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.



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:


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:

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.

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?

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




    





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





.





IMAGE...





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



.



DECEIT;

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

Is the wikipedia article wrong Gandalf?

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


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?

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


ok.

And you cherry picked it.

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


Are you accusing me of quoting the relevant part Gandalf?

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

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


"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?

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.

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



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?

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


That can't be right.

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

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

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

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:


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

Quote:


Quote:


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


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


Quote:


Quote:

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







.




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


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





IMAGE.....







.





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:

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.

...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:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/pakistani-cleric-we-want-islamic-law-for-all-p...



.



Quote:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/creed-of-the-sword/story-e6frg6n6-111111225...

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:


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

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

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

Quote:


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 1:34pm:


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.

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.

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.

Quote:


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?

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


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.

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


Whose idea are you asking me to stand by?

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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"?

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


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.

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


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?

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"?

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


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

Quote:


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