The fact that the crotchety old white-robed backward looking Islamic scholars in various parts of Indonesia take the time to consider Valentine's Day each year is testament to the pervasive nature of the celebration. However, the vast majority of Indonesians have too little time to take stock of fatwas and other edicts issued banning Valentine's Day. The vast majority probably do not do anything out of the ordinary. It is just another day in a busy calendar.
It seems that Valentine's Day falls foul of the defenders of truth and the ways of the Prophet because it is a Western celebration of love. And, that is haram or forbidden in Islam. I wonder if it is dangerous because it is thought to be a western tradition and those western kafirs would do anything they could to undermine Indonesia or is it just that because it is about love it might promote promiscuity and, heaven forbid, free casual sex. I have been told there is no aphrodisiac quite like a bunch of flowers and a box of chocolates. But, that said, as Forrest used to say: "life is like a box of chocolates, you never quite no what you're gonna get".
Traditionally, the Indonesian Council of Ulemas (MUI) have banned Valentine's Day on the basis that it is the same as proselytizing.
My guess is that most Indonesians will take no notice of the warnings and go about their daily lives as they would have if no fatwas were issued. I am also thinking that Cupid will not be deterred either come 14 February.
Simple economics would suggest that the best way of keeping a price high is to ensure that there is limited supply. So, the decision to move towards mass production of Kopi Luwak by farming the civets that eat the coffee beans and excrete them partially digested appears to be a recipe for market disaster.
I am not an economist. However, in my mind, it is pretty simple. If you increase supply without a commensurate increase in demand then it will not be too long before there is oversupply and downward pressure on the price of the product.
Anyways, the idea is that civets are going to be bred in captivity and then force-fed the coffee beans. This is supposedly a sure-fire money spinner as collectors of the valuable civet dung need go no further than scampering up and down under the civet cages. The image that comes to mind is egg farming; the rows upon rows of caged chickens popping out eggs.
It is interesting that the decision to start small-scale farming comes on the heels of the recent decision by the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) not to issue a fatwa prohibiting Muslims from drinking the coffee. According to the MUI, Kopi Luwak is halal (permitted for consumption) if it has been thoroughly and properly washed. I wonder what the quality assurance procedure is on this "thorough" cleaning arrangement? After all, the whole point of Civet Coffee is that the beans are partially digested by the stomach enzymes of the civet.
The non-fatwa has inspired PT Perkebunan Nusantara XII to see an opportunity to ramp up production and presumably ratchet up profits into the bargain.
The current price range for a cup of the Kopi Luwak in Jakarta is somewhere between IDR 90,000 and IDR 110,000, so it is not cheap. Or for those that drink their coffee at the franchise havens of Gloria Jeans or Starbucks, it is the equivalent of a couple of the biggest and most expensive brews on offer at those franchises.
Kopi Luwak is an acquired taste, kind of like Durien (Duren), some people love it and some people hate it. Kopi Luwak is a nice coffee, but I have never been convinced that it was ever worth the price charged.
The Ministry of Communication and Information through its spokesperson, Gatot Dewa Broto, stated that there was no plan to ban BlackBerry or its services in Indonesia.
The push from the Ministry is to only get BlackBerry to open a "data center" in Indonesia so that data did not have to be routed through Canada. The rationale here is that this would lower costs for Indonesian consumers and speed up services because data would presumably not have so far to travel to be processed.
I am not techno wizard, but that sounds like waffle to me, particularly in this age of instantaneous technology.
According to the Ministry, there is no urgency to close off the services. So, this must mean that Indonesia does not hold the same national security concerns that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) or Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, going on past form, it would seem likely that the Government of Indonesia is prepared to threaten to block BlackBerry imports if it does not get its way with a service center. So, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Minister TitS and his Ministry will back flip on this and seek to restrict or ban services.
The other possibility here is that the MUI steps in and issues a fatwa prohibiting Muslims from using BlackBerry smartphones because the phones are deemed to be haram in Islam. And, as one of my commenters to a previous post pointed out, the MUI is prepared to consider anything once a request has been made of it. Perhaps Minister TitS could ask the MUI what they think of the current shenanigans.
Time will tell. But, it would not be the first time the Indonesian government has reversed a previously stated position (Indonesia is not alone in the reversing of positions, I have recently been watching a retrospective on recent Australian government reversals on all manner of things - climate change for example).
I am no longer in Indonesia and I am not a BlackBerry owner. However, the associated privacy issues are interesting.
Pinch me, pinch me, I must be asleep and dreaming. The MUI has just issued a fatwa on infotainment (gossip shows) and sex change operations, stating that both are prohibited under Islam. I would like to say wake up and smell the coffee, but I am reluctant to remind them that they almost banned Luwak Coffee last week. It is probably best not to give them any ideas, heaven forbid they will be issuing a fatwa next week banning the MUI.
Fatwas are man's way of feeling important in God's world. The cold hard reality is that if God is real then s/he certainly does not need the assistance of mere mortals in the application of God's laws. I would reckon God can probably sort this one out on his / her own. In any event, where does man get off thinking that he has the requisite skills to determine and then decide what God has in mind? May the wrath of Allah come down on you, and swiftly!
According to the crotchety old men at the MUI responsible for this silliness, it is forbidden for Muslims to gossip. The rationale is that gossiping requires Muslims to expose the private details and lives of others in the public domain. Ah, yes it does. Good one fellas, you worked that one out all by yourself. Now, some gossip is indeed factual.
For example, the father of Sheila Marcia Joseph's child has recently been exposed publicly. The name of the father does not yet appear on the child's birth certificate yet. So, I am wondering why discussing such gossip is prohibited in Islam. Perhaps one of my Muslim brothers or sisters can enlighten me as to where in the Koran it says that factual gossip is prohibited.
Not satisfied with banning gossip, the MUI has gone the whole nine yards and stated that profiting from infotainment or gossip is haram. What? So, if a company advertises during an infotainment show then it has broken some law in Islam? Wow. Nevertheless, it appears that there are some exceptions, albeit very limited. If the gossip is to warn people then it is permitted, it is mubah. Presumably this means that gossip such as the recent Nazriel "Ariel" Irham, Luna Maya, and Cut Tari videos would fall under this exception as the gossip clearly highlights the dangers of filming yourself bonking your brains out.
My guess would be that the MUI would have been better issuing a fatwa about defamation, slander, and libel. But, no matter, anything that the MUI issues is not legally binding on Indonesian citizens. Indonesians cannot be worldly punished for ignoring the silly fatwas issued by the MUI. It all comes down to whether Indonesians truly believe that the MUI is the sole interpreter of God's words on Indonesian soil. If not, then fatwa away boys!
What is truly funny about this whole infotainment fatwa was that the MUI had intended to discuss welfare issues, but dropped welfare in favour of outlawing gossip shows. This clearly shows that the MUI cares more about populist issues and getting their names in print than they do about the religious care of their flocks.
The other fatwas issued covered the trade in organs and marriages of convenience. I am an organ donor. The fatwa prohibits the poor kampung fellow from selling a kidney to a rich Singaporean willing to pay USD 50K. However, it does not prohibit organ transplants And, it does not prohibit Muslims from receiving a non-Muslim organ. Although, any transplant does need to be witnessed by two Muslim doctors. I wonder how a Muslim would feel about getting a kidney from a Jew? Interestingly, the fatwa considers animal to human transplants and canvasses the idea of transplants from unclean animals in an emergency situation.
The final worthy mention is the fatwa on sex change operations. Once again, there is an exception here; sound medical reasons. Any takers on "sound medical reasons"? This must require a diagnosis from a psychologist along the lines of, "yes, he was born male, but he identifies only as a woman."
No apologies for the length. The point probably could have been made this way:
These fatwas are unnecessary as Indonesians are more than capable of working out these issues on their own and without the involvement of the MUI.
I wonder when the MUI will get around to issuing a fatwa banning the FPI?
It always happens that when you have a group of grumpy old men sitting around with too much time on their hands and not enough to do who call themselves the peak Islamic Scholars body of Indonesia, then you are likely to get silly fatwas. These fatwas serve no other purpose than to convince most righteous and modern Muslims that these gentlemen really do not "get it".
Now, the Nahdlatul Ulama is generally accepted as Indonesia's biggest Muslim organization. It also happened to be the spiritual home of one of Indonesia's most vocal proponents of a pluralistic Indonesian community, the late Gus Dur. However, more recently Abdullah Cholil of the East Java branch of the NU decided to tell his Muslim brothers and sisters that it was forbidden (haram) for Muslims to celebrate Valentine's Day (photo) in any shape, manner, or form.
According to Abdullah, the day is celebrated by young unmarried people and this would lead to sinful thoughts and actions, such as free sex (perhaps casual sex would be a better term as sex is generally never free - just ask Antasari who paid USD 500 for a little and is now about to embark on 18 years in prison for oral sex).
Furthermore, Abdullah states that young people are not supposed to be doing either, committing sins or having sex. Nevertheless, if Abdullah's concerns relate to youn unmarried people then it would stand to reason that celebrating Valentine's Day for married couples who are gong to be having sinful thoughts about each other and engaging in some carnal pleasure with each other on Valentine's Day should not be a problem, right?
Well, may be it is. It would seem that Lalilurrahman, of the East Java of the Majelis Ulama Indonesia (Indonesian Ulema Council / MUI) went a little further stating that a celebration of romance and love is a Western tradition and therefore haram for Muslims to celebrate as it is not part of Muslim or Eastern culture.
For my mind, this leaves Lalilurrahman a little exposed to the cynics among us who might be tempted to suggest that romance and love are obviously not part of Islamic tradition. Although, I am guessing that there are some more moderate Islamic views on love, romance, and Islamic traditions that remain faithful to the tenets of the faith but make a compelling argument that Laliurrahman and Abdullah have it wrong. I will leave it to them to make those arguments, if they want.
In any event, it goes without saying that Indonesia faces more pressing problems and challenges than Valentine's Day, but then again with a group of grumpy old men who are not getting "any" it seems that if they are not getting their Valentine's Day rocks off then no-one should be getting them off, let's kill it! Or they could just stay home and view some online porn and self-gratify, but that might expose them to being called 'wankers', then again a fatwa banning Valentine's Day might have already taken care of that.
Maxima Pictures has played a perfect deception by promoting one movie with a Japanese porn star as the main character while simultaneously shooting another film with another Japanese porn star and releasing it into theatres without too much fan fare to date. Quite a trick in Indonesia.
The previous kerfuffle related to the film Kidnapping Miyabi, which was to star as herself none other than that famous Japanese porn star Maria Ozawa or as she is known in industry circles, Miyabi. However, the latest offering from Maxima Pictures stars another Japanese actress of considerable pornographic talents, Rin Sakuragi.
The film, Sister Keramas (the Hair-Washing Nurse), is billed as a horror-comedy. What is it with porn stars and horror flicks, or more to the point horror-comedy flicks? I have to say, the title of the film is not all that inspiring to me, and besides a horror-comedy flick does not seem like the perfect vehicle for Rin to showcase her obvious talents.
In a move that is sure to see the movie's popularity boosted the MUI in Samarinda has issued a fatwa declaring that the movie must not be watched by Muslims as it lacks any redeeming features. Presumably this means that it is not educative or serves no particular purpose in the public interest. This is true, of course. But, then again it is just a film and it is supposed to, in this instance entertain as opposed to educate.
But, as usual, this post lends itself to some gratuitous posting of pictures of Rin in some of her more tame poses.
When is a film just a film, and when does it become an unbridled insult of a religion, in this case Islam, that requires a fatwa (edict) to be issued warning Muslims not to watch it?
Well, this has seemingly been uncovered in Indonesia. It also highlights how little some Indonesian Muslim scholars follow the news and how narrowly they read in the case of the movie 2012.
2012 is the last year of the Mayan calendar. There have been doomsday predictions floating around for many centuries, Nostradamus has a few of them himself. However, ask a couple of Mayan scholars and experts, and you will soon come to the conclusion that the fact 2012 seems to be a cut-off date is not as evil as it seems with respect to the world ending.
In any event, it is a movie. Movies are designed to entertain, this movie has awesome special effects, and lacks somewhat on a real good plot (supposedly - I have not watched it myself, yet).
However, the very idea of a doomsday movie got the Malang (East Java) and Solo (Central Java) Chapters of the Indonesian Ulama Council (Majelis Ulema Indonesia / MUI) to thinking about how blasphemous the movie is because all good Muslims know that only Allah knows when the world will end. They forgot to add that part that all good rational Muslims also understand that this is a movie, it is not real. And, it is not likely to be the trigger for them to suddenly change their beliefs or to question Islam.
Nevertheless, these Ulamas or scholars thought that the best approach was to issue a fatwa banning Muslims in their constituencies from going to watch the film. To date this has been nothing more than a few talking heads looking for 15 minutes of fame and a few bylines in the papers (and of course the ridicule of most bloggers Muslim and non-Muslim alike). In any event, a fatwa seems unlikely.
It is worth noting that one of the key features of the movie is the scene that does not appear. The film does not show Mecca the destruction of Mecca or any other religious symbols of Islam. The director omitted the destruction of these things in order to avoid a fatwa being issued against the film.
It certainly is one of those shake your head moments where you find yourself giggling to yourself wondering if these gentlemen are for real. It would be better use of their time to be focusing on issues that have real meaning to people throughout Indonesia. For example, how about a fatwa on the prohibition of men marrying children? Or a fatwa on perils of corruption? There are so many more important things happening in Indonesia and the world compared to a Hollywood film exploring what doomsday might look like.
The idea of issuing a fatwa (edict) against terrorism is an appealing one. If for no other reason than it would serve to distance the more moderate adherents to the faith from the more radical. However, the big question is how binding are these fatwas on Muslims and what are the real world punishments for failing to adhere to them?
More importantly, how should Muslims respond to competing fatwas or competing interpretations of what is acceptable with respect to violence perpetrated in the defense of the religion of Allah? There are plenty of Muslim organizations, and Muslims, throughout the world that are seeking to issue fatwas against terrorism as a means of distancing the faith from the criminal acts of a few. The YouTube video below relates to a fatwa issued in India.
This post is not suggesting that terrorism is a Muslim issue alone or that only Muslims perpetrate terror. However, the post is dealing with the issue of fatwas and terrorism, and this is a discussion within the framework of Islam and the interpretation of what is forbidden (haram) and what is permitted / legitimate (halal).
This is an interesting question. I thank Harry over at Multibrand for, in essence, challenging me on the issue, and also Tikno over at Love Ely for pointing me to the Indonesia version of a 2004 Fatwa on terrorism issued by the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulama Indonesia / MUI).
In the Indonesian context, a fatwa is not binding in a strict legal sense. The government may consider them and may even adopt them if they are so inclined. However, adoption would require the codification of the fatwa into law. This is something that happens to a certain degree in matters relating to Islamic finance where the MUI plays a role in determining what financial products are legitimate under the rules of Islam. These are then codified in laws and regulations enacted by the state.
Furthermore, Indonesia already has an Anti-Terrorism Law (Interim Law No. 1 of 2002 / Law No. 15 of 2003) so is there a need for a fatwa forbidding conduct which is already prohibited in the criminal legal sense? For an interesting paper on the subject you can read Simon Butt's paper by downloading it from here.
I have taken the time to translate the MUI fatwa and would be happy to send it out if anyone wanted a copy in English. I am reluctant just to post it here because I am hopeless at formatting and "stuff" within the blogspot framework.
The fatwa is interesting because it does not forbid in an absolute sense the killing of oneself in the defense of the religion of Allah. Yet, the fatwa goes to considerable lengths to try and point out that random suicide bombings with undefined targets is absolutely against the teachings of Islam.
The primary difference in the fatwa between terrorism and jihad is that terrorism is used for destructive purposes and to cause chaos and fear whereas jihad is a legitimate struggle to defend the faith. Unfortunately, the violence perpetrated in both cases can be the same, but the intent of the perpetrator is what makes the difference. If the perpetrator is amaliyah al-istisyhad or undertaking the action in search of syahid, then this is acceptable. In contrast, where the perpetrator is one who kills themselves and others because they are a pessimist has therefore sinned in the eyes of God and has committed a crime that can never be permitted by Allah or Islam.
Therefore, the violence is a matter of perception with respect to whether it is legitimate or forbidden. Yet, the fatwa states that the act of suicide bombing is an act of despair and is therefore forbidden under the laws of Islam irrespective of whether it is done in a time of peace or a time of war or in an area dominated by Muslims or in areas dominated by other faiths.
But, in the next point of the fatwa a suicide death where the losses inflicted on the enemies of Islam are greater than those inflicted upon Islam would constitute amaliyah al-istisyhad. However, this is seemingly modified by the phrase dar al-harb which is reasonably translated as regions at war. Yet, it can also be translated to places where Muslims are in the minority and are therefore in constant struggle to practice their faith.
What is interesting about the MUI fatwa was that it was issued in 2004 and even today it is not widely known and has not been widely discussed. It is interesting because wider and more open discussion of the fatwa and terrorism could have made a significant contribution to the understanding of the "problem" of terror and how the Indonesian Muslim community is seeking to deal with it.
There are plenty of sites dedicated to debunking fatwas on terrorism as nothing more than fakes of ways of diverting attention from the real intents and purposes of terrorism. To each their own.
Facebook would seem to be on a bit of a winner in Indonesia. Indonesians consider themselves to be super friendly people and always ready with a smile. This, I would agree, is generally true, Indonesia and Indonesians are friendly.This overt friendliness makes Indonesians really willing to get into the social networking that Facebook offers up to the masses of the world.
When one considers that Indonesia has a population of more than 230 million the potential market is huge even if there is only about a third of the population that are computer literate then, once again, it would seem that Facebook is onto a bit of a winner. According to Facebook, the Indonesian subscriber base increased a whopping 645% in 2008 to a mere 831,000. Plenty of room for expansion there.
Nevertheless, this winner is not going to be without its fun and games. It seems that some Indonesian imams meeting in Indonesia have an axe to grind with social networking sites like Facebook as they are deemed to be conduits of less than moral behaviour.
In fact, if the imams are to be believed then these social networking sites encourage free sex, sex before marriage, and other illicit behaviour. I am guessing the other illicit behaviour includes the posting of compromising or sexually explicit material to contacts made through the site.
The imams have decided that they are going to instruct their followers not to visit social networking sites. This will undoubtedly require the issue of a fatwa prohibiting all Muslims from visiting the sites. The belief is that social networking sites promote flirting and subsequently extra-marital affairs. It should be noted that fatwas are not legally binding and as such can be ignored. Nevertheless, some Muslims rely on religious scholars for direction in the practice of the faith and as such feel compelled to follow the tenets of any and all fatwas issued.
It is probably a fair assessment that some Facebook users use the site in order to "hook up" with others interested in some extra-marital (or perhaps pre-marital) action. However, most of the people that I interact with on Facebook use it for purposes that have no connection to flirting or desire for some supposedly sinful action on the side.
For me, the idea that there is a whole workshop or seminar for imams devoted to social networking and the sins that it might give rise to, indicates to me that these imams really do not have enough to do or their lives are just not full enough with other things. My guess is that any fatwa on Facebook is likely to lead to a large surge in Indonesians signing up to the site to see what all the fuss is about.
This has appeared previously on en.hukumonline.com - here.
Optional and compulsory voting is always an issue that draws a great deal of commentary. However, when in a country such as Indonesia where voting in a general election is optional, the issuance of a fatwa by the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulema Indonesia / MUI) is certain to ratchet up the rate in which commentators express their views, particularly when the fatwa states that not to vote is haram or prohibited where there are qualified Muslim candidates standing.
Indonesia has traditionally had a sizable number of individuals who choose not to exercise their democratic rights and vote. This group is referred to as the Golongan Putih or Golput group. They are in essence a group that abstains from voting. Whether this is an expression of dissatisfaction with the quality of the candidates being offered or a lack of interest is irrelevant. However, some have suggested that it is likely that somewhere around 40%, if not more, of registered voters will not exercise their right to vote in the 2009 elections.
The Muslim community seems split on whether Islam considers the expression of democratic freedom through a decision not to vote is haram. Abdurraham Wahid, who is affectionately known as Gus Dur and who is a former President of Indonesia and an influential figure in Nahdlatul Ulama (Indonesia’s largest Muslim organization), has been active in campaigning for people to take golput seriously.
On the other hand, the Prosperous Justice Party’s (PKS), Hidayat Nur Wahid, explicitly stated that golput is prohibited under Islam and has pro-actively campaigned for the MUI to issue the fatwa. Perhaps, somewhat cynically, Hidayat believes that the PKS is likely to benefit from those disaffected voters who feel compelled to comply with the fatwa.
The House of Representatives (DPR) have also weighed in on the matter with the Head of the DPR, Agung Laksono, arguing that the right to vote implicitly contains a right not to vote and as such golput cannot be haram. According to Laksono, political parties must take heed of the increasing numbers of golput-ers as a sign that political parties have failed in translating their respective visions into policies and action on the ground that positively affects the lives of their constituents. To his mind, the fatwa is a mistake.
The reaction to the fatwa has been widespread and varied. The National Commission on Human Rights (Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia / Komnas HAM) issued a press release on 2 February 2009 that states simply the fatwa is a violation of people’s human rights to exercise the right not to vote. Ifdhal Kasim, the Head of Komnas HAM, stated that the right to vote or not to vote was a basic human right that cannot and must not be interfered with.
He cites that this is a Constitutional guaranteed right that has been further strengthened with provisions in Law No. 39 of 199 and Law No. 2 of 2005. Ifdhal points out that the government has already ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which means that “societies or government could not limit this right through prohibition, criminalization, or imposing moral sanctions on people who did not use their right to vote”.
The General Election Commission (Komisi Pemilihan Umum / KPU) who is tasked in carrying out the election, according to Ifdhal, is restricted by its mandate in that it does not allow them to issue any regulations which would impinge on the absolute rights of individuals to choose whether they vote or do not vote in a general election. However, the Head of the KPU, Abdul Hafiz Anshary, has been vocal in his support of the fatwa issued by the MUI. He has openly and publicly wondered why the MUI has only acted now on this issue.
According to Hafiz it is the MUI’s responsibility to supervise Muslims in order to see that Muslims exercise their rights in terms of voting for qualified Muslim candidates. In fact, Hafiz was unequivocal in stating that “not only cigarette are haram, but golput also haram.” This is in reference to another MUI fatwa that prohibits cigarette smoking in certain circumstances.
It is worth noting that MUI fatwas are not binding in a legal sense and it remains to be seen whether the fatwa has any moral force in terms of convincing potential golput-ers to vote.
This is not my normal or usual style to cut and paste a whole article by someone else.
However, I found this article to be interesting and a good read! Therefore, I just cut and pasted the whole thing and then formatted it for this entry (substance wise it remains as written by Leslie Sacks). The article is about Denmark and the immigration challenges that they have encountered with respect to immigration by Muslims.
The article deals with the challenges of tolerance, integration, assimilation, and multiculturalism! If you have found me and read this far I would encourage you to read the article. It will not take you long...
Leslie Sacks
Denmark, long the liberal, open society that welcomed immigrants, has done an about face. After being the symbolic envy of Universalists, of Socialists, of cultural liberalism, Denmark today has the strictest immigration policy in Europe.
The Muslim population in Denmark, constituting a mere 4% of the total, refuses to integrate, consumes 40% of the welfare, and constitutes a majority of the country’s convicted rapists. The Danes now acknowledge that their core values of personal liberty, free speech, equality for women and tolerance of other ethnic groups are incompatible with Islam as they know it.
Muslim leaders openly advocate introducing Islamic law in Denmark. Danes at the forefront of advocating free speech and Western values are subject to fatwas and increasingly violent attacks from the Muslim population.
This haven of tolerance and openness has opted for survival and rationality. For citizenship, the country now requires of new immigrants:
- 3 years of language classes
- tests on Denmark’s history, culture and language
- 7 years of residency prior to application
- proven job opportunities and commitment to work
New mosques will not be allowed to be built in Copenhagen. Assimilation will be actively promoted. The country that once courageously and righteously saved their 7,000 Jews from the Nazi death camps now is accused of racism.
America is no stranger to accusations of profiling, political incorrectness and racism. Yet Muslims worldwide still beat down our doors to gain immigration status to the U.S. - they tellingly do not do likewise to the majority of UN nations habitually accusing the U.S. of racism. When did Cuba or Russia, Syria or even Saudi Arabia, those bastions of tolerance and freedom, last receive a deluge of immigrant applications?
So we in the U.S. spend our time being sued by aggressive Imams testing nervous airlines. Open season has been declared on the West by demanding Islamist organizations hoping to force the government and our municipalities to kowtow into passive submission. We now clearly need footbaths in every university restroom. We also need two taxi lines at every airport - one for those with short skirts, dogs or alcoholic beverages and one for Shari’a-compliant Americans.
Yet little spunky Denmark is showing us and everyone the way. They opened their borders and their coffers to welcome Muslims, in a show of remarkable generosity and goodwill. Now, bruised and battered by an unappreciative, increasingly fundamentalist, and sadly uncompromising Muslim community, they are closing their doors and battening down the hatches.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Leslie Sacks is an art dealer and gallerist in Los Angeles. Before that, he founded and operated Les Art International in Johannesburg, South Africa, where he was active in opposing apartheid and in supporting the Johannesburg Jewish community.
Fitna is the flavour of the month it seems and blog worthy developments just keep on coming...
MUI, the Indonesian Council of Ulemas, has decided to call for a boycott of Dutch goods in protest of the film. Interestingly, the MUI has not issued a Fatwa about this but rather has decided to make its views known through statements to the press. Two questions: "Is the film not offensive enough to warrant a Fatwa?" and "Is it true that the reason that a Fatwa was not issued was because that Fatwas issued by the MUI have no legal standing and hence a waste of time and paper?"
The MUI plays a role in assisting with policy development and to provide insight as to what religious implications there are in policy or law from the perspective of Islam. Therefore, it has an advisory function but the MUI seems to be a lightweight wanting to fight in the heavyweight division. It simply is not a constitutionally defined law making or adjudicative body.
Now, onto the main point of this blog entry, the blocking of Internet sites and bloggers. The Minister of Communication and Information in his infinite wisdom has issued a letter demanding that all Internet Service Providers (ISP) and Network Access Points (NAP) block the film Fitna in order that it cannot be downloaded by Indonesians in Indonesia.
There are a couple of points to be made here. The call to ban and block comes a little too late as the film has been released on the Internet already and those Indonesians with an interest have probably already downloaded it. Those that haven't will find that it is destined to appear on locally hosted sites that ISPs will have much more difficulty in dealing with. Furthermore, the letter left too much discretion to the imagination of ISPs and NAPs in how to deal with this.
This discretion has seen XL (Indonesian phone company - apologies link is in Indonesian) decide to ban access completely to You Tube, My Space, Meta Cafe, and Rapidshare. This is a somewhat extreme maneuver to ensure that one single film does not enter the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia. It also sets a bad precedent on which the government can capitalize on later when it want to restrict access to other objectionable material. Indonesia seems to be returning to an era of the New Order ++ where information and communication restrictions are potentially more repressive than ever.
So, anyone that relies on access to You Tube, My Space, Meta Cafe, or Rapidshare needs to find an ISP or NAP that is yet to block these sites in their entirety or as some have already done find ways of bypassing the blocks instituted by the ISP or NAP.
The current letter was issued under Article 21 of the Telecommunications Law and not the recently enacted Information and Electronic Transactions Law. However, the provisions in both are similar in the manner in which they intend to deal with issues of religious relations, harmony, gambling, threats of violence, and public order.
My understanding of the perceived powers of the Majelis Ulema Indonesia. The MUI is indeed a relic and must be preserved in the historical record but issuing fatwas against Valentine’s Day seems to be making moves in the wrong direction.
The fatwas of the MUI are not legally binding in the sense of rule of law in Indonesia, but that is to simplify to the extreme the force and weight that these fatwas carry. To use a boxing analogy the MUI punches well above its weight! However, the fatwas do not draw their strength from force of law but rather public pressures on government officials to not be labelled as being anti-Islam or bad Muslims for failure to heed the advice of the MUI as contained in the fatwa.
When you set up an organization to be the final determiner of what the Koran and haddiths say or are interpreted to say then you create a situation where you have to take the good with the not so good.
The other issue with fatwas and particularly the fatwa outlawing the beliefs of Ahmadiyah seem to be in direct contravention of the supposed provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief. Just because something diverges from the mainstream does not make it automatically wrong or even misguided. Let’s face it if the Church could have had its way we would still be learning that the earth is square and that the sun revolves around the earth.
I was not surprised that the thread degenerated quickly into which religion is the more evil or which is the right path to paradise / heaven (this posting is based on a comment I made to the above thread). Men, women, and children have killed in the name of their respective Gods for many, many, many millenia and perhaps the MUI needs to issue a fatwa that on at least one day of every year people have to come together irrespective of their relevant faiths and spread and share some love — you do not have to call it Valentine’s Day, call it an inter-faith day of tolerance and peace for all I care, but let’s move on from the hate and the blame and the mistrust!
