Monday, June 09, 2008

Protesting Heresy in Indonesia

Indonesians protest AhmadiyyaProtesters have taken to the streets of Jakarta, carrying signs, shaking their fists, and shouting angry Islamic slogans. There’s even an Indonesian version of “Rage Boy” making an appearance in media photos and video.

But it’s not the infidels who are drawing the ire of the Indonesian street. This time it’s Muslim heretics.

I’ve written previously about Ahmadiyya, an Islamic sect that is considered heretical by mainstream Islam. Perhaps it’s their non-violent doctrine which makes them such a tempting target for more orthodox Muslims.

The Ahmadis are found mainly in Pakistan, where the sect was founded in the early 20th century when the area was still part of British India. But Ahmadiyya has spread to other parts of the Muslim world, including Indonesia.

According to AsiaNews:

Thousands of Muslims take to the streets against “heretical” Ahmadiyah

Security fears grip Jakarta, where radical Islamic groups have returned to the streets calling for the disbandment and outlawing of the tiny community, following last week’s clashes between moderate and extremist Muslims over the issue of religious freedom for the Ahmadiyah.

Jakarta (AsiaNews/Agencies) — Thousands of Muslims demonstrated today outside the Presidential Palace, Central Jakarta, calling for the disbandment and outlaw of the contested Ahmadiyah in Indonesia. The fate of this tiny community (500 thousand followers) has been hotly contested for years. June first last the debate culminated in clashes between extremists from the Islamic Brotherhood Forum (FPI) and moderates from the National Alliance for Religious Freedom (Akkbb). Violence over the past few days has left 30 injured. Ahmadiyah profess themselves to be Muslim, but radical Islam considers them “heretics”.

- - - - - - - - -
Chief among the organisers of today’s protests is the fundamentalist group Hizbut Tahir Indonesia (Hti). They have been joined by members of the Ahli Sunnah wal Jamaah Muslim Alliance (Asuaja), and the Betawi Brotherhood Forum (Fbr) as well as other Islamic groups. A delegation has attempted to meet with the head of state, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

The president of the Fbr, Fadholi el Muhir, has threatened to forcibly break up the “sect”. “We ask them (Ahmadiyah supporters) to repent immediately”, threatened Muhir, adding that if the sect does not want to disband, then it should set up a new religion, separate to Islam.

Hat tip: insubria.


Western Resistance said...

Muslim riots, I would argue, are not a function of Islam in and of itself, but by the sort of people doing the rioting. It seems the worst riots, demonstrations, and atrocities are committed by lower IQ South Asians, Africans, and Arabs, from more primitive backgrounds. Having an intimate knowledge of Muslims, I can tell you the "whiter" the Muslim, the less likely he or she will riot. I know plenty of educated, Westernised Muslims who want nothing to do with the kind of people perpetrating these disturbances.

Zenster said...

Perhaps it’s their non-violent doctrine which makes them such a tempting target for more orthodox Muslims.

The Ahmadiyyas’ eschewal of terrorism does not a “non-violent doctrine” make.

Ahmadiyya beliefs mostly mirror those of Islam in general, including belief in the prophethood of Muhammad, reverence for historical prophets, belief in a single creator God (strong monotheism). They accept the Qur'an as their holy text, face the Kaaba during prayer and accept the authority of Hadiths (reported sayings of and stories about Muhammad) and practice the Sunnah.
[emphasis added]

While I am unable to locate any reliable determination upon this, recognition of the Qur’an and Hadiths opens the door for a laundry list of shari’a-based human rights abuse. That would make them rather violent in my own book, despite any peaceful interpretation of jihad. I also am curious about the Ahamadiyya stance on unescorted or uncovered women within their own societies. Again, I have little faith that they are remotely enlightened in these respects.

Therefore, jihad or not, terrorism or not, their adherence to shari’a still constitutes a total dealbreaker.

Finally! Some sort of background from a chap at JihadWatch named, Chan'ad. When directly confronted about Ahmadiyya compliance with shari'a law's less savory elements, he nimbly skirts the point by making personal observations instead of fact-based statements. Personally, it reeks of kitman. What’s more, a quick perusal of Chan’ad’s web blog shows almost nothing to indicate that he opposes shari’a law’s more barbaric practices.

If others here have more reliable information about Ahmadiyya compliance or opposition to shari’a, please comment about it. Until then, I’m obliged to think the Ahmadiyya do impose Abject Gender Apartheid and that means they're still a threat to civilization.

As you can see from this article, other Muslims are condemning the Ahmadiyya for the usual doctrinal horseradish and not anything to do with their liberal views about women. Muslim sensitivity to such issues like unveiled women is so bloated out of proportion that it would certainly be getting airtime were it true.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Looks like another round of "If you reform this religion in any way, we shall get you!"

Reactionary bastards.

The Alevi sect in Turkey, which counts millions, is much more radical in its deviation from 'true' Islam. Needless to say, the Sunni-based establishment treats them like crap.

randian said...

One wonders how much longer the ruling Alawites in Syria will be tolerated by the Sunni majority.

Fjordman said...

Saharians: You're a troll. Go troll somewhere else.

Henrik Ræder said...

Thanks, Fjordman. I second that.

no2liberals said...

Meanwhile, in Tehran, the International Conference on Islamic Unity and Wakefulness in the 21st Century
concluded last week.
That's a serious bunch of reformers.

Afonso Henriques said...


I am starting to be annoyed by oyur comments...
I think you like this site so, I will not say that you should go back to where you came from, I'll only advise you this:
Try to learn here instead of teaching.
If you believe in "white" (who's white?) superiority you should look out for the reasons of it.
If you're white and you believe in white superiority but just because "whites are superior" than that's a real not superior argument. And your logic is, according to your logic, "non-white".
It reminds me of those white supermacists (mainly in America) who believe whites (not Jews) are superior but that Jews are capable to controle whites and stuff.
If with so few numbers the Jews can controle everything, and are to blame for everything, than the superior ones must be the Jews.

Please, try to educate yourself rather than lecturing everyone around. It will be better for everybody. You will be more educated and then you will be able to lecture more people.

"Muslim riots, (...), are not a function of Islam (...), but by the sort of people doing the rioting."

Exactley. But this people are influenced by islam and influence islam as well. So it's kind of a vicious cycle.

"Having an intimate knowledge of Muslims, I can tell you the "whiter" the Muslim, the less likely he or she will riot."

Sorry folk, but there is no such thing as a white muslim. If by white you mean European, that is.
Stop with the biologisms!

But, if you would have had such an inmate knowledge of muslims, you would understand where their "whiteness" came from.
First, the Indo-European muslims had great civilisations they build as Indo-European civilisations and not as islamic civilisations like the Persians. They had created these kind of civilisations before their conversion to islam. And you can see that when they become muslims, their civilisations go back.
The Indo-European muslims: Persians, Afghans, some Pakistanis, Iranians and Indians. All of them with great pre-muslim Indo-European Civilisations. Turks from Turkey can be somehow considered in this category as well. Just like the Bosniaks...
Other "white" muslims...
The Semites! Already with great civilisations like Mesopotamia, Israel, Assur, and many others...
Also, the other "white" muslims: The Arabs. What have they done? Well, they are islam. They are the masters of muslims so I think they will never have reasons to riot. They have the inferior non-Arabs to do that.

Than we have North Africans and Egyptians. The last ones had a great Civilisation that was destroyed when they converted. The others can be seen as more civilised because Marrocans, Algerians, Tunisians and Lybians had traditionally been well with islam, rading Europe and conquering the Iberian Peninsula. They do not have reasons to riot. Also, the Algeians had 3 million French there to civilise them.

As you can see. It's not the whiter the muslim, it is the more civilised and adopted the muslim is to islam... what usually correspond with lighter skin among the muslim spectre. And curiosity with Indo-Europeanism, or should I say, Persianism.

Also, I have the idea that high class muslims would always prefer a "white-European" or Arab wife to mmother their children... and I also suspect this is not recent.

Ex: In the IX century Iberia, the Northern Christian Kingdoms had to pay a tributte of x women to the muslims. I have no knowledge of the opposite has happened. Another case, in 711 when the muslims conquered the Visigothic Kingdom, some muslims took the Visigothic queens and princesses they could as wife, as our own Queen, the wife of the King Roderico, killed in battle against the muslim who would marry his widow.

Typical muslim behaviour...

Afonso Henriques said...


"Perhaps it’s their non-violent doctrine which makes them such a tempting target for more orthodox Muslims."

All muslim is peacfull, according to muslims.

The problem is that this sect is not real muslim and as so should not ostentate the name "muslim".

(They are not muslims because they are not recognized by other muslims as such.)

The Protestants did not claim to be Catholic did they?

They had to use a wider term like Christianity. This ones can call themselves "Mohammedians".

davod said...

"Muslim riots, I would argue, are not a function of Islam in and of itself, but by the sort of people doing the rioting.

Sorry: Muslims don't take a dump without being told what to do (Adjusted phrase from "The Hunt for Red October").

Do you think the riots about the cartoons and naming teddy Mohammed were self generated.

Their Imams tell them its God's will that they do this.

Zenster said...

Afonso Henriques: This ones can call themselves "Mohammedians".

According to a very well-versed individual I once met, most Muslims now reject the term "Mohammedan" as being idoltarous. Allah is their central object of worship and not the prophet (may bees pee upon him) himself.

Afonso Henriques said...

Thank you Zenster, maybe they can call themselves Alhaists or Alafidelfolowers.

Diamed said...

I think violent, dumb people come up with violent, dumb beliefs and/or like and embrace violent, dumb beliefs when they hear about them.

Then they practice their violent, dumb beliefs because they enjoy doing so, because it fits them like a tailored suit.

Note how blacks in America took to Islam like peas in a pod, but it has relatively zero proselytizing power over whites in America. The Nation of Islam is millions strong because Islam is dumb, hateful, and violent. Just like rap lyrics are dumb, hateful, and violent--so blacks enjoy them and believe them.

Now, this is a generalization, I am simply describing a pattern, not marking out individuals. But this logic can easily extend elsewhere. Why did the middle east come up with Islam, why did south america come up with evil human sacrificing blood gods? It's not like cultures just fall out of the sky and you Have to adopt them. Violent, dumb beliefs thrive among violent, dumb people. They are rejected by peaceful, intelligent people. China, Europe, India, Japan's religions were never as bloodthirsty or warlike as these. People accept the religions that feel most natural to them, that they agree with and like following. Then people go on being dumb and violent, but this time with divine sanction. If we ever did somehow stomp out Islam and burn the last Quran, I'll give it fifty years before the same warlike arabs come out with a new prophet teaching some new version of idiocy, hate, and violence.

randian said...

Muhammad is a far more central figure in Islam than Allah is. Given the fanatical, unthinking devotion Muslims offer Muhammad their claim he isn't an object of worship doesn't hold much water in my mind. Then again, Muslims are expert at holding contradictory things to be true (such as "we are a religion of peace, and if you don't say so we'll kill you").

Zenster said...

randian: Muhammad is a far more central figure in Islam than Allah is. Given the fanatical, unthinking devotion Muslims offer Muhammad their claim he isn't an object of worship doesn't hold much water in my mind. Then again, Muslims are expert at holding contradictory things to be true ...

There can be no arguing that Muslim adoration of Mohammed (may bees pee upon him), goes right off of the scale. After all, the prophet (mbpuh), is held up to the world as a perfect model for the entirety of mankind.

Given the obviously limited imagination of your average Muslim, it stands to reason that taqlid, as in: "blind and unquestioning imitation in action or belief", would be a totally expectable response.

In fact, it was taqlid that was advanced in favor of ijtihad—individual interpretation and reasoning based on the sacred texts—due to concerns that independent-minded but less educated Muslim laypeople would feel qualified to derive their own meanings from the Koran and haditha, thereby causing all sorts of doctrinal headaches.

This is much like the fatwa-mania that we see today where any ignoramus cleric can issue forth edicts ranging from murdering errant authors like Salman Rushdie to sanctifying adult Muslims males nursing from young mothers.

Taqlid was employed to trap Islam in amber for all time. Without any recourse to personal analysis, only robotic imitation and rote memorization were allowed. Mohammed (mbpuh) was a far more convenient role model than Allah and thus became the de facto standard. Furthermore, one can be quite certain that closing the door to ijtihad was much favored by Islam's elite as they had come to realize how immensely lucrative the entrenched structure of zakat and general tyranny conferred many benefits that might be threatened by any subsequent reinterpretation of Koranic doctrine.

And that's how marrying preadolescent girls became a revered practice in Islam.

Artfldgr said...

I will be in Indonesia all of next month... it should be interesting/scary.

we will be all over... since we will be visiting my wifes family i will not be in the "tourist" places much.