Ahmadiyah As A New Religion?

Can it really all be that simple?

Can it really be as simple as the Ahmadis standing up and saying, "OK, we are a new religion", and "please leave us alone"?

If you were prepared to accept the word of Priyo Budi Santoso, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives and member of Golkar, then it is. It would seem that the Democrat Party of SBY is also suggesting that the establishment of a new religion will resolve the violence, the murder, and the mayhem. Well, at least, this is what Imran Muchtar is saying.

However, if the recent attacks on churches in Temanggung is anything to go by, then declaring a new religion is hardly going to be a cure for the violence being perpetrated against the Ahmadis. If mobs can go on the rampage and burn churches because a Christian man does not get the death sentence for blaspheming Islam, then this clearly does not bode well for the Ahmadis.

The Ahmadis are a sect of Islam. Perhaps not a sect that is accepted as being mainstream, but a sect all the same. If they were to branch off and call themselves a new religion this hardly resolves the issue. The core beliefs of the Ahmad remain Islamic in nature. The reality is that even if the Ahmadis were to spin themselves off from mainstream Islam, they remain Islamic in nature. For example, when King Henry VIII decided that the Catholic Church was becoming less agreeable and accepting of his needs, he decided to create a spin-off of the Roman Catholic Church and call it the Church of England.

Now, the Church of England is Christian in its orientation and beliefs. There are a few Virgin Mary issues as I understand it, but to all intents and purposes it is a Christian belief system, a Christian church. So, it does not really matter whether you are Catholic, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Church of England, Protestant, Mormon or Quaker there is an argument to be made that these are all sects of the Christian faith. It would also seem reasonable to me that even if the Ahmadis were to separate from mainstream Islam and declare themselves a new religion that they would remain in a technical sense a sect of Islam.

The answer to the Ahmadi issue is for Indonesia and her citizens to live by that creed that is encompassed in Bhinneka Tunggal Ika or the idea of having unity in diversity rather than continue down the road of intolerance and indifference to human life and existence.

Once again, the Ahmadis spinning themselves off from Islam will not resolve the violence.

Ho hum...

Happy New Year! And, the World Ends on 21 May 2011...

I really do hate to be the one to put a downer on your New Year's celebrations, but it is time to get a does of cold hard reality and understand that you have about six months left to get your life in order. Judgment Day is coming. In fact, it is coming on 21 May 2011. According to Family Radio Worldwide, the Bible guarantees that the End of Days will start on this very date. So, I am guessing that there is no need to be making any plans for 2012, right?

Seriously, though, the end of the world has to happen at some point. That is a scientific fact. As I recall, something about the ever expanding sun that will slowly burn up the earth. Assuming that global warming does not get us first. Or is that what global warming is? Whatever.

Anyways, back to May 2011.

Family Radio Worldwide is a "loose" organisation of believers. The name of the group sort of indicates haw the loose works. It is a hot potch of believers that are mostly kept in contact through radio broadcasts. And, thanks to modern technology, these believers are also keeping in touch with each other through dedicated websites and the like. To be fair, loose might not be quite the right term. They are a well-organised bunch. So much so that there are plans afoot to have groups of believers taking on mission work to spread the end of days message in both Latin America and Africa.

The date is important, 21 May 2011. This is the start of the ""Rapture" or the beginning of judgment of all those on earth. Ultimately, the "good" people will ascend to heaven and the rest of us will remain here on earth. You might be thinking that remaining here on earth is not such a bad gig in comparison to hell. Well, you should then be thinking of hell on earth. The idea is that those of us left behind here on earth will be destined for God-sanctioned torment and torture. This torment and torture will end only with the end of time. Perhaps heaven does not seem like such a bad option after all.

People have been trying to unravel the Bible for an end of days scenario for pretty much as long as the Bible has been around. Fortunately, no one has got it quite right and the world continues on. If I was a betting man, I would be tending to lean towards the probability that this is not going to be the end of days. The world will go on, life will go on. In 2012, I expect that Dyah, Will and I will be in Collarenebri and into the second year of my three-year commitment (it may even be longer).

It seems strange that an all-loving and all-caring God would want to get the Judgment Day happening when there is still so much good that can be achieved. I guess I have never really understood religion or God. It makes no sense to me to just arbitrarily end the world on 21 May 2011 as the Australian footy season would not have finished! Although Arsenal might have just enough time to claim the English Premier League title for the final time.

See you next year?

Too Much Christmas for the MUI?

Can there ever be too much Christmas cheer? Yes!

It would seem that the Indonesian arbiters of all things Islam and Muslim, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), has decided that Indonesian malls have gone overboard this year. The malls have gotten so far into the Christmas spirit that Indonesian Muslims are offended by the constant bombardment of the message of giving and peace. The MUI has a serious problem with this fat white pagan in a red suit with a long-flowing white beard, he is everywhere!

Muhyidin Junaidi of the MUI has said that this constant bombardment of Christmas cheer will lead to a very negative backlash from Indonesia's Muslim majority. According to Junaidi, the logic is obvious, Muslims do not celebrate Christmas and as such having it constantly shoved in their face would be tantamount to proselytising. Ah, Pak Junaidi, the only incitement being promoted here is by you! But, if we were to take Junaidi's logic to a logical conclusion, then all celebrations must be muted in order to not offend those that do not practice a particular faith or celebrate a particular day. Then gain, what I think Junaidi is saying is that it is OK where that celebration is being conducted by the majority. But, when it is being conducted by a minority it is then OK to discriminate against the majority and stifle their constitutional rights to celebrate.

Or perhaps, Junaidi is simply saying that any money these malls make by capitalising on the Christmas theme at this time of year is haram. Surely, the MUI could issue a fatwa that bans Muslims from putting red sprinkles on their Starbucks coffee or something. Seriously, the great majority of Indonesian Muslims that I have had the pleasure of knowing and calling friends are not offended by this time of year. They do not have to practice or even participate in the rituals that are Christmas, but they are more than happy to tolerate those that do. It is as simple as give and take; it is about mutual respect; it is about focusing on the big issues and not sweating the little stuff. It really is too bad that the MUI cannot get in touch with the vast majority of Indonesians practicing a tolerant and moderate form of the Islamic faith.

But, let's assume for a minute that a Muslim sales promotional girl was forced to wear a "Santa's little helper" outfit. And, let's assume that this is something that she finds offensive. If this young woman was fired for not wanting to wear a Santa's little helper outfit on religious grounds, then I would have a problem with that. She should simply be moved to a position that does not require her to don the Christmas garb for the duration of the festive period. Until, it reaches a stage where people are getting fired for not wearing Christmas outfits as part of their job description, then Junaidi is really only stoking the fire of religious intolerance.

To the MUI, all my Muslim friends, colleagues and acquaintances are good Muslims and good people. They are not disturbed by the fat guy in the red suit.

Ho hum...

Laws on the Building of Houses of Worship -- Indonesia...

One way of ensuring that the whittling down, and perhaps removal, of certain constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as the right to worship freely, is to put the decision making process to a committee of one's peers. In this case, a joint ministerial regulation on the building of houses or places to worship is set to be formalised into a law.

In essence, the regulation requires the approval of a majority of residents for a house of worship to be built in a specified area. In a country that is predominantly Muslim, this means that getting the requisite approval for a mosque is a real no-brainer. Besides, if the community did not approve a mosque it is almost certainly going to see large-scale protests take place, perhaps even violent confrontations as the FPI crazies are bused in under  the guise of being representative of Indonesian Islam. However, the flip side of this coin is that it is difficult to get houses / places of worship approved for minority religions such as Christianity (various sects) and other recognised religions in Indonesia such as Buddhism and Hinduism.

The recent trials and tribulations that have unfolded in Bekasi as a Christian group seeks to formalise the permitting process for its house of worship is testament to the difficulties minority faiths can endure at the hands of a minority of the local population who vocally and violently oppose the construction of a Church.

Yet, it must be noted that this is not exclusively a Muslim vs. Christian scenario. Let's face it, the declaration that the Ahmadiyya sect is a deviant Muslim sect has seen Muslim against Muslim occur on an ever-increasingly frequent level. And, Muslim vs. Muslim does not entail any polite courtesy as the "real" Muslims burn down the "deviant" Muslim's house of worship, in this instance a Mosque. Tolerance, or lack thereof, is an interesting thing.

The regulation is illuminating as it to all intents and purposes forces the ghetto-isation of minority religions. How so? The regulation requires that any proposed house of worship be approved by at least 60 of the households in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, the best way to ensure your proposed house of worship gets the nod of approval is to ensure that all like minded believers live in close proximity to each other and therefore the land set aside for the house of worship will be surrounded on all sides by the "true" believers. Simply, if you permit interlopers of questionable commitment into your midst then they could conceivably derail your plan for a house of worship. Hence, we have the ghetto-isation of religion.

Is it too extreme to then ponder whether it is possible that Indonesia is moving towards becoming an Islamic state? To avoid confusion, Indonesia is a democratic and sovereign state, so if the majority of the people want the Republic to be an Islamic state, then so be it. Moving from the secular to the non-secular will require a constitutional change at least in my opinion. Maybe I should pose this question to a former student of mine Pan Mohamad Faiz who is now a recognised expert on Indonesian constitutional law.

It is sad that the president has not been pro-active on promoting tolerance in any significant and substantial way beyond, "yo, my fellow Indonesians, chill out!" If you are wondering what I mean by pro-active, I mean take a firmer and more hard line stance against groups like the Islamic Defenders' Front (FPI) who are nothing more than thugs in robes whose modus operandi is to enforce compliance through violence.

If this regulation becomes law then it is likely that there will be an immediate move towards ghetto-isation and walled compounds for minority faiths, and increasing levels of communal violence as the white-robed hoodlums of the FPI try to prevent the construction of any place of worship that is not an approved mosque.

Is SBY Fit to be President of Indonesia?

This is a short post. It is not a analysis. It is a question!

The president is supposed to declare a commitment to upholding the provisions of the Constitution. The president is supposed to acknowledge that the Republic of Indonesia respects the tenets of Pancasila as the state ideology. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is clearly failing to do this.

The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia guarantees religious freedom. In simple terms, Indonesia is a secular state.

A statement from the president encouraging tolerance is not commensurate with his responsibility in upholding and defending the Constitution. He must make specific reference to the recent attacks on Christians practicing their faith in Bekasi. He must publicly rebuke the Islamic Defenders' Front (FPI) and any others that violate the basic tenets of the Constitution.

Finally, the president must take responsibility for the governance of the Republic. If he is not up to that task then he should step aside and let someone willing to fight for freedom and democracy have an opportunity to ensure that all Indonesians enjoy the freedoms guaranteed to them!

Indonesia is for all Indonesians, and not just a lucky few.

Mr. President, do you have the courage to step up and do what you were elected to do?

Shame, shame, shame!

Religion -- A Warning...

From here.

God is Love -- Jesus Supports the Use of Condoms

I fully expect to offend people with the picture that leads off this post. I do not apologize for the message of this piece. Thanks to the Freethinker for illuminating this controversy for me here and here.

Sexually transmitted diseases of all types are slowly but surely decimating our collective future. The idea that abstinence is the answer has proven to be clearly not the case. The need here is to ensure that people are fully educated and therefore able to make informed decisions on their own. If abstinence happens to be that choice, then all well and good. However, if the choice is a different one, then at least those individuals will have at their disposal the knowledge that may just save their lives.

The art work is by Ben Heine, a Belgian, and was in direct response to the statements of the Pope and his fellow clergy members who seem to believe that it says somewhere in the Bible that condom use is strictly prohibited and that the use of condoms actually makes the HIV / AIDS tragedy in places like Africa even worse. The art work was posted on a site called DeviantArt. Unfortunately, DeviantArt in their infinite wisdom deemed the work too offensive or controversial or something because they removed it, and then ultimately banned Heine from the site.

I fully support the right of websites to determine their own content. However, a quick look around the DeviantArt site turns up quite a lot of art that would best be described as pornographic and perhaps even offensive to some, not to me though. So, why single out this piece of art for censorship? Come to think of it, I am not offended by Jesus wearing a condom or the idea that the Christian God is a God of Love and would be cool with a pro-condom message. This is not because it encourages promiscuity but to the contrary because it saves souls from agonizing and pointless deaths.

The right to freely express one's ideas is a core tenet of my philosophy on life. I have not and do not advocate that there are no limits to free speech, in fact quite to the contrary. However, sometimes free speech sometimes offends, and causing offense does not necessarily mean that it has crossed that uncrossable line in the sand where it is no longer protected. My personal opinion is that I can accept some people will be offended by the image, but I do not believe the image crosses the line.

Is it in bad taste? To each their own.

Favourite Movies

One of my all time favourite movies is Chariots of Fire. I have a few favourites, in terms of movies, if one can have more than one favourite? I love the Vangelis soundtrack, I have always found the soundtrack to be inspirational and load it onto all things that play music and it is therefore on my iPod. The movies is a favourite because it is a feel good film but one with a message. Despite the liberties that have been taken with some of the facts, which I could list but won't (no need to bore you with the detail).

Many might argue that there is a Christian message to be had in the film, but I think the message is a much broader one; it is one of principles and commitment to an outcome and perhaps even a criticism of the anti-semitic behaviours of the time.

I admire people who know what their principles are and are able to stick to them no matter what the personal cost. I truly believe in karma and that sticking to your principles will ultimately be rewarded. I know that sticking to my guns (or principles) has cost me in the past and will undoubtedly cost me again in the future. Yet, there are some things that just have to be done.

Life is undoubtedly what we make it, so it rings true that the power comes from within, whether you attribute this to a God or some other power then so be it. However, if it makes you a better person then what can possibly be wrong with that.

The above portrait is of Eric Liddell, the Flying Scotsman.

Vangelis' soundtrack can be found below:



And of Eric Liddell's 400m race:



Enjoy!

God Hates Australia 2...

I am not quite sure what Australia has done to offend the Westboro Baptist Church, but whatever it was it must have been good. My understanding is that Australia's biggest sin can be traced to a film about a gay cowboy played by the late Heath Ledger.

Anyway, the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, Pastor Fred Phelps, has put out a video stating that Australia is suffering for its sins and that God hates Australia. He even suggests that he is hopeful that more tragedy strikes Australia and that the death toll from the recent bushfires in Victoria continues to climb. He is also praiseworthy of the floods in hoping that the death toll and destruction continues to rise on that front.

This man is a complete nutter. It is hard to take a Church seriously that maintains a website called www.godhatesfags.com.

I am sure others will have more choice words to describe his hate-filled drivel. I cannot, for the life of me, reconcile the idea of a vengeful Christian God that slaughters the innocent. Perhaps, I just expect too much from the Christian faith or I just do not understand religion in the same way as the Westboro Baptist Church.

Clearly just trying to ignore the Westboro Baptist Church is not working, they simply have not gone away. I guess this is the flip side of free speech and free expression.

Blasphemy in Indonesia

Blasphemy is an issue that is always interesting to write about as the possibilities are endless, at least in terms of the hypotheticals - the what ifs? This is even more so the case in Indonesia where even the slightest hint of blasphemy leads to violence and the destruction of private property and the desecration of religious property in some instances, it is fair to say there is nothing funny about blasphemy in Indonesia.

Indonesia is still not at the point of trying, as Malaysia has, to ban the use of certain words and restrict their usage only to Muslims. Malaysia decided that "Allah" was a Muslim term to refer to God and because it was a Muslim term then no other religions had a right to refer to their God as Allah. I would guess that to do so would amount to blasphemy.

Nevertheless, Indonesians, at least in some instances, have voiced extreme opinions on the issue of apostasy. The demand is for death for all apostates. The issue has come to the fore yet again as the government is set to continue its pursuit, some might say persecution, of Lia Eden, the leader of a messianic cult, who by all accounts is as mad as a two bob watch, for blasphemy. The most recent arrest is hot on the heels of the arrest of a teacher for supposedly scorning the Prophet. For some background on the Eden cult you can go here, here, and here.

The teacher, Welhelmina Holle, sparked a violent protest that led to the burning of churches and homes on Seram Island in the Moluccas. It remains unclear exactly what she said but obviously for some it did not matter. The fact that the allegation was made was enough for some to set out on a violent protest.

The actual law on blasphemy was a Presidential Decree that was enacted into law in 1965 (No. 1/PNPS/1965) and the key elements have in essence been extracted and included in the current Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana / KUHP) as Article 156(a). The combination of these laws is designed to prevent "deviant interpretations" or any challenge to the long-standing norms particularly with respect to Islam, and to prevent any public discourse on religion by outlawing any utterances that can conceivably be deemed hostile or abusive or insulting of any particular religion.

This is problematic in a secular state as it gives the government or its appointed proxies the power to make subjective interpretations of what constitutes blasphemy or heresy. In many ways the power is a similar one to what has been seen before, as granted to the Roman Catholic Church during the Inquisitions. For many this might be a difficult concept to digest. However, it is as simple as recognizing that there is not the same separation of Church and State or in this case Mosque and State that many of us from a Western democratic tradition would recognize.

Yet, there is some separation in Indonesia as the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulema Indonesia / MUI) has the power to issue fatwas (edicts) on all things Islam but these fatwas are not legally binding. In that sense it is a toothless tiger whose growl is much bigger than its bite. Although, it is a brave government that aligns itself against the MUI as to do so would expose it to charges of being anti-Islam or not sensitive to Muslim issues and needs.

I guess the point of this little musing was that on a personal level I have a real problem with people being jailed for their non-violent religious beliefs no matter how crazy and left or right of mainstream they might be. For example, if a shaven-headed woman wants to claim that she is the Archangel Gabriel and people want to believe that and follow her then so be it. Similarly, if someone wants to claim that there was another prophet after Muhammad and there are people prepared to belief that then so be it.

I leave you with these random thoughts.

If God sends his only son, Jesus Christ, to earth to die for our sins, then doesn't this suggest that Jesus is the most likely candidate to have been the last prophet (at least until the second coming of Christ)? And, therefore, would it be blasphemy to suggest that God got it wrong by sending his only son and decided to have another go at getting it right by selecting some random fella, who in this case just happens to be a fella named Muhammad, to be his final prophet on earth and to bring Islam to the world?

Then, if it is to be accepted that Muhammad followed Jesus as a prophet, then why is it not possible that God could have had second or third thoughts and decided that another prophet was necessary in order to perfect any imperfections that may have arisen?

Would it be blasphemy to suggest that Buddha never really reached enlightenment by suggesting that the Buddha has been reincarnated for another stint back in the real world?

Oh well! As Uncle Ned once said, "such is life"!

Allah is Everywhere

Pareidolia is the phenomenon of seeing or perceiving something significant in something insignificant. While I was out surfing the Internet I came across this image that is posted with this entry, here. This is not some new psychological phenomenon and as such there are plenty of sites on the web that publish the images. You can find images here, here, and here.

Random House and A'isha -- Muslim Opposition

It seems that Random House could not stand the heat in the kitchen and has bailed out. Random House was set to publish a historical fiction novel by Sherry Jones, this would have been her first novel, quite an event for an aspiring author. However, the subject matter of this piece of historical fiction was none other that A'isha, the child bride of the Prophet Mohammad.

Random House sent a copy out to selected individuals to gauge feedback. This feedback included on recipient lobbying Muslim websites and warning them of the books imminent publishing date. Random House fearing a backlash similar to the Satanic Verses or the more recent violence associated with the publication of some cartoons of the Prophet, has decided that it is no longer willing to publish the novel (some of the quotes in this piece are sourced from here).

The Jewel of Medina, focuses on the life of A'isha, one of the Prophet's wives. The historical record seems to suggest that when the Prophet married A'isha she was young, some say a mere six years of age. Most Muslims claim that the custom of the time would have meant that the marriage would not have been consummated until A'isha reached puberty. Truth be told, on this we will never really know the truth. But there is something troubling about grown men marrying pre-pubescent girls no matter what the circumstances.

The problem here is that Denise Spellberg, Associate Professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas, declared the book to be a "very ugly, stupid piece of work" that "made fun of Muslims and their history". The rhetoric then escalated to whispers of this work being "a new attempt to slander the Prophet of Islam." Spellberg went on to tell Random House editors that this was a "declaration of war" that would be "far more controversial than The Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoons". This must be one hell of a debut novel, particularly if it was going to see the author subject to a fatwa condemning her to death and incite the sort of violence we saw with the publishing of the Prophet Mohammad cartoons.

I hope another publisher has the testicular fortitude to pick it up and publish it.

The deputy publisher of Random House, Thomas Perry, in real chicken speak said that Random House had received "from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

It is always interesting to hear and read claims that Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace, yet any mention of the Prophet or his wives in any context is seen as an attack on Islam. In similar circumstances when Dan Brown had his historical fiction novel The Da Vinci Code published there were supporters and critics. Some loved the book, others thought it to be garbage. But, the Christian clergy of whatever stripe did not organize the masses to go out an boycott products or march on the publisher and burn it down, or issue a religious edict condemning the author to death. Perhaps the best way to approach any book is to read it first and then make reasoned arguments against it if you disagree with its substance. Yet, when it is all said and done the book is a work of fiction.

I unfortunately was not one of the lucky ones that saw an advance proof of the Jewel of Medina so I do not know whether the response by Random House is proportional to the offence the book may contain. More to the point, even if the book offends some Muslims, it is hardly likely to be the flashpoint that results in the implosion of Islam.

Yet, in any event, my question is, "whatever happened to free speech?"

A Modern Day Crucifixion?

Just so everyone knows that I am equally offensive to all and play no favourites!

Resurrection -- A Christian Rip-Off?

"Gabriel's Revelation" is a 1 metre long tablet with ink writing that has been dated to the period just before Jesus was immaculately born into this world. The tablet is said to challenge the uniqueness of the Christian story of the resurrection and is also said to suggest that Jesus and his followers may have misappropriated an earlier version of the resurrection story to fulfill their own ends.

The tablet only has 87 lines and some think it to be part of the Dead Sea Scrolls and in some way associated with John the Baptist. However, it might not be as cut and dried as some might have us believe. The best part of the tablet is smudged and therefore requires some creative interpretation. This is what the believers need to say that those interpreting the tablet to say that Jesus and his disciples misappropriated the resurrection scenario from somewhere else have it wrong.

The smudged passage might say that "after three days in the grave the messiah will raise again". If this is true and the tablet has been accurately dated then it stands to reason that there was a resurrection story pre-dating the resurrection of Jesus. The question then is, was Jesus aware of the story and did he co-opt it for his own purposes? Then again who cares and does it make any difference to the accounts of the event laid out in the Gospels?

The critical line is the 80th line which begins with "In three days ..." and a little further on includes the verb "to live". It has been suggested that the passage refers to a Jewish rebel named Simon who was killed in 4BC by the Romans. The passage apparently reads in full that the angel Gabriel commands Simon to live again after three days.

The argument goes that it was the Christian texts that influenced the Jewish texts on the resurrection idea. However, this revelation would seem to suggest that the opposite is true; the Jewish texts influenced the Christian texts. It must be noted that Christian scholars do not accept this interpretation and this is hardly surprising considering what is at stake.

The tablet is owned by a Swiss-Israeli antiques collector named David Jeselsohn (pictured). I am certain that there will be more to this story in the future...

Robes and Masks -- Similarities and Differences

I feel that I need to make this post. If it offends, then so be it, I have very strong views on this based on the principles that I live my life by. Those of you that know me, will know this of me. I have never shied away from calling things as I see them and for what they are. This post is what it is!

There are no religious undertones here and there is no criticism of any religion. The criticism are directed solely at the organizations represented in this post! However, there is a comparison to be made and each person who reads this post (if any) will make that comparison based on their own individual world view.

I am a person who struggles for peace and tolerance. I am one who prefers dialogue and compromise (not of principles) to achieve goals.

I reject intolerance on all levels and do not countenance the friendship or favor of people who preach intolerance or hold views that are objectionable to me personally.

The two pictures I have posted here represent two organizations that I find objectionable because of the intolerance that they preach and code that they live by!

This is my personal opinion and feel free to criticize me for it.

The Islamic Defenders Front (Front Pembela Islam / FPI) is an organization claiming to represent the Islamic faith and preach hatred, incitement to murder, and persecution of those who hold differing views. The FPI has a history of violence.

The Ku Klux Klan or the KKK are an organization supposedly steeped deeply in Christian faith yet preach racial hatred and segregation not only for people of colour but also for non-Christian faiths and have a history of murder and violence in the name of their cause.

Maybe you can name instances where both organizations have done good for a local community. However, this in no way absolves them of the violence and mayhem they support elsewhere.

Just a personal musing. As I said I hold principles that reject intolerance in all its forms and irrespective of who holds the views, I will reject them. It is the way I have been brought up -- I embrace diversity.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

Is this a blatant attempt to attract site traffic, not really, I swear! I am reading this book and the title happens to be the same as the title to this post. Therefore, it could just be a plain old book review or it could be something else! You will have to read and see...

I am writing this in part as context to the recent Geert Wilders and Fitna controversy and the now defunct attempt to ban access to certain sites that were making the film available. The quick turnaround on this might bring the most cynical parts of us out that the whole banning thing was nothing more than a charade and lip service to appease some vocal dissent. Or it could have just been early electioneering in an attempt to ward off any future criticism of being a do nothing government!

However, the book does the same thing that Wilders has done; focus on particular passages or Suras of the Qur'an that highlight extremism or violence and place this into the context of history and historical occurrences from the origin of Islam through to the present day. Why is this interesting you might ask; this is interesting because I bought this book at the Kinokuniya Book Store in Plaza Senayan in Jakarta in Indonesia. The obvious question is that if the government is so sensitive to this issue and needs to protect the masses from material that is likely to disrupt social order and harmony on a global scale then how is it that I can buy this book in Indonesia?

The book compares passages from the Qur'an and the Bible as a means of highlighting the violence in Islam and the peace in Christianity. Undoubtedly, many would beg to differ on those characterizations. The book is not designed to be a tool to preach to the converted but rather a tool designed to sway those swing voters who are still out in terms of what they know and understand of religions.

One such comparison is this one:

Jesus (from Matthew 5:44) "Love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you."

is contrasted with,

Muhammad (from Qur'an 8:60) "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, who ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

Then the book uses other Suras to highlight Islam as a misogynist religion that not only devalues women but explicitly notes that women were created to be inferior to men and subservient to them...

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other" (Qur'an 4:34);

"Your women are a tilth for you to cultivate so go to your tilth as ye will" (Qur'an 2:223);

"Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (Qur'an 2:282);

Allah thus directs you as regards your children's inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (Qur'an 4:11); and

"Good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish than and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (Qur'an 4:34).

So, what's the point of this post; it is many-fold:

First, is it possible to have constructive, reasonable, and measured debate where religion is involved and views seem so diametrically opposed?

Second, why in light of the recent controversy surrounding Fitna can books such as this one be found in Indonesian book stores? I am not advocating censorship or a round of book burning, rather to the contrary I am asking where is the consistency here?

Finally, has the drive to political correctness made us more tolerant or has it just served to push the simmering tensions under the carpet as people are forced to be politically correct in public but mutter there less than political correct views in private and among friends.

By the way there is also a "Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible" but when I asked the Kinokuniya staff member if they had a copy or whether I could order one she thought I was trying to be funny...oh well! The pictures above are as big as I could make them...

More on Fitna...

The Dutch government is making all of the right moves in trying to appease the dismay that Geert Wilders' film ever managed to get released. As an aside here, one should never underestimate the power of the Internet. If you have an agenda and an Internet connection you can find yourself an audience without any trouble at all. Mobile phones with cameras and video capabilities mean that the budding film maker in all of us has a chance to find a forum for expression!

The point though of this post is to explore in very little detail the calls by Muslim leaders in Indonesia for the Dutch government to take legal action against Wilders for the film which is described as being anti-Islam. The film is anti-Islam and that is the point of the film. The question of whether free speech has limits, is an interesting one, and the simple answer here is; yes! But just because a section of the community, in this case the world's followers of Islam, feel that the film is offensive still does not mean that there has automatically been a breach of the limits to free speech.

I am not an expert of Dutch law however on face value these are some of the problems that litigation may encounter in the prosecution of Wilders. I must confess here that I still have not watched the film, so what is said from here is based on a more general idea of film content overall.

If it is true that the film contains recorded images of actual events and the selected Suras of the Al-Qu'ran that are inserted are accurate translations of those Suras, then the obvious issue is whether putting images and words together in a particular way is a breach of the limits of freedom of speech? It is clear that it may be a propaganda call or whatever but my question would be does the film call for any explicit violence to be directed back to Islam? If the film incites violence then this might not be a free speech issue but a much more mundane criminal matter. Any additional commentary aside from the images and the various Suras might indeed take the film to a level where it breaches the prevailing Dutch laws and regulations.

However, the fact that the Dutch have yet to make a pronouncement about whether there has been a prosecutable offence committed suggests that it might be a little more difficult than just drawing up an indictment and running with that alone.

However, another interesting point will relate to what happens if the Dutch cannot find a suitable provision under which to pursue Wilders in the legal sense. If he has broken no Dutch laws then what is the response to be? Are calls for Wilders to be killed representative of tolerance for divergent opinions even where those opinions are offensive? Also interesting is the question of whether these Muslim leaders in Indonesia are overplaying their respective hands?

If you demand that the Dutch take action against Wilders for his film (which by most accounts is of relatively poor quality and where most people understand that Wilders has an agenda here so much so that it is being reported that Dutch TV stations won't air it) is the Indonesia Muslim community also committing to a position of upholding the law in Indonesia and demanding the same standard of their own government when it comes to objectionable or offensive films and commentary from Indonesian citizens?

An example would be are these individuals also prepared to come out and criticize Abu Bakar Bashir when he calls for all the khaffirs to be beaten because they are nothing more than maggots, worms, and snakes?

Just a thought about law enforcement in general! But my point is that if Bashir is to have a right to exercise his freedom of speech even where a good section of the broader community and perhaps the world's community of people who fall into the khaffir section find the call and the associated description objectionable and offensive, then why is the same standard not applied across the board. Is this simply a case of wanting your cake and eating it too? Or a case of the pot calling the kettle black? or what is good for the goose also having to be good for the gander as well?

What strikes me is the similarities here between the idea of anything that questions the fundamentals of a religion or religious practices is written off as being anti-whatever and suppressed rather than people engaging in constructive and active debate about the merits of the various and relevant positions. If Wilders film is as poorly constructed as it has been alleged then I am certain the Muslim community could counter the Wilders film with one that is designed to set the record straight as the Muslim communities sees it. The similarities here relate to claims that certain positions are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-whatever...

The idea of suppressing debate and writing things off as simply being anti-something seems to belittle human intelligence and the free will and ability to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong!

Hypothetically, if a Muslim was to put together a film that questioned the underpinnings of Christianity and highlighted Christianity's penchant for violence from the pre-Crusade days until the present and this film was then released concurrently in Holland and Indonesia would we be having the same freedom of speech debates?

My apologies for the long and winding nature of this post...

Sinful Valentine's Day

This is a verbatim copy of a comment I posted to Indonesia Matters and relates to a posting on that site regarding attempts to erase Valentine's Day from the social calendar because it is a day of sin. The comments also relate to some of the comments of other commentators to the post (so go read the original post for yourself)...

I guess this is why the term "globalization" was coined! Rapidly developing technology and ease of communication means that cultural influences other than our own can permeate the whole world -- some good, some bad but that's the way it goes.

The only way to stop it is to prevent people from communicating with each other, prevent travel to different local regions and foreign locales, and to generally restrict the basic rights of citizens -- if this were to happen then we might have a real conspiracy on our hands!

But that said it is a creative approach to whip out an old law or create new laws that label certain cultural traditions like Valentine's Day a sin and then let the very heavy hand of the law deal with it! It is not the right approach but you do what you do!

Jewish conspiracies and Jews ruling the world through the domination of the mass media and the monopolization of capital and any other theory out there all stem from that same source that the Jews are responsible for the death of Christ and are to be punished for it. Let's not forget that the crucifiction of Christ was possibly a political power play and that Christ was a Jew and the distinction between Christianity and Judaism may have really been a result of seeking out political advantge in tumultuous times (these differences have supposedly become more pronounced over time)...a reading of the Gospels will enlighten the reader to where the blame game originated.

Yet, when it is all said and done this absolute domination of world affairs has not allowed the Jews to remove the nonsense being spouted by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about wiping Israel of the face of the map from public discourse -- so much for world media domination! To be brutally honest I do not see the extermination of the Jews bringing about any positive changes in my life, it has been tried before although Ahmadinejad would have us believe that the Holocaust is a fiction and that it never occurred. But obviously listening to the man it is something that he desires to see happen now -- a world leader advocating the extermination of a group of people from the earth -- it is time we as a global community woke up and smelled the coffee, we have a serious problem here.

The extermination of groups of people removes from the very fabric of our communities those things that make us what we are. There is no glory or honor in genocide and the Holocaust is a history lesson that as human beings we must not be allowed to forget. even more importantly it is something we must not allow ourselves to repeat!

Killing people for their religious beliefs is just plain morally wrong and I do not think my moral compass is broken on this point!

However, I do see my life taking a significant turn for the worst if Ahmadinejad was to rule my world -- definitely no heaven there!

It reminds me of an oft used argument from the Indonesian context where every time there was rumblings and under-currents of dissatisfaction with the economy the Soeharto Government trotted out the race card that it was Indonesian Chinese almost total domination of the local markets that was the root cause of all this economic evil -- rubbish!

But the real question here is that if I give my wife a box of chocolates and flowers on any other day besides 14 February have I committed a sin in Bukittinggi or some other part of Sumatra?
I would have thought there are more pressing issues in those parts of Indonesia than the sinful nature of globalization and additions to Indonesia's diverse cultural traditions.

A little bit more love and tolerance in the world from all sides would serve us much better than some of the vitriol being espoused here. The issue here is the value of foreign cultural traditions and the manner they are incorporated into local cultural traditions and not one of the big Zionist conspiracy to rule the world -- the Jewish conspiracy is an alternate reality that just does not stand up to scrutiny.

Whatever happened to that base Indonesian ideological concept of unity in diversity?

I do not expect to convert any diehards to my cause of tolerance but as Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi said "You must be the change you want to see in the world"!

So, on that note thanks for reading this far :)

Tempo and the Last Supper

Religious satire and the question of blasphemy rises again in Indonesia. The furore that accompanied the publishing of cartoons depicting the image of the Prophet Muhammad has now turned to Indonesian Catholics being offended by a cover on Tempo Magazine depicting the Last Supper with Jesus and his Disciples replaced by the happy and smiling heads of Soeharto and his kiddies!

This is a case of making a mountain out of a mole hill and the fact that some Indonesian Catholics are forcing the issue by suing Tempo is another attack on the freedom of the press. That said, the cartoons of the Prophet, and Koran / Haddith teachings aside that prevent the rendering of the image of the Prophet in any form, the question of double standard is sure to be asked.

When it is all said and done, and even giving much leeway to the genius of Leonardo Da Vinci, the painting of the Last Supper is no more than one artists interpretation of what might have been. Any reader of Dan Brown's DaVinci Code will probably be able to provide you with all sorts of conspiracy and trivial pursuit knowledge of the coming into being of DaVinci's Last Supper. But it is but a painting.

What is more surpising is the rapid nature in which Tempo backed down and apologized for the offence. There is nothing to apologize for here...

On the cartoon front. It is being reported that Danish police have foiled a murder plot that was being hatched to target and kill the cartoonist who dared publish cartoons depicting the image of the Prophet.

A threat to the freedom of thought and expression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere -- freedom of thought, expression, religion, and democracy must be defended wherever it needs to be...as Thomas Jefferson once said:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

May we one day find the tolerance that this world will so desperately need to survive its human occupation!

Egypt - One Step Forward and Two Steps Backwards

A news piece out of Cairo. The Supreme Administrative Court in Egypt has recognized the right of Muslims to convert to Christianity. Well, maybe not that far-reaching as the ruling only applies to Christians who converted to Islam and after consideration and reflection want to change back to their original Christian faith.

This is interesting for a number of reasons. First, Egypt had always applied an interpretation where once someone had converted to Islam there was no route of return no matter what your previous religious faith may have been. This concurs with many traditional interpretations of the Koran which considers apostasy to be a grave sin. Nevertheless, the Koran itself (at least my understanding) deos not proscribe a specific punishment for this sin.

However, I guess if we were to look at it from a legal point and try and decipher what the punishment might be we could look at the response of the Prophet and his followers to see how apostasy was dealt with back in the time of the formation of Islam.

It seems pretty clear that the punishment for apostasy was severe, it was death. So, it is fair to say that the decision in this case is a departure from those very traditional views and teachings. However, it is not all peaches and cream for those wanting to revert to their former religious beliefs as their respective identity cards must note that they are formers converts to Islam who have since converted back to a previous faith.

This condition is problematic as it seems to provide a perfect opening for authorities to discriminate against and victimize individuals converting back to their original beliefs. Hence, one step forward and two steps back!