Jakarta’s Chinese Christian governor, Ahok, was jailed for blasphemy. His ‘crime’ was to argue that Islam does not forbid Muslims from voting for him, referring to verse Al-Maidah 51 of the Quran. This was in response to a widespread movement calling on Muslims to vote him out in the name of Islam. Many people argued the opposite – that Islam does forbid Muslims from voting for a non-Muslim (also referring to Al-Maidah 51). None of them were jailed for blasphemy.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/748B/production/_92253892_mediaitem92253891.jpg

I cannot tell which, but Gandalf is either blind to what is going on or actively trying to conceal it. This is peculiar, given that it is his style of interpreting Islam that is being targeted by Indonesian blasphemy laws. He claims to be a progressive Muslim, but apologises for the extremists at every opportunity. Indonesian law is blatantly and consistently targeting one side of the debate about Islam in Indonesia. This will inevitably shape public debate and opinion about Islam, in the opposite direction to that which Gandalf claims he wishes to steer it, but Gandalf still attempts to project his fantasy of a “free marketplace of ideas” onto Indonesia.

One of the arguments he has put forward was that this was a politically motivated jailing. Islam, however is a political movement. Muhammad was a political, religious and military leader, who was also fond of imposing Islam on people against their will. Thus, what is happening in Indonesia is not out of place in the history of Islam. I am not sure how this argument is supposed to work. Being politically motivated does not mean it is not happening, and a blasphemy law is inevitably going to be politically charged. Perhaps that is why Gandalf moved on without explaining.

He flipped between a variety of other arguments, most of them resting on misrepresenting what I say. For example, he claimed that my argument was that existence of a blasphemy law alone (ie, in the absence of enforcement) was undermining freedom of speech and steering public debate. He also claimed that my argument was that the jailing of Ahok alone was doing the same. He tried various versions of this theme – taking a single statement of mine and falsely claiming it was the entirety of my argument. Yet even when he misrepresented my argument this way, he was still unable to counter it. Indonesia jails a lot of people for blasphemy, as Gandalf’s own evidence demonstrates.


polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 19^th, 2019 at 11:55am:

23 people in 4 years, 125 in the previous decade...

In addition, there were three colossal rallies calling for Ahok's jailing for insulting Islam. This is not just a legal or top-down political action. It is backed by a grass-roots support base, though that support base is no doubt reinforced by the way public debate on Islam has been steered. Indonesia is headed towards a dark place, and even the ‘progressive’ Muslims blind themselves to the reality.

Most recently, Gandalf changed tactic again and tried to argue that the Islamists are also being jailed for what they say about Islam. Again, this relies on a misrepresentation. None have been jailed for blasphemy, but they have been jailed for encouraging violence, hate speech, etc. Gandalf has attempted (but failed) to misrepresent this as being jailed for what they say about Islam. We are still waiting for him to provide an example that is not based on his paraphrasing of what they said and misrepresentation of what was done.


freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2019 at 7:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 8th, 2019 at 11:37am: freediver wrote on May 7th, 2019 at 9:46pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 12:02pm: Here you go FD, the full quote: freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 9:49am: You seem completely oblivious to what is going on here Gandalf. Islamic extremists in Indonesia can say whatever they want. People who offer progressive interpretations of Islam get put in jail, very publicly. The government is transparently steering debate about Islam in Indonesia towards the extreme, and you are cheering them on. The reality: - Indonesia extremists are routinely charged and gaoled for what they say about Islam - under the charge of "hate speech". - Islamist groups including Hizbut tahrir are banned for what they say about Islam - The government therefore is transparently steering debate about Islam in Indonesia away from the extreme Can you give an example? I have given you several already. Here's just one: Quote: Musician Ahmad Dhani was sentenced to 18 months in prison by South Jakarta District Court on Monday for hate speech in connection with a tweet he posted in March that incited people to attack supporters of former Jakarta governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, who now prefers to be called “BTP” but who was formerly known as “Ahok”. https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/01/28/ahmad-dhani-gets-18-months-for-insulting-ahok-supporters.html Also, do you think that he fact that Hizbut tahrir - a known Islamist political group - is banned in Indonesia is consistent with your claim that "Islamic extremists in Indonesia can say whatever they want"? What did he say about Islam?

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2019 at 12:46pm:

Quote: He said people supporting blasphemers should be spat on. That doesn't sound like he is saying anything about Islam. Can you give any actual examples?

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2019 at 8:47pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 3:33pm: This is where we are at. FD says that an Islamist calling blasphemers to be spat on - "doesn't sound like he is saying anything about Islam". Where do you go after that? There really isn't any adequate response. We have arrived at peak stupid, and it is simply pointless to continue. I won't even bother chasing FD up for his continued dodging of my Hizbut tahrir question. I won't ask him a 3rd time. What did he actually say Gandalf?

Some previous discussions:

Indonesia - don't vote infidel

Jailed for Blasphemy Indonesia - Indonesian Buddhist woman's blasphemy conviction upheld

Where is, the 'exemplar' moslem majority nation ?

If you care, PAY ATTENTION, to what they say

Islam is unreformable. Never ever.

When superstition becomes law.

Jakarta Governor questioned by police

Islam strangled western civilisation

Ahok lost election

Islam greatest threat to freedom and democracy

Rally against blasphemy - According to the ABC half a million Indonesian Muslims turned up to the second "let's destroy freedom in the name of Islam" sermon.

spineless apologetics

Sharia Law in Aceh

Caning in Aceh increasing

FD do you consider banning Islamist groups like Hizb ut tahrir is Indonesian law spreading Islamism?

Funny I mentioned this ban about 5 times in the other thread and you avoided it every time.

It is an attempt to contain non-state-sanctioned violence. It is not an attempt to contain Islamic extremism. You tried to pass it off as punishing them for what they say about Islam.

Thats funny because Hizb ut tahrir are strictly non-violent.

So if its not for violence, and apparently its definitely not for what they say about Islam - why do you think they were banned?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 17^th, 2019 at 2:22pm:

Thats funny because Hizb ut tahrir are strictly non-violent. So if its not for violence, and apparently its definitely not for what they say about Islam - why do you think they were banned?

Oh look, a Muslim lying about Jihad.

::)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir#Jihad

HT texts define Jihad as "war undertaken for the sake of Allah (swt) to raise high His (swt)[Note 23] word" and requiring an army (Institutions of State in the Khilafah).[143][144] They declare the necessity of jihad so that Da'wah will be carried "to all mankind" and will "bring them into the Khilafah state," and the importance of declaring "Jihad against the Kuffar without any lenience or hesitation;" (Ummah's Charter),[125][145] as well as the need to fight unbelievers who refuse to be ruled by Islam, even if they pay tribute (The Islamic Personality).

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2019 at 3:51pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 17th, 2019 at 2:22pm: Thats funny because Hizb ut tahrir are strictly non-violent. So if its not for violence, and apparently its definitely not for what they say about Islam - why do you think they were banned? Oh look, a Muslim lying about Jihad. ::) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir#Jihad HT texts define Jihad as "war undertaken for the sake of Allah (swt) to raise high His (swt)[Note 23] word" and requiring an army (Institutions of State in the Khilafah).[143][144] They declare the necessity of jihad so that Da'wah will be carried "to all mankind" and will "bring them into the Khilafah state," and the importance of declaring "Jihad against the Kuffar without any lenience or hesitation;" (Ummah's Charter),[125][145] as well as the need to fight unbelievers who refuse to be ruled by Islam, even if they pay tribute (The Islamic Personality).

That's, not news!     :(






Quote:

“Peace and love are at the center of our religion, as evidenced by scripture and history,...”

- Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah
CITED... https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/uae-forum-promotes-dubious-islamic-peace





.





IMAGE...
http://www.think-israel.org/jan12pix/sheikh.yassir.al-burhami.jpg

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami



Quote:

How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior January 18, 2012 Preach Peace When Weak, Wage War When Strong "...all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance. When Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive."

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami - an ISLAMIC scholar and Egyptian Salafi leader
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior/



.



DECEIT;


Quote:

A Study in Muslim Doctrine "...while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden, insincere friendship - whenever beneficial to Muslims - is not."

http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2019 at 3:51pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 17th, 2019 at 2:22pm: Thats funny because Hizb ut tahrir are strictly non-violent. So if its not for violence, and apparently its definitely not for what they say about Islam - why do you think they were banned? Oh look, a Muslim lying about Jihad. ::) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir#Jihad HT texts define Jihad as "war undertaken for the sake of Allah (swt) to raise high His (swt)[Note 23] word" and requiring an army (Institutions of State in the Khilafah).[143][144] They declare the necessity of jihad so that Da'wah will be carried "to all mankind" and will "bring them into the Khilafah state," and the importance of declaring "Jihad against the Kuffar without any lenience or hesitation;" (Ummah's Charter),[125][145] as well as the need to fight unbelievers who refuse to be ruled by Islam, even if they pay tribute (The Islamic Personality).

I didn't mention Jihad FD, I mentioned Hizb ut Tahrir and their rejection of violence.

Can you produce any shred of evidence that they were banned because of their threat of violence (despite renouncing violence) - or are you going to make another brilliant attempt at deductive reasoning?

Meanwhile, here's some actual evidence to ponder:


Quote:

Hizb ut-Tahrir was banned in Indonesia on the basis of a 2017 presidential decree that gives the government powers to disband groups deemed a threat to national unity. The ruling on Monday upheld that decision, with the judicial panel stating that the government had acted according to procedure and Hizb ut-Tahrir runs counter to Indonesia’s state ideology.

...


Quote:

Elliott said the group, which has been banned in several other countries, was an easier target than some Indonesian organisations that have a demonstrated pattern of violence. The decision to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, he said, could backfire. “HTI was unique in that it strictly adhered to a policy of non-violence, so now there is a risk of these 10,000 former members saying, ‘OK, well we were a legal mass organisation, we played by the rules and that didn’t work.’ So some of them could gravitate towards violence,” Elliott said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/07/indonesia-jakarta-court-rejects-hizb-ut-tahrir-attempt-to-reverse-ban

FD could you explain the logic of potentially provoking a previously non-violent organisation to resort to violence - when your main concern was to stop violence from them in the first place?

Is the wikipedia article wrong Gandalf?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 2:16pm:

freediver wrote on May 18th, 2019 at 3:51pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 17th, 2019 at 2:22pm: Thats funny because Hizb ut tahrir are strictly non-violent. So if its not for violence, and apparently its definitely not for what they say about Islam - why do you think they were banned? Oh look, a Muslim lying about Jihad. ::) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir#Jihad HT texts define Jihad as "war undertaken for the sake of Allah (swt) to raise high His (swt)[Note 23] word" and requiring an army (Institutions of State in the Khilafah).[143][144] They declare the necessity of jihad so that Da'wah will be carried "to all mankind" and will "bring them into the Khilafah state," and the importance of declaring "Jihad against the Kuffar without any lenience or hesitation;" (Ummah's Charter),[125][145] as well as the need to fight unbelievers who refuse to be ruled by Islam, even if they pay tribute (The Islamic Personality). I didn't mention Jihad FD, I mentioned Hizb ut Tahrir and their rejection of violence. Can you produce any shred of evidence that they were banned because of their threat of violence (despite renouncing violence) - or are you going to make another brilliant attempt at deductive reasoning? Meanwhile, here's some actual evidence to ponder: Quote: Hizb ut-Tahrir was banned in Indonesia on the basis of a 2017 presidential decree that gives the government powers to disband groups deemed a threat to national unity. The ruling on Monday upheld that decision, with the judicial panel stating that the government had acted according to procedure and Hizb ut-Tahrir runs counter to Indonesia’s state ideology. ... [quote]Elliott said the group, which has been banned in several other countries, was an easier target than some Indonesian organisations that have a demonstrated pattern of violence. The decision to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, he said, could backfire. “HTI was unique in that it strictly adhered to a policy of non-violence, so now there is a risk of these 10,000 former members saying, ‘OK, well we were a legal mass organisation, we played by the rules and that didn’t work.’ So some of them could gravitate towards violence,” Elliott said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/07/indonesia-jakarta-court-rejects-hizb-ut-tahrir-attempt-to-reverse-ban

FD could you explain the logic of potentially provoking a previously non-violent organisation to resort to violence - when your main concern was to stop violence from them in the first place?
[/quote]

And their leader is a dirty Pakistani Bastard:


Quote:

Wahid has a well-organised mind, perhaps in part the product of his upbringing. His own family came to the UK from Pakistan. His father worked as a travel agent and made many sacrifices to send his son to Merchant Taylors’, a private school in north London. He also understands Britain, and the contradictions embedded in the British identity, uncomfortably well. He is widely read, too. Before I leave, I look at the books on the wall. There is the collection of commentaries on the Qur’an by Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood theorist who has executed in Egypt by Nasser in 1966, and became (in part through Ayman al-Zawahiri) one of the inspirations for al-Qaida. Kissinger’s Diplomacy is there, as is Niall Ferguson’s Empire and Robert Peston’s Who Runs Britain?, alongside Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill and Ibn Khaldun’s masterpiece Al Muqaddimah: “It’s a very good book. I actually got it when I was working in obstetrics, and there is a chapter on midwifery which is fantastic.” A man’s bookshelves can hardly be said to define him. All the same, they do teach an ironic lesson about the range of allowable voices. You can say many things about Wahid, and be appalled by much of what he says. But in a democracy he surely has the right to say it. Whatever the government thinks.

University of Balogney, innit.

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 9:37pm:

Is the wikipedia article wrong Gandalf?

You quoted a wiki article about jihad FD, how the firetruck does that validate what you say about Hizb ut tahrir and why they were banned? And how does it show that I'm a liar?

It was from the wikipedia article on HT Gandalf.

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 7:10pm:

It was from the wikipedia article on HT Gandalf.

ok.

And you cherry picked it.

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2019 at 12:57pm:

It is an attempt to contain non-state-sanctioned violence. It is not an attempt to contain Islamic extremism. You tried to pass it off as punishing them for what they say about Islam.

Come to think of it FD, if HUT haven't actually carried out any violence (and I see no evidence that they have), how do you think the government found out they were a violent threat?

Do you think maybe it was because of what they said?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 23^rd, 2019 at 11:40am:

freediver wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:10pm: It was from the wikipedia article on HT Gandalf. ok. And you cherry picked it.

Are you accusing me of quoting the relevant part Gandalf?

Would you like to retract your claim about HT being strictly non-violent?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 17^th, 2019 at 2:22pm:

Thats funny because Hizb ut tahrir are strictly non-violent. So if its not for violence, and apparently its definitely not for what they say about Islam - why do you think they were banned?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 2:16pm:

freediver wrote on May 18th, 2019 at 3:51pm: Oh look, a Muslim lying about Jihad. ::) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir#Jihad HT texts define Jihad as "war undertaken for the sake of Allah (swt) to raise high His (swt)[Note 23] word" and requiring an army (Institutions of State in the Khilafah).[143][144] They declare the necessity of jihad so that Da'wah will be carried "to all mankind" and will "bring them into the Khilafah state," and the importance of declaring "Jihad against the Kuffar without any lenience or hesitation;" (Ummah's Charter),[125][145] as well as the need to fight unbelievers who refuse to be ruled by Islam, even if they pay tribute (The Islamic Personality). I didn't mention Jihad FD, I mentioned Hizb ut Tahrir and their rejection of violence.

gandalf,

Is it at all possible,           that whenever the moslem addresses non-moslem queries/questions, about the moslem religion,
that the moslem will tell non-moslems a pack of lies,
and tell non-moslems that,      'real ISLAM' is a tolerant and non-violent religion ?
....because it is in the 'practical' interest of the moslems to tell those lies ?



.



EXAMPLE, THE DOCTRINE OF DECEIT OF MOSLEMS;


A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing.


Quote:

Inside the sect that loves terror August 07, 2005 ......In public interviews         Bakri condemned the killing of all innocent civilians. Later when he addressed his own followers he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: “Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar.”

these are old links, but the article is kosher.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html
another source, "Undercover in the academy of hatred"...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1458729/posts




.




EXAMPLE, THE DOCTRINE OF DECEIT OF MOSLEMS;

IMAGE...
http://www.think-israel.org/jan12pix/sheikh.yassir.al-burhami.jpg

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami



Quote:

How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior January 18, 2012 Preach Peace When Weak, Wage War When Strong "...all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance. When Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive."

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami - an ISLAMIC scholar and Egyptian Salafi leader
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior/



.




EXAMPLE, THE DOCTRINE OF DECEIT OF MOSLEMS;


Quote:

Live in peace till strong enough to wage jihad, says UK Deoband scholar to Muslims London, Sept.8 [2007] A Deobandi scholar believes Muslims should preach peace till they are strong enough to undertake a jihad, or a holy war. Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani was quoted by the BBC as saying that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle. A former Sharia judge in Pakistan's Supreme Court, 64-year-old Usmani, is...a regular visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken.... He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire non-Muslim world was intent on destroying Islam, but justifies an aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece




.





EXAMPLE, THE DOCTRINE OF DECEIT OF MOSLEMS;


Quote:

A Study in Muslim Doctrine "...while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden, insincere friendship - whenever beneficial to Muslims - is not."

http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine




.




EXAMPLE, THE DOCTRINE OF DECEIT OF MOSLEMS;

WWW search....
we smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"




.




EXAMPLE, THE DOCTRINE OF DECEIT OF MOSLEMS;


IMAGE.....
https://media.apnarm.net.au/media/images/2017/11/07/b881068575z1_20171107205225_000ge0rs2e22-0-ng9i021y6asqs5118p2_fct2507x1880_ct460x345.jpg

Ali Kadri - Islamic Council of Queensland vice-president,
features in The Mosque Next Door on SBS.




Quote:

"There's no underlying religious text or reasons why [moslems] go out and kill people......"

- Ali Kadri
------- >
https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/we-wont-stop-terrorist-attacks-by-blaming-islam/3259588/

freediver wrote on May 24^th, 2019 at 5:38am:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 23rd, 2019 at 11:40am: freediver wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:10pm: It was from the wikipedia article on HT Gandalf. ok. And you cherry picked it. Are you accusing me of quoting the relevant part Gandalf? Would you like to retract your claim about HT being strictly non-violent?

"non-violent" means what they do FD, not what they state in a manifesto. Of  course citing what HUT says about violence as your explanation for why Indonesia banned makes it awkward for you given your previous insistence that Indoensian Islamists can "say whatever they want".

The Indonesian arm of HUT is demonstrably non-violent. Unless you can cite some evidence to the contrary, I'm sticking with that.

So how do you think the Indonesian government figures they are a violent threat FD? If not for actual violent activity, what other indication could they give other than what they say?

Are you standing by your statement that Indonesian islamists can say whatever they want?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 24^th, 2019 at 9:25am:

freediver wrote on May 24th, 2019 at 5:38am: polite_gandalf wrote on May 23rd, 2019 at 11:40am: freediver wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:10pm: It was from the wikipedia article on HT Gandalf. ok. And you cherry picked it. Are you accusing me of quoting the relevant part Gandalf? Would you like to retract your claim about HT being strictly non-violent? "non-violent" means what they do FD, not what they state in a manifesto. Of  course citing what HUT says about violence as your explanation for why Indonesia banned makes it awkward for you given your previous insistence that Indoensian Islamists can "say whatever they want". The Indonesian arm of HUT is demonstrably non-violent. Unless you can cite some evidence to the contrary, I'm sticking with that. So how do you think the Indonesian government figures they are a violent threat FD? If not for actual violent activity, what other indication could they give other than what they say? Are you standing by your statement that Indonesian islamists can say whatever they want?

FD believes in Freeeeedom, G.

We have the Freeeeedom to shut these people up.

Right now 24/5/19 Indonesia is showing us how peaceful and law abiding muslims are.

Concrete and barbed wire blockades thousands of riot police etc..

People are dying on the streets because the highest grade of muslims will not accept the election results, once again muzzies slaughtering mussies.

Oh the fruits of islam are so sweet.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 24^th, 2019 at 9:25am:

freediver wrote on May 24th, 2019 at 5:38am: polite_gandalf wrote on May 23rd, 2019 at 11:40am: freediver wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:10pm: It was from the wikipedia article on HT Gandalf. ok. And you cherry picked it. Are you accusing me of quoting the relevant part Gandalf? Would you like to retract your claim about HT being strictly non-violent? "non-violent" means what they do FD, not what they state in a manifesto. Of  course citing what HUT says about violence as your explanation for why Indonesia banned makes it awkward for you given your previous insistence that Indoensian Islamists can "say whatever they want". The Indonesian arm of HUT is demonstrably non-violent. Unless you can cite some evidence to the contrary, I'm sticking with that. So how do you think the Indonesian government figures they are a violent threat FD? If not for actual violent activity, what other indication could they give other than what they say? Are you standing by your statement that Indonesian islamists can say whatever they want?

Gandalf, when Muslims describe themselves as non-violent, should we interpret that as not necessarily excluding the view that war is necessary to establish an Islamic state, support for jihad against the kafir without any hesitation, and the need to fight any kafir that refuses to be ruled by Islam?

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2019 at 8:37am:

Gandalf, when Muslims describe themselves as non-violent, should we interpret that as not necessarily excluding the view that war is necessary to establish an Islamic state, support for jihad against the kafir without any hesitation, and the need to fight any kafir that refuses to be ruled by Islam?

What I think is that the Indonesian government interpreted HUT's talk about jihad and the caliphate as a threat of non-state sanctioned violence, and banned them accordingly. And I think you agree.

In which case we seem to both agree that HUT got banned for what they say. Yes?

So at this stage are you considering revising your bold claim that Indonesian Islamists can say whatever they like?

Elections spark deadly riots in Jakarta

Indonesia's security minister said Wednesday authorities would block social media in some areas amid deadly riots over the official election result in Jakarta, AP reports.

Jakarta's governor told a press conference earlier riots in Indonesia's capital left at least 6 people dead and 200 wounded, per Channel News Asia.

Demonstrators took to the streets of Jakarta after sitting Indonesian President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo was declared the winner of April's election by a double-digit margin. Police said they had arrested at least 20 people, according to Reuters.

6 dead and 200 wounded just because the islamists didn't win the election.

Ah yes so peaceful is islam.

Ahok can tell you.

moses wrote on May 28^th, 2019 at 2:27pm:

the islamists didn't win the election

That can't be right.

I'm always being told what an Islamist shithole Indonesia is.

Shurely shome mishtake.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 28^th, 2019 at 2:43pm:

moses wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 2:27pm: the islamists didn't win the election That can't be right. I'm always being told what an Islamist shithole Indonesia is.

Both sides are for Islam  >>> sh!tholery.

Oh look FD's run away from my question and started a new thread.

Gandalf described Hizb ut tahrir as "strictly non-violent", despite their core policy of needing unhesitating jihad against the kafir and the overthrow of governments to create an Islamic state. Apparently Muslims can describe a group this way on the basis that they have either not been caught yet or are waiting until the right time to start the slaughter - ie when they are in a position to win.


freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2019 at 3:51pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 17th, 2019 at 2:22pm: Thats funny because Hizb ut tahrir are strictly non-violent. So if its not for violence, and apparently its definitely not for what they say about Islam - why do you think they were banned? Oh look, a Muslim lying about Jihad. ::) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir#Jihad HT texts define Jihad as "war undertaken for the sake of Allah (swt) to raise high His (swt)[Note 23] word" and requiring an army (Institutions of State in the Khilafah).[143][144] They declare the necessity of jihad so that Da'wah will be carried "to all mankind" and will "bring them into the Khilafah state," and the importance of declaring "Jihad against the Kuffar without any lenience or hesitation;" (Ummah's Charter),[125][145] as well as the need to fight unbelievers who refuse to be ruled by Islam, even if they pay tribute (The Islamic Personality).

I gave Gandalf plenty of opportunities to retract the statement, but he is sticking by it.


Quote:

I didn't mention Jihad FD, I mentioned Hizb ut Tahrir and their rejection of violence. Can you produce any shred of evidence that they were banned because of their threat of violence (despite renouncing violence) - or are you going to make another brilliant attempt at deductive reasoning? Meanwhile, here's some actual evidence to ponder:

Quote:

FD could you explain the logic of potentially provoking a previously non-violent organisation to resort to violence - when your main concern was to stop violence from them in the first place?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 23^rd, 2019 at 11:40am:

freediver wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:10pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 2:13pm: freediver wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 9:37pm: Is the wikipedia article wrong Gandalf? You quoted a wiki article about jihad FD, how the firetruck does that validate what you say about Hizb ut tahrir and why they were banned? And how does it show that I'm a liar? It was from the wikipedia article on HT Gandalf. ok. And you cherry picked it.

freediver wrote on May 24^th, 2019 at 5:38am:

Would you like to retract your claim about HT being strictly non-violent?

Quote:

"non-violent" means what they do FD, not what they state in a manifesto.

Quote:

The Indonesian arm of HUT is demonstrably non-violent.

I've moved FD's deflection thread back to where it belongs.

Maybe one day FD will finally learn that I don't want multiple threads on the same topic.

Also, answer my question please.

Is HUT being banned for what they say?

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2019 at 5:45pm:

Gandalf described Hizb ut tahrir as "strictly non-violent", despite their core policy of needing unhesitating jihad against the kafir....

Time and time again, we have heard moslems who are in living Australia, particularly members of Hizb ut tahrir,
.....declare that they want to make Australia into a state governed by ISLAMIC law!



.





Quote:

Herman Johnson • May 31, 2017 at 19:37 When are you infidels going to realize that the Muslims are not here only seeking refuge, they are also on a Hijrah: to emigrate in the cause of Allah. That is to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act.

In Reader Comments.....
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10356/immigrants-tyranny


WWW search....
Hijrah, emigrate in the cause of Allah, jihad





IMAGE.....
http://mylondondiary.co.uk/2013/11/29/20131129-d430.jpg


Moslems are not in Australia, to be equal with non-moslems.

Moslems do not come to Australia, to share our freedoms and our system of justice, and to share our peaceful society.

Moslems come to Australia to bring the authority of ISLAM, to us.

Moslems come to Australia to impose the authority of ISLAM upon us - by persuasion [deceit], OR, by force.



.



The ISLAMIC modus;

Emigrate to an infidel state.

Live there, and do all you can to weaken and to wreck the infidel state.

When the infidel state is sufficiently weakened, a [violent] ISLAMIC revolution will be fomented.

And this is the modus, of the 'peaceful' moslems who live among us, within our own nation.


Example of this modus, in the UK....


Quote:

Inside the sect that loves terror .....They are so opposed to the British state that they see it as their duty to make no economic contribution to the nation. One member warned our undercover reporter against getting a job because it would be contributing to the kuffar (non-Muslim) system. Instead, the young follower, Nasser, who receives £44 job seekers’ allowance a week, said it was permissible to “live off benefits”, just as the prophet Mohammed had lived off the state while attacking it at the same time. Even paying car insurance was seen as supporting the system. “All the (Saviour Sect) brothers drive without insurance,” he said.

cited.....http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1528078086/51#51


An Aussie example of moslems abusing, to weaken and to wreck the infidel state....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1532386735/0#0


More Aussie examples, of moslems abusing, to weaken and to wreck the infidel state,
ONE FEATURES THE 'CAT MEAT' MUFTI CHEATING AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYERS....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1445915815/0#0




n.b.
All of this criminal activity [by our laws],       IS LAWFUL TO A MOSLEM [ISLAMIC law].
...because the moslem is doing 'injury' to the enemies of Allah.



.



Should we infidels just surrender to the moslem armies [i.e. to the Jihadists among us] ?

And surrender to the mercy of 'peaceful' moslem intents ?



.




Quote:

Pakistani cleric: 'We want Islamic law for all Pakistan and then the world. We would like to do this by preaching. But if not then we would use force.'

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/pakistani-cleric-we-want-islamic-law-for-all-pakistan-and-then-the-world-we-would-like-to-do-this-by.html



.




Quote:

Creed of the sword September 23, 2006 ...the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh. ...Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric also explained[/u].....THE THIRD OPTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST NON-MUSLIMS WAS ONLY A LAST RESORT, IF THEY REFUSED TO CONVERT OR SURRENDER PEACEFULLY TO THE ARMIES OF ISLAM. ...The resulting doctrine of war was described by the great medieval philosopher Ibn Khaldun: "[u]In the Muslim community, the holy war (jihad) is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and the (obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." (The Muqaddimah)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/creed-of-the-sword/story-e6frg6n6-1111112254761

Oh FD, you've been online this morning busily answering every post I made - except in this thread. You even went to the trouble of starting a new thread to deflect it.

You have made an excellent case for the notion that HUT was banned for what they say - apparently without even realising it.

Do you think in hindsight it was pretty dumb to assert that Indonesian islamists can "say whatever they want"?

Do me one thing at least FD, as long as you keep running away from this question and starting new threads to deflect from it, try not to be a hypocrite and come out with any more quips like "it would be nice to get a straight answer from a muslim" - ok?

I apologise for being distracted by a Muslim once more telling blatant lies about jihad.

Their core mission is to overthrow the government Gandalf. I expect that is why they were banned. I grant you that they were banned prior to actually attempting to overthrow the government, but it is a long bow from there to claim they were banned for what they said about Islam.

Which is of course why you never actually demonstrated that they were banned because of what they said about Islam. BTW, seeing as you are struggling so much with logic, merely demonstrating that they were banned and that they also interpret Islam is not a demonstration that that  was the reason for their ban. It makes no more sense than pointing out that they eat corn flakes for breakfast and then claiming that was the reason for their ban.

We have a clear example of Ahok being jailed for what he said about Islam. The Indonesian government does that for people who offer a positive interpretation of Islam - similar to yours. But it does not do this for the Islamic extremists. Yet your religion compels you to ignore the blatant double standard and actually defend the shift towards Islamic extremism. That's what Islam is.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 10:08am:

Which is of course why you never actually demonstrated that they were banned because of what they said about Islam. BTW, seeing as you are struggling so much with logic, merely demonstrating that they were banned and that they also interpret Islam is not a demonstration that that  was the reason for their ban. It makes no more sense than pointing out that they eat corn flakes for breakfast and then claiming that was the reason for their ban.

You didn't say they can say whatever they like about Islam FD, you said


freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2019 at 9:49am:

Islamic extremists in Indonesia can say whatever they want.

I take it you no longer stand by this. Good.

Also, you made it very clear why you think they were banned - for wanting jihad and establishing the caliphate. You even quoted their position on jihad, and how threatening it must be to the state. This was not an unrelated 'by the way' thing, akin to them eating cornflakes for breakfast - it was an obvious causal link. No one is trying to draw a link between eating cornflakes and posing a violent threat to the state. However the same can't be said for their position on violently overthrowing the state. That should be pretty obvious I would have thought.

Now you are trying to tell me that talk of jihad and caliphates and how to violently carry them out isn't talk about Islam. To which there is no sensible response.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 10:08am:

Their core mission is to overthrow the government Gandalf.

Yes, but definitely doesn't involve them saying anything about Islam - eh FD?

Quote:

Also, you made it very clear why you think they were banned - for wanting jihad and establishing the caliphate.

Perhaps you should quote what I actually said.

I see FD, so you just quoted that wiki article for no reason at all then.

I quoted it to demonstrate that you were lying about jihad.


freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2019 at 3:51pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 17th, 2019 at 2:22pm: Thats funny because Hizb ut tahrir are strictly non-violent. So if its not for violence, and apparently its definitely not for what they say about Islam - why do you think they were banned? Oh look, a Muslim lying about Jihad. ::) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir#Jihad HT texts define Jihad as "war undertaken for the sake of Allah (swt) to raise high His (swt)[Note 23] word" and requiring an army (Institutions of State in the Khilafah).[143][144] They declare the necessity of jihad so that Da'wah will be carried "to all mankind" and will "bring them into the Khilafah state," and the importance of declaring "Jihad against the Kuffar without any lenience or hesitation;" (Ummah's Charter),[125][145] as well as the need to fight unbelievers who refuse to be ruled by Islam, even if they pay tribute (The Islamic Personality).

gandi wrote:Reply #22 - Yesterday at 2:43pm


Quote:

That can't be right. I'm always being told what an Islamist shithole Indonesia is.

It's certainly not up there with the more modern societies is it?

I mean what do you call a place where the muslims who lose the election riot to the degree that 6 people die and 200 are wounded?

What do you call a place where a bloke (Ahok) is jailed for 2 years for blasphemy, because he had the impudence to say the qur'an allows muslims to vote for a non muslim?

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 11:34am:

Quote: Also, you made it very clear why you think they were banned - for wanting jihad and establishing the caliphate. Perhaps you should quote what I actually said.

"Mindless collective, no individuality whatsoever, so unfair."

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 1:34pm:

I quoted it to demonstrate that you were lying about jihad.

HUT are non-violent FD. It even says that in the article you just cherry picked.

You of all people should know that merely talking in support of violence doesn't make one violent - given the way you were apologising for nazis on that very point last week.

Are you standing by your claim that muslims calling for jihad and return to the caliphate are not saying anything about Islam? Feel free to duck and weave for another 10 pages before answering.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 5:58pm:

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 1:34pm: I quoted it to demonstrate that you were lying about jihad. HUT are non-violent FD. It even says that in the article you just cherry picked. You of all people should know that merely talking in support of violence doesn't make one violent - given the way you were apologising for nazis on that very point last week. Are you standing by your claim that muslims calling for jihad and return to the caliphate are not saying anything about Islam? Feel free to duck and weave for another 10 pages before answering.

This is an example of how Islam rots the mind.

Try, "merely supporting Islamophobia doesn't make one Islamophobic"

Apples and oranges. Neither supporting Islamophobia or being Islamophobic requires any physical act.

Violence on the other hand does.

To say that someone is 'violent' simply by advocating violence enables violence to suddenly
become a non-physical act - which it clearly isn't.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 7:58pm:

Apples and oranges. Neither supporting Islamophobia or being Islamophobic requires any physical act. Violence on the other hand does. To say that someone is 'violent' simply by advocating violence enables violence to suddenly become a non-physical act - which it clearly isn't.

So it's ok to support Islamophobia as long as you are not violent?

supporting Islamophobia is never ok IMO.

Whether its the same as actually being an Islamophobe is a trivial semantic point - and in no way comparable to the difference between being violent and supporting violence.

I'm sure you would support violence in certain situations - as most people would. That doesn't in any way make you a "violent" person though.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 5:58pm:

Feel free to duck and weave for another 10 pages before answering.

...or indeed deflect some more by quoting this post in a deflection thread as if you are making some profound point that no one cares about... whatever floats your boat.

Quote:

supporting Islamophobia is never ok IMO.

But supporting the slaughter of Jews is?

How about offering up some feeble defense of the Indonesians jailing those who try to stop the tide of Islamofascism?

All these are perfectly fine, but Islamophobia is never OK?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 7:58pm:

Apples and oranges. Neither supporting Islamophobia or being Islamophobic requires any physical act. Violence on the other hand does. To say that someone is 'violent' simply by advocating violence enables violence to suddenly become a non-physical act - which it clearly isn't.

HUT, according to you, hates the kuffar and democracy and wants to replace it with the caliphate. It's ok to be like that nonviolently.
But it's not ok to hate Islam and preventing the caliphate and to resist jihad

Islamic supremacism is non- negotiable, eh?

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 1:11pm:

Quote: supporting Islamophobia is never ok IMO. But supporting the slaughter of Jews is? How about offering up some feeble defense of the Indonesians jailing those who try to stop the tide of Islamofascism? All these are perfectly fine, but Islamophobia is never OK?

Sorry FD, but there's still an outstanding question for you first: do you stand by this idea that Islamists calling for jihad and restoration of the caliphate are not talking about Islam?

Try not to hide away in your deflection thread.

Frank wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 2:42pm:

HUT, according to you, hates the kuffar and democracy and wants to replace it with the caliphate. It's ok to be like that nonviolently.

Have to stop you there Frank. I don't think thats ok at all.

I wouldn't say that banning them is necessarily the solution though.


Frank wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 2:42pm:

But it's not ok to hate Islam and preventing the caliphate and to resist jihad

On the contrary, that is very ok - and indeed I would expect it (the preventing the caliphate and resisting jihad part that is, maybe not the hating Islam part).

polite_gandalf wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 3:13pm:

freediver wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 1:11pm: Quote: supporting Islamophobia is never ok IMO. But supporting the slaughter of Jews is? How about offering up some feeble defense of the Indonesians jailing those who try to stop the tide of Islamofascism? All these are perfectly fine, but Islamophobia is never OK? Sorry FD, but there's still an outstanding question for you first: do you stand by this idea that Islamists calling for jihad and restoration of the caliphate are not talking about Islam? Try not to hide away in your deflection thread.

Whose idea are you asking me to stand by?

your idea actually - the one that says that Islamists in Indonesia can "say whatever they want" - and how that sits with your other idea that HUT was banned for saying things about jihad and the caliphate - which apparently is not saying anything about Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 3:16pm:

Frank wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 2:42pm: HUT, according to you, hates the kuffar and democracy and wants to replace it with the caliphate. It's ok to be like that nonviolently. Have to stop you there Frank. I don't think thats ok at all. I wouldn't say that banning them is necessarily the solution though. Frank wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 2:42pm: But it's not ok to hate Islam and preventing the caliphate and to resist jihad On the contrary, that is very ok - and indeed I would expect it (the preventing the caliphate and resisting jihad part that is, maybe not the hating Islam part).

polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 5:58pm:

merely talking in support of violence doesn't make one violent

Why do you give this pass for Islam and not the opponents of Islam?




Islam is a supremacist creed aiming for world domination.  It is backward, oppressive, monstrous. It is a relentlessly hypocritical creed, always dishonest, always demanding compromises, never itself compromising - in can't. You can't negotiate sharia. It is a hideous and inhuman creed and must be resisted at every turn.

There is simply no positive side to Islam. Everything about it is a hideous degradation.


I invite you to spell out how Islam is an improvement on the West.i

polite_gandalf wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 7:04pm:

your idea actually - the one that says that Islamists in Indonesia can "say whatever they want" - and how that sits with your other idea that HUT was banned for saying things about jihad and the caliphate - which apparently is not saying anything about Islam.

Oh look, a Muslim lying again. I explained it quite clearly Gandalf. They were banned because their core policy was the overthrow of the government. Or at least, I expect that is why. Seeing as you never presented any evidence either way, I'm not going to bother either. BTW, pointing out that they say things about Islam is not evidence they were banned for saying things about Islam.

Six out of twenty 'most recent' threads devoted to Islam/muslims

gee, wonder if we occupy as much of their brains?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 7:04pm:

your idea actually - the one that says that Islamists in Indonesia can "say whatever they want" - and how that sits with your other idea that HUT was banned for saying things about jihad and the caliphate - which apparently is not saying anything about Islam.

You do realise he never actually answers you, right?

Why do you ask?

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 7:39pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 7:04pm: your idea actually - the one that says that Islamists in Indonesia can "say whatever they want" - and how that sits with your other idea that HUT was banned for saying things about jihad and the caliphate - which apparently is not saying anything about Islam. Oh look, a Muslim lying again. I explained it quite clearly Gandalf. They were banned because their core policy was the overthrow of the government. Or at least, I expect that is why. Seeing as you never presented any evidence either way, I'm not going to bother either. BTW, pointing out that they say things about Islam is not evidence they were banned for saying things about Islam.

FD, are you attempting to claim that HUT's "core policy" is not what they "say"?

No Gandalf.

No?

So they were banned for what they say?

Can you confirm you stand by your statement that that Indonesian Islamists can "say whatever they want"? Did you forget to insert the qualification "...except when its written down as a policy"?

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 10:00am:

No Gandalf.

Now that's a first. I think you've got it, FD.

Here's mine: do you uphold the use of porkies in your campaign against the Muselman?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 11:06am:

No? So they were banned for what they say? Can you confirm you stand by your statement that that Indonesian Islamists can "say whatever they want"? Did you forget to insert the qualification "...except when its written down as a policy"?

Like I keep telling you, they were banned for their policy of overthrowing the government.

Ahok, on the other hand, was jailed for what he said about Islam.

Sounds like FD doesn't want to say.

Oh well, that didn't last long.

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 11:52am:

they were banned for their policy of overthrowing the government.

Is 'their policy' something they 'say' FD?

Did you really mean that Indonesian Islamists can say whatever they want - unless its written down as a policy?

I expect that for the most part, it is written down.

What point are you trying to make Gandalf?

oh you don't get the point I am making FD?

Is what they have "mostly written down" considered something they 'say'?

Do you think Ahok would have been spared gaol if only he had written his blasphemy down and presented it as "official policy"?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 2:57pm:

oh you don't get the point I am making FD? Is what they have "mostly written down" considered something they 'say'? Do you think Ahok would have been spared gaol if only he had written his blasphemy down and presented it as "official policy"?

Sure. He was arrested for what he said about the Quran, not for his policy.

Ahok was jailed for his interpretation of Islam. HT were banned because they want to overthrow the government. Not sure why you struggle so much with the distinction Gandalf.

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 5:00pm:

HT were banned because they want to overthrow the government.

And they expressed this somehow without actually saying it. Amazing.


Quote:

Not sure why you struggle so much with the distinction Gandalf.

The distinction between what they say and what their policy is? Its true, I am struggling with that distinction.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 5:57pm:

freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 5:00pm: HT were banned because they want to overthrow the government. And they expressed this somehow without actually saying it. Amazing. Quote: Not sure why you struggle so much with the distinction Gandalf. The distinction between what they say and what their policy is? Its true, I am struggling with that distinction.

You are a Hizbi.