mosque without asking permission or securing permits...in fact, they virtually denied non Muslims to enter...

Posted by: pulsar182 at April 8, 2008 11:02 PM