Notes from the Resistance

God is Great!” said he, in a manner not unlike a striking cry of a hero conceived in a Hollywood-engineered motion picture. Indeed a staggering spectacle — and, remarkably, not an off-the-cuff remark spewed in the heat of the moment. Such watchwords were uttered like an overused punchline; almost too shallow and sugary had all the charade were fictional. That worked: I daresay that the archvillain indeed looked somewhat holy (excuse the potentially disturbing choice of words), and I would happily confess that I was chilled every now and then by his mere presence. Frankly I could have mistaken it for a cringe or wince, but nevertheless, Imam Samudra was not a common man. He possessed a certain charisma that sets him apart from common thugs (Amrozi’s was slightly less, and Ali Ghufron was a plain annoying kind of bloke). That was not necessarily a flattery, of course, since plenty felt the very same sensation regarding, say, Charles Manson, or, to prematurely invoke Godwin’s Law, Adolf Hitler.

It is far too easy to predict how did the Indonesian mass-murderer die: chances are he was mouthing his favourite battle cry when facing death; comparable to the fictionalised version of the famed Scot William Wallace in Braveheart (who was played by Mel Gibson, a man who may or may not share Samudra’s views on the Jews), or, to draw a more local comparison, Roy Marten’s depiction of Wolter Monginsidi, from an old historical movie whose title I am unable to recall, in which he did precisely what Gibson’s Wallace would do years later: shouting “freedom” seconds before kicking the bucket. Wallace and Monginsidi were both widely seen as real heroes, but all the same, that’s also how it probably went for the terrorist. “God is Great!“, and then came the shot.

I, utilising my utmost level of personal sobriety, opine that very few things are easier in Life than to loathe Imam Samudra and his band of zealots. It doesn’t take a great deal of oratorical skills to picture their macabre deeds, as one can simply steal Sam Harris’ trick in his The End of Faith: just imagine. A sweet child muttering to herself while walking about her father’s feet, eager of trying out that new tank suit for a swimming session in the beach — then boom! She became a corpse, her little head letting out sticky vermilion liquid, forming a puddle of messy goo. It’s all too easy; anyone who engineered this kind of atrocity must have been a son of a bitch. Compare these people to pigs and you would have done the swines worldwide injustice. This was the primary reason as for why my jaw dropped upon witnessing a perverse amount of support for these folks as of late. A trend which I sincerely condemned as at best an alarming sign of the potential awakening of what most of us would refer to as “a rise of fundamentalism”, which I suspect to be really just a fancy term for “people going bonkers and becoming less and less civilised”.

More disappointed than genuinely puzzled, this had persuaded me to ponder on their deaths, as reflected above, and realised that they have won. As a man with a rather strong affinity for Naturalism, I must come to terms with the grim reality that, in the end, the self-proclaimed martyrs’ grave sins, which all lay heavy upon their shoulders, will forever go unpunished.

* * *

As the rightfully condemned were shot to death by the state, it came to me as a surprise that a number of people later expressed their sympathies for these mass-murderers. It may not represent the community at large, but the portion was significant enough for me to label it as “perverse”. It was predictable that the hardline fundamentalists would rally and start the condemning routines, but as I observe (and I wish for no more than to be proven wrong), some were religiously moderate. The reasons provided, aside of plain support to terrorism, included a few bizarre conspiracy theories and, most commonly, a sympathy that arose from religious bonds: “right or wrong, still, they are our brothers“. There are several terms to describe this condition, but personally I would employ the word “disgusting”.

I will not bother to assess and criticise the conspiracy theories and their sister justifications — it would give them the attention they do not deserve. These are basically a pile of sorry excuses that would potentially turn us pale as death. A simple instance, short but horrendous nonetheless, would be the eye-for-an-eye attitude. It is okay to murder innocent people, given that some Caucasian blood were shed in the process — American and Israeli forces have done the same to the Palestinians anyway, it’s just justice. I cannot help but to stand in awe of this appaling idea; it is racist, chauvinistic, barbaric, xenophobic, genocidal, segregationist, cold-blooded, and nuclear war-inducing. It is so wrong that for a moment there any decent person should even feel that the Orwellian thoughtcrime concept has good reasons after all (not that I condone the practice).

Do notice that all of these crazy suggestions that there is something to respect in the act of bigotry-driven random killing spree, ultimately have their roots in the “brotherhood” lunacy. Even the aforesaid justifications, that are based on the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts (in which everyone seems to be a historical and political expert), are essentially an application of the “blood is thicker than water” policy. Blood, or in this case, religious view, is pretty thick indeed. And no, of course I do not decry human kinships — however, it is difficult not to recognise this type of solidarity as a terrible perversion of the principle. If you were to judge someone’s values, there is no reason to consider what you and he or she happened to have in common. While it is admirable for anyone to actually forgive, or respect, Amrozi and company regardless of what they have done, that should be done without the borders of religious exclusiveness. Is a murder somewhat more morally acceptable if the murderer were of the same religion (or race, or sexual orientation, or anything) as you? Such a divisive way of thinking should have no place in a civilised society; indeed in practice not everyone could live up to the principle, but I believe everyone would pay lip service to it.

In short, perhaps it was naïve of me, but I never really expected any torrents of pro-terrorism to surface. Most muslims I know are decent, loving people, and hence would typically deny that the infamous Islamic militancy is scripturally sound (whether this is true or otherwise, is a whole different issue not covered in this writing). So this turned out to be quite a surprise: why the whole squaring-the-circle exercise? Solidarity? Subconscious retribution for all the snickerings pointed at Islam post-9/11? Or could it be, as I was informed, it was several biographies of these fundamentalists, in which they are glorified as soft-spoken, loving family guys, waging war against world superpowers (these reaped the sympathies of the ladies)?

Whatever it may be, surely nothing praiseworthy. The last thing Islam needs at the moment is to have its adherents rooting for (highly religious) homicidal lunatics. The recent slight (or is it?) trend of sympathising with extreme fundamentalism is then, to be blunt, patently disturbing.

* * *

The most disheartening suggestion I was able conclude out of these conflicts would be that the terrorists have won. True, the villains have paid their crimes with their lives, which is obviously an exceedingly high price when you think of it in a jurisprudential point of view; but upon closer observations, what we were doing is, indirectly, to complete them (no, I didn’t steal that line from The Dark Knight).

Suppose that a militant religionist made it his raison d’etre to die a martyr, but he or she was not given the task of committing the actual kamikaze assault. He or she was then arrested and investigated extensively, all while disrespecting the court and constantly shouting battle cries in the process, live on multiple television channels. What more could the zealot ask? Of course death. There is nothing more ecstatic for this man or woman than a capital punishment. Their beliefs have dictated them to seek for it: the sweet joy of being martyred. The trials, the condemnations, the snickers, the news coverage, the nigh-unequivocal global wrath, everything, these were not threats. These are fun stuff. Because in their minds, they are living the life of a righteous maverick surrounded by antichrist beasts. Perhaps they even saw things in dramatic slow motion when being dragged about by the cops. They just believe that God is there, on their side — what is there to fear? And when they were face-to-face with the firing squad, the thought that lingered in their minds waw most probably this: “I expect now that my death be generally painless when compared to the nonbelievers, and I would drift off to sleep. Then yes, I will be waking up in Paradise.” Of course the joy would be multiplied googolfold when they witness their sadist God sending all their earthly enemies to Hell. Glory to God!

What really happened — obviously from my personal point of view, which is heavily biased to Naturalism — was not so mystical and glorious. Indeed, there shall be no Paradises or divine courts, but then again, does it make any difference? I pondered on this. Let’s do a thought experiment and suppose now that there exists a bride who died in her sleep a night before her marriage. Tragic it may be, but, the girl’s happiness was in truth left undisturbed. A Naturalist (e.g. an atheist or a materialistic deist) may proclaim that Imam Samudra ultimately failed to rendezvous with his ethereal sex slaves in the Bin Laden Paradise, but he will never know. There will be no disillusions — the killer died a happy man. That’s how happy endings are made, anyway; by terminating the story when the mood is at its highest. After all, the Prince could be a two-timing bastard who abuses Cinderella all the time for all we know.

That was a strictly Naturalistic point of view, of course, and a more theistic approach may lead to less depressive results.

God, who positively exists in this version, would then surely be expected to act like a deus ex machina (pun strongly intended). Chained to omniheavy iron balls, Imam Samudra, Amrozi, and Ali Gufron would not pass in flying colors in the trials, but rather, will receive a shocking moment: God himself disowns them and lectures on the basics of human rights. Regardless of their weepings, God speaks unto them in a groundshakingly deep voice; they are going to Hell. Ah, the sweet sweet just deserts! The internet community had invented some neat terms for this kind of triumphant events, some of them being “total ownage” and “the crowning moment of awesome“. Yes, I hereby confess happily that such an event would be priceless! (There are some minor issues on the Problem of Hell, but let us ignore such killjoys).

However, alas, I do not believe in such version. I wish it were true, but I try not to think wishfully. Maybe for some of us I sound like I crave for a more frightening punishment — but really, I am merely expressing my sadness on the way things ended up; injustice.

* * *

Marquis deSade, in his infamous work of libertinage The 120 Days of Sodom, wrote that piety is a “true disease of the soul… apply whatever remedies you please, the fever will not subside”. Yes, I am aware that there are few worse places to find advice on morality than history’s most loathed porno novel (except a few selection of even more debauched comics written by Tuna Empire), and indeed deSade most probably did not even mean it as a scholarly criticism on religion, rather only to spice up his tales to become even less likely not to be banned — yet I cannot help but chuckle on how quotable it was.

Piety is an easy target ever since the Twin Towers collapsed, and moreso after Islamic extremists proudly claimed responsibility; the same goes for Imam Samudra and his gang, who were surely among the most pious on Earth. While to call them “religious men” might incite protests from left and right, surely there should be no objections if I were to dub them “pious”? I reckon the second term are less objective and independent from approvals of one’s peers — ah, but no, this is no linguistic lecture. I am not qualified anyway. My point being, these murderers took religion more seriously than most.

I would beg to differ if any of my readers lump me together with writers who regard religion as a spring of death and destruction. I somehow have developed a tendency to believe in belief, and will not turn a blind eye to the goods it has done over the years — while acknowledging that existential worries (which I suspect are more commonplace among Naturalists) are not to the likings of most people. But if it were true that a portion of the religious can sympathise with the dark side with merely a little push (which may be something as shallow as a scandalous solidarity or a corny short biography), I must say that I am severely disappointed.

68 thoughts on “Notes from the Resistance

  1. This is one of my critics of non-theistic ethics. It looks like that, by discarding the eye-for-an-eye paradigm, we’re truly missing the basis for such concepts as justice/injustice. As I was angered by the fact that some Muslims here, fueled by the media, glorify the bombers, The Jakarta Post sadly wrote an editorial condoning Samudra’s executions. I was shocked, because I know this paper has been consistently opposing capital punishment.

    Let me quote the disturbing passage:

    Many people in this country and outside oppose the death penalty, so it came as no surprise that some of the 11th hour appeals to spare the lives of Amrozi and friends came from the relatives of the victims in Australia.

    Perhaps they can make an exception just this once. If humanity is the ground for rejecting capital punishment, there is almost nothing human about these three men. If evil had a face, theirs are samples of it.

    Good riddance. The world is so much better without them.

    We can kill some people because the world would be better off without them? Adolf knew this view too well.

    There is a huge philosophical problem here. Which is the ground for our legal system? Compassion or justice?

    It’s sad to know that evil-doers — murderers, rapists, child-molesters, etc. — will go unpunished. But that’s just the way it is, according to your naturalist lens. The terrorists will eventually win, even if they lose the battle.

    I understand your angst and resentment. The fact that people are publicly showing their supports for Imam cs is indeed terrifying and alarming. And we have no other choice but resorting to common sense; this is wrong, we must stop it.

  2. Baru quick read, termasuk post yg panjang soalnya. (not to mention it’s an english version.😛 )

    Saya juga lagi nulis tentang ini, tapi dalam bahasa Indonesia.

    *Save, dibaca lagi nanti*

  3. Euh…panjangnyo…
    Belum baca dengan seksama…
    Tapi mungkin kalo dibikin dalam Bahasa Indonesia, lebih banyak orang (troll?) yang masuk😛

  4. @ Ardianto

    Ah, tidak apa tentu. Silakan dibaca dengan cara-cara yang dikira nyaman.😀

    @ gentole

    Disclaimers first.🙂 There is nothing in your comment that provoked me to disagree, but alas, as you might already know, I am just as confused as you. If not more. All I’m doing at the moment is to criticise everything that is wrong from my personal views, regardless of the source; Noordin Top, Rowan Williams, Richard Dawkins, or Seth MacFarlane.😀

    For the time being, I am not really concerned about the capital punishment. The issue is the support for these terrorists (I didn’t see this coming), which is just wrong and insensitive.

    Do attempt to cover the compassion-or-justice lemma in your own writing.😛

    @ Disc-Co

    Hohoho! Ditunggu.😀

    @ lambrtz

    kalo dibikin dalam Bahasa Indonesia, lebih banyak orang (troll?) yang masuk😛

    Ya memang itu tujuannya.:mrgreen:

    Ini ‘kan katarsis, jadi kalaupun preaching to the choir juga ga masalah.😛

  5. Saya baru dengar dari guru bahasa Inggris saya, inilah sebabnya mengapa Israel jarang sekali mengeksekusi tahanan Palestinanya (kalo susah ditangkep, biasanya memang langsung dihabisi sih)… sebab kematian mereka hanya akan semakin mempersingkat jarak menuju serangan roket atau bom bunuh diri berikutnya. Mendingan disimpen dulu supaya kelak bisa dijadikan alat tukar dengan orang Israel/asing lainnya yang mereka culik atau gencatan senjata.

    I, myself, prefer the Room 101 treatment. Entah kenapa kok sampe sekarang kayaknya belum ada yang dengan serius dan ilmiah mencoba metode ‘penyembuhan’ ini.😕

    Chained to omniheavy iron balls, Imam Samudra, Amrozi, and Ali Gufron would not pass in flying colors in the trials, but rather, will receive a shocking moment: God himself disowns them and lectures on the basics of human rights. Regardless of their weepings, God speaks unto them in a groundshakingly deep voice; they are going to Hell.

    Ini mengingatkan saya pada ending komik-komiknya Jack Chick.😆

  6. No wonder Hitler once expressed his admiration to Muslims (I guess the “Muslims” he mean was like Amrozi and friends); their “Islamic spirit” (a term used by a friend of mine) is no doubt a perfect tool in military usage.😛 What could be better than a bunch of people who willingly to die with such ‘happiness’?

    Sebenarnya saya agak bingung kenapa ‘dukungan’ masih diberikan terhadap Amrozi dkk. Terutama kalau sudah bawa ayat-ayat. Bukannya justru kekerasan di tempat non-konflik begitu dilarang di Islam? Apalagi kalau ada yang berargumen kalau orang-orang yang mati di Bali itu sebenarnya “sedang berzina”. Apakah itu membenarkan tindakan untuk membunuh yang “sedang berzina” itu?😕

    *pengertiannya zina itu sebenarnya apa sih? Bukannya premarital sex. Kok belakangan saya sering dengar berpakaian yang kurang tertutup juga disebut zina -_-*

  7. tobat2..inilah buah, akibat ane kagak pernah mo ikutan ToeFl,..menjadi Troll…hikz

    *mending ane ke skandinavia, disana para Troll malah jd melegenda :-p*

  8. IMO, this is about time for moderate Muslims to show their stance concerning these (oh-so-well-known) radicalism issues.

    Fact is, moderates are usually torn in two. They condemn terrorism, but never, ever disown the terrorists. Almost nobody spoke that “Imam Samudra is not Muslim”, or “Amrozi is not Muslim”, or something like that. They just don’t think Imam Samudra and the gang as “outside of us muslims”.

    Moderates have problems here. Actually, they are part of problems. They only speak “Islam brings peace”, “Islam is good”, and so forth — while, at the same time, mentioning Amrozi et al as “muslims”.

    Talk about logic.

    Doing terrorism != Islam

    Killing innocent souls != Islam

     
    Imam Samudra and the gang did both
     

    Therefore, Imam Samudra and the gang != Islam

    What’s so hard about it?

    Talking about “brothers”, “unity of Islam”, and such… craptalks. Are we claiming brotherhood in sins, or what?🙄

     
    @ Xaliber von Reginhild

    *pengertiannya zina itu sebenarnya apa sih? Bukannya premarital sex. Kok belakangan saya sering dengar berpakaian yang kurang tertutup juga disebut zina -_-*

    IMO, pernyataan itu (biasanya) maksudnya ‘mendekati zina’. Jadi bukannya zina per se.

    E.g. berpakaian terbuka, bermesraan di depan umum, dsb. Kasarnya sih, hal-hal yang tadinya digolongkan sebagai “pornoaksi” waktu RUU APP belum gol dulu. (o_0)”\

  9. I remember some passage in Bible, when God says,”Vengeance is Mine!”. It’s implied that people shouldn’t take vengeance on other people in their own hand but believe God to do it(now or in another life, but God also may give them mercy), a passage that hardly use these days.

    God has two side, the care and loving side, and the dark and vengeanceful side. It’s hard to see religion only in one side.

    But to take the vengeance in our hand, that’s just plain wrong.

  10. The reason why the warriors (pardon me) have win is because they simply have nothing to loose

    Lagi-lagi saya teringat dengan sebuah cerita mengenai seorang Jenderal Amerika yang ditugaskan untuk membasmi pemberontak Moro di Filipina Selatan yang menggunakan platform Jihad sebagai basis aksinya. Caranya mengeksekusi para teroris ini cukup ‘sadis’: sebelum ditembak mati, peluru yang akan digunakan dilumuri lemak dan darah babi dulu. Metode itu, konon, bisa membuat teman-teman mereka yang lainnya ngibrit ketakutan. Masih efektif nggak ya di zaman sekarang?😀

  11. @sora9n

    Fact is, moderates are usually torn in two. They condemn terrorism, but never, ever disown the terrorists. Almost nobody spoke that “Imam Samudra is not Muslim”, or “Amrozi is not Muslim”, or something like that. They just don’t think Imam Samudra and the gang as “outside of us muslims”.

    I once wrote an article about this issue, in which I tried to highlight Muslim ambivalence toward terrorism. According to a 2006 LSI survey, about 9 percent of 1,000 Indonesian Muslims they interviewed justified the Bali bombings as a form of “jihad to defend Islam”. Many then doubted the survey’s reliability. And yesterday we saw a grim spectacle: the survey is accurate.

    True, this is because, as you said, the moderates seem to be quite reluctant to “disown the terrorists”. The affinity between terrorists and the whole Islamic community actually had never been broken, perhaps due to racial, political, theological and historical reasons. As Geddoe said, the support for terrorists is basically racist, sectarian, xenophobic etc. It is possible that some people we know would never hurt a fly secretly adores Osama bin Laden, simply because they share beliefs.

    There’s an adage: one man’s terrorist is another man’s fighter.

    But can we just simply blame the moderates? What can the moderates do? If they issue an edict saying Abu Bakar Baasyir is deviant or heretic, should we praise them? We in the name of democracy or pluralism condemn MUI for declaring Ahmadiyah deviant, now we ask them to do the same with Imam cs?

    @catshade

    Drakula bukannya lebih sadis? Tetapi perang salib terus berlangsung.

  12. @Xaliber Von Reginhild

    *pengertiannya zina itu sebenarnya apa sih? Bukannya premarital sex. Kok belakangan saya sering dengar berpakaian yang kurang tertutup juga disebut zina -_-*

    Saya dapat pengertian Zinah itu dari sini.

    dan saya menemukan sesuatu yang menarik dari sana.

    6. Perbuatan itu dilakukan di negeri yang secara resmi berdiri tegak hukum Islam secara formal , yaitu di negeri yang ‘adil’atau ‘darul-Islam’. Sedangkan bila dilakukan di negeri yang tidak berlaku hukum Islam, maka pelakunya tidak bisa dihukum sesuai dengan ayat hudud.

    Hmm, menarik.😀

  13. @ gentole

    But can we just simply blame the moderates?

    Actually, no. As I wrote earlier, it’s only part of the problem. The moderates’ ambivalence is, like, only cherry on top of the cake.

    We have so many issues here. Education, hereditary fundie-mentality (for lack of better words), scriptural ambiguity, radical imams’ influences… etc., etc. Moderate muslims’ ambivalence only makes things worse — because they still practice supports, however small, for such activities.

    They say “Unity in Islam”, “Islamic Brotherhood”, while condemning terrorism, while still accepting Amrozi et. al. as “brothers”, while sometimes trying to justify their means through conspiracies. Look how many contradictions strung there.

    The moderates aren’t all to blame, but they do take part in this fiasco. That’s the point.

    What can the moderates do? If they issue an edict saying Abu Bakar Baasyir is deviant or heretic, should we praise them? We in the name of democracy or pluralism condemn MUI for declaring Ahmadiyah deviant, now we ask them to do the same with Imam cs?

    No. Why should anybody yearn for fatwa claiming “terrorists are nonmuslims” (cf. MUI v. Ahmadiyah)? Is fatwa such panacea?

    This is more to common sense. If one is disgusted, or horrified, by the terrorists’ deeds, one should feel ashamed to be considered on the same boat. I don’t care about authority. What I want to see is the humility in most muslims’ heart, because they ever have people like Samudra and Amrozi in their “family”.

    Just like Europeans (or, mostly, Germans) are ashamed to ever have an Adolf Hitler in their history.

    What is fatwa in this case, I wonder? This is not politics. This is something more fundamental — more humane — than superficial “fatwa MUI” or political correctness.🙄

  14. it seems to me that the darkest moments of our time has yet to come. but, they say there’s a light at the end of a tunnel. then all of us probably just have to walk through the darkness…

  15. @sora9n

    The problem lies in you Moderates and look at them as a whole, while there is many opinion spread through them. I mean, there is moderate group that condemn trio bombers, and there is they who praise them, and those who ignorants about the issues.

    Just because the group that praise are singing their song of praise to trio bombers loud and clear doesn’t mean they’re the majority. There is a lot of them, the silent majority condemn them, they just don’t express it loud and clear.

    The moderates position is, IMHO, should be “they’re our brothers but they make awful mistake and must be judge by law, let’s pray for their repetance.” And I know a lot of them.

    But heck the BOTD full with praises for terorist. Their sign of mujahid death, sign of bird, smile in their faces and such. But look at the comment, visitor opinions are varies between agree and disagree that they are syahid.

    And those conspiracy theory, well, what can you do? They think that Bush is an alien😛 , We have a corrupt legal system, and we have strong pressure from our neighbour Australia. not to mention the TPM, group of lawyer that more suitable to be politician and conspiratorist than lawyer for their ability to spread rumors and manipulate information. Well that enough recipe for conspiracy theory.

    Maybe those poor souls just look for Messiah, a hero to save the day. Just like US embrace Obama for hope of change in the middle of recession. And, regretfully instead of having a historical president or so-called “Satrio Piningit”, we only have those Trio Bombers.

  16. IMO, this is about time for moderate Muslims to show their stance concerning these (oh-so-well-known) radicalism issues. […] Moderates have problems here. Actually, they are part of problems. They only speak “Islam brings peace”, “Islam is good”, and so forth — while, at the same time, mentioning Amrozi et al as “muslims”.

    I really thought you were demanding the moderates to do more? I agree with many anti-Islam preachers, I never expect “a wind of change” from the moderates, that Muslims would be less and less violent. And I agree with you, we have so many issues here.

    Some people like you have to do something about this, but I don’t what that “something” is.

    What do you mean with humility? Is it embarrassment?

  17. @ dnial

    The problem lies in you Moderates and look at them as a whole, while there is many opinion spread through them. I mean, there is moderate group that condemn trio bombers, and there is they who praise them, and those who ignorants about the issues.

    Well, yes. I used that word in the generalized sense — i.e., the term “moderate” itself has been used almost extensively to describe “non-extremist muslims”.

    Like you said, many of them have diverse opinion about this.

    Just because the group that praise are singing their song of praise to trio bombers loud and clear doesn’t mean they’re the majority. There is a lot of them, the silent majority condemn them, they just don’t express it loud and clear.

    Exactly what I said in my first comment.:mrgreen:

    IMO, this is about time for moderate Muslims to show their stance concerning these (oh-so-well-known) radicalism issues.

    I think we all know about argumentum ad ignorantiam. The silent majority’s voice is too often translated as approval. If you browse through some “jihad watch” sites, they actually have similar point of view… (which is sometimes heightened by a dose of xenophobia, but that’s another story).

    The moderates position is, IMHO, should be “they’re our brothers but they make awful mistake and must be judge by law, let’s pray for their repetance.” And I know a lot of them.

    I know that, because I too live in Islamic environments. But not everybody in the world has the same luxury. Most of them don’t know the ‘insider view’ in the muslim world.

    Coupled with the aforementioned ad ignorantiam, and we have even more distortion.😉

  18. @ gentole

    I really thought you were demanding the moderates to do more?

    IMHO, the most important thing is “heart of the people” itself. I know this sound naive, but it actually is the key.😕 If many people understand why Amrozi cs. is despicable, or why extremism is — by any chance — not good at all, at least half the problem is solved.

    This is like putting an end of chain reaction. If we want nobody to contribute to extremism, we have to make everyone understand how bad it is. If every muslim understand how senseless it is to do suicide bombings and massacre… they will never support idea of extremism. Thus, ending it efficiently.

    Only by realizing the humanity value, muslims can put an end to this Islamofascism fiasco. That’s why — for this time — I only expect something from the heart. For the starting ground, that’s what it takes.

    As well, MUI, politics, and fatwas can be dealt with later.😉

    I agree with many anti-Islam preachers, I never expect “a wind of change” from the moderates, that Muslims would be less and less violent.

    IMO, if muslims want their religion not to be ill-depicted (with violence and such), they have to act accordingly. It’s not impossible that moderates bring about improvements on Islam, but:

     
    1) They have to completely disown extremism
    (i.e. “not in our name”)

    2) They have to be less-reliant to spiteful ideas
    (like “Jewish Conspiracy” or “Barat Keparat™”)

    3) They need to be more emphatic towards the world outside Islam
    (for instance US, Europe, and Christendom)

     
    Too bad that, of all things, they are very much rare among muslims these days. Bummer. (-_-)

    What do you mean with humility? Is it embarrassment?

    Something like that. I think it’s closer to the word “shame”. (o_0)”\

    Being muslim by birth, I feel truly ashamed that my former religion once had Amrozi and Samudra as “family part”. And both were proud of being “muslim”.

    You can’t simply go away with it. As long as people associate you with the same bandwagon as theirs (i.e. religion), you can’t help but feeling embarassed. However small.

  19. Most muslims I know are decent, loving people, and hence would typically deny that the infamous Islamic militancy is scripturally sound (whether this is true or otherwise, is a whole different issue not covered in this writing). <– They are not Muslims who are familiar with the teachings of Islams, what one would call a Muslim KTP.

    I heard rumors that moments before these monsters were shot to death, they were quiet, not one “God is Great” was said, not even a whisper of the powerful statement. Maybe they suddenly grew a bit of a conscience seconds before their death? Other rumors said that they thought being shot to death is a lesser punishment, what they wanted was beheadings, the truest path into dying as a mujaheed, which is why they were somehow disappointed by the firing squad ending their lives.

    I’m afraid, I’m one of those writers who strongly believe that religion is the culprit of (almost) all evil. So I guess we finally disagree on something.

  20. @ Catshade

    Betul, memang sebaiknya seperti itu. Umat Islam, apalagi di daerah konflik biasanya lebih impulsif kalau masalah-masalah beginian.

    Ini mengingatkan saya pada ending komik-komiknya Jack Chick.😆

    Hahaha! Betul juga.😀 Saya mengumpulkan traktat-traktat Jack Chick. So bad it’s good.🙂

    @ Xaliber von Reginhild

    Ya itu dia. Saya bingung kenapa yang seperti ini masih mendapat simpati; mungkin karena antipati terhadap dunia Barat? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Mungkin lama-lama mereka merasa tersinggung karena terus diserbu sentimen negatif?

    @ aryf

    Kenapa, Mas/Mbak?😕

    @ sora9n

    Bullseye. It’s all about being torn between honest revulsion and persistent blind solidarity. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Bravo.😀

    I say “you can’t have it both ways”. These particular moderates have no rights to protest when being associated with violence if they don’t disown the bomber trio (as “brothers”, not necessarily apostates).

    @ dnial

    Wrong book to quote.😀

    Seriously, I don’t think they would buy that argument. Simple traditional theists want to have it both ways; perfectly loving (not in a philosophical concept) God and outgroup violence.

    @ joyo

    Biar nda ada trollnya, Masbro.😀

    @ spidolhitam

    Because they believe in things in which they can be no disillusions.🙂

    @ Catshade

    Terlalu riskanlah. Reaksinya ga bakal bagus.😕

    @ gentole

    An older survey conducted by Pew yielded a more terrifying 30% percentage. Skepticism on sample choices is of course very reasonable, but indeed, recent trends showed that it’s not at all far-fetched.

    I do not condone edict wars among jurisprudential bodies; too politically manipulative for my taste. No solutions yet aside of corny suggestions like education (for the zillionth time, the best advice is the boring advice), since it’s related to the drawbacks of democracy and scholarly mindsets where respect is given to the just; and the unjust.

    @ Disc-Co

    Wah, mungkin itu ada hubungannya dengan ambisi organisasi-organisasi pro-teokrasi seperti HTI.😛

    @ sora9n (2)

    Ah, allow me to name the root of all evil: the unwillingness to accept decent, serious, civilised criticisms.😕 Islam (at least as a culture) has problems adjusting with modernity, perhaps because their lack of major schisms.

    A particular problem would be a disproportionate overestimation to religion. Generally a portion of muslims (disclaimer: not a generalisation and not limited to muslims or even, the religious) are agressive about their faiths; quick and insensitive in pointing out supposed Biblical errors, champions the sharia as a perfect panacea, and will take offense with even a slight criticism in religious laws. To be fair, the same attitude can be found among Christians of Atheists.

    If this one is solved, then disowning the trio might just be easier.

    @ sitijenang

    Can’t we have the light without any dark tunnels?

    @ dnial

    Of course, this is but an illusion created from the fact that the minority, who actually cared about the issue, talks much louder. I am fully aware of this, and wrote the issue nonetheless because;

    i) They can persuade.
    ii) They can generate false impressions.
    iii) They exist. Even their very existence is, personally, worrying.

    @ rima fauzi

    They are not Muslims who are familiar with the teachings of Islams, what one would call a Muslim KTP.

    Ah, look. Religious labels are ambiguous, so when I refer to any groups as “Muslims” or “Christians”, it would be of political and cultural context. Yes, there’s quite a number of Muslim-KTPs around, Mbak, but Muslim nonetheless.😀

    I heard rumors that moments before these monsters were shot to death, they were quiet

    Damn, was I wrong? I don’t know, it’s unlikely. Maybe it’s the momentum; the fiery spirits of their jihad had cooled down and death was suddenly serious stuff again?

    So I guess we finally disagree on something.

    Hahaha, maybe so. Still, we freethinkers experienced that a lot, don’t we? Families, friends… So, no biggie, right?😀

  21. @ K. geddoe

    Ah, allow me to name the root of all evil: the unwillingness to accept decent, serious, civilised criticisms.😕 Islam (at least as a culture) has problems adjusting with modernity, perhaps because their lack of major schisms.

    Well, and I’m always keen to say:

    “Islam right now is about what Christianity is 500 years ago. Inquisition, rejection of science (*cough*BinBazAndOktar*cough*), etc.

    “Interesting thing is, Islam came out roughly 600 years after Christianity!”

    This religion is young, yet so allergic to schisms and questions of faith. So reminiscent of its predecessor in the past… which has now learned from its longer experience. (Galileo and Protestantism come to mind)

    Maybe some 500 years in the future, we’ll see Islam as we see Christianity now. Who knows if they’re treading the same path.😆

    A particular problem would be a disproportionate overestimation to religion. Generally a portion of muslims (disclaimer: not a generalisation and not limited to muslims or even, the religious) are agressive about their faiths; quick and insensitive in pointing out supposed Biblical errors, champions the sharia as a perfect panacea, and will take offense with even a slight criticism in religious laws.

    As my reply to mas Gentole above, this too is another variable. Interrelated with poor education, hereditary fundie-mentality™, and such.

    To be fair, the same attitude can be found among Christians of Atheists.

    Err… didn’t you meant or up there? ^^;

  22. ^

    Euh, typo. ^^;

    “Islam right now is about what Christianity was 500 years ago. Inquisition, rejection of science (*cough*BinBazAndOktar*cough*), etc.

    “Interesting thing is, Islam came out roughly 600 years after Christianity!”

    That.😛

  23. Heck, I don’t even have slight understanding what those terorist fight for. Their identity? Prosecution in Palestine? just simply destroying half of the known world? Jewish genocide? or maybe to exterminate alien like Bush?

    If it is Palestine, why don’t use the UN? Political and diplomatic tools can be used. heck! For US addiction to oil, the Arabs and OPEC can pressure them if they want to.

    If it’s attacking US, why they mainly operate in the other half of the world (Afghanistan, Indonesia)?

    If it’s spreading the religion, don’t they think terror will drive people away?

    If it’s simply killing people, why they don’t use nuke?

  24. @dnial

    “If it’s simply killing people, why they don’t use nuke?”

    because they don’t have it, if they have it they will use it. One thing I know these people don’t need sympathy, neither support, or public opinions, they will just close their view and set up a conspiracy theory.

    The more complex thing about Islam compared to other religion is that it simply has a great defense mechanism to the so called “kafir teachings” or “bid’ah”, the things that might get people involved in an endless debate about who is doing bid’ah wo is not.

    If we go back to history of Islam, the dispute have been started just a second after the great prophet muhammad passed away. Unlike Christianity, Islam was already have big political issues due to the large area of occupation. The war between the shiah and the sunni, so called the khawarij or murji’ah and so on, can be Islam of tomorrow become Christianity today? I am not sure.

  25. Dari 100% tindakan mereka,……mungkin 10% kehilafan yang sulit dihindari yg jelas tak diniatkan,…..TETAPI inilah hasil obsesi hukum korelasi (KARENA ADA SEBAB , MAKA AKAN BERAKIBAT) yang mengglobal dari tindakan penjajahan, penindasan, pembantaian terhadap bangsa dan anak cucu kaum muslim yang lemah dan cinta damai di seluruh dunia. Maka “Tindakan Merekalah” sebagai akibatnya.
    Bukankah mereka mengakui kalau mereka adalah Pejuang Muslim Dunia,….bukan Indo tok ?. Semoga Allah SWT menerima segala amal ibadahnya dan memaafkan segala kesalahannya,…..amin

    Nb : Tetapi ingat sasaran mereka adalah Club Malam,…..tempat kemaksiatan !
    ….siapa yang mau memungkiri ini ?,…bagaimana dengan pembantaian di dalam Mesjid oleh kafir ?
    ,….suatu peristiwa yang bertolak belakang dari segi susila..ok

    Inalilahi wainailahi rojiun………Untuk Mu Hai Para Suhada…..

    بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ

    Al’Baqarah 214 : Apakah kamu mengira bahwa kamu akan masuk surga padahal belum datang kepadamu sebagaimana halnya orang-orang terdahulu sebelum kamu? . Mereka ditimpa oleh malapetaka dan kesengsaraan , serta diguncangkan sehinga berkatalah Rasul dan orang-orang yang beriman bersamanya : “ Bilakah datangnya pertolongan Allah ? “. Ingatlah, sesungguhnya pertolongan Allah itu amat dekat “.

    At Taha 131 : Dan janganlah kamu tujukan kedua matamu kepada apa yang telah Kami berikan (kekuasaan, kekuatan dan harta) kepada golongan-golongan dari mereka (kafir/munafikun), sebagai bunga kehidupan dunia untuk Kami cobai mereka dengannya. Dan karunia Tuhan kamu adalah lebih baik dan lebih kekal.

    Al Hadiid 20 : Ketahuilah, bahwa sesungguhnya kehidupan dunia ini hanyalah permainan dan suatu yang melalaikan, perhiasan dan bermegah- megah antara kamu serta berbangga-banggaan tentang banyaknya harta dan anak, seperti hujan yang tanam-tanamannya mengagumkan para petani; kemudian tanaman itu menjadi kering dan kamu lihat warnanya kuning kemudian menjadi hancur. Dan di akhirat (nanti) ada azab yang keras dan ampunan dari Allah serta keridhaan-Nya. dan kehidupan dunia ini tidak lain hanyalah kesenangan yang menipu.

    Ali Imran 178 : Dan janganlah sekali-kali orang-orang kafir menyangka, bahwa pemberian tangguh Kami (umur panjang) kepada mereka adalah lebih baik bagi mereka. Sesungguhnya Kami memberi tangguh kepada mereka hanyalah supaya bertambah-tambah dosa mereka; dan bagi mereka azab yang menghinakan.

    An Nissa 139 : orang-orang yang mengambil orang-orang kafir menjadi teman-teman penolong dengan meninggalkan orang-orang mu’min. Apakah mereka mencari kekuatan di sisi orang kafir itu ? Maka sesungguhnya semua kekuatan itu milik Allah.

  26. I hate this Kafir-thing!
    It’s just like we vs the others. Just like stupid-idiot-holier-than-thou attitude…

    It’s the fuckin 2008, not some 600 M. People trying to be civilized and moving towards a global village, world is flat, information superhighway, and it’s all ruin by some xenophobic.

    Arrghh!!!!!!!!!!

  27. All this time it’s been sooooo hard to send this message:
    Terrorism is not Islam

    This is because it’s harder to claim what something is not, than to claim what something is.
    It’s easier to say this: Apple is a fruit
    than this: Watermelon is not a computer-manufacturer
    because you don’t necessarily have to have an explanation for the first, while for the second you really need to have an explanation.

    But the book “Mereka adalah Teroris” can really enable us to send a different message:
    Terrorism is Khawarij

    In the book review here, it is mentioned that Khawarij was a band of terrorists active as early as during prophet Muhammad’s reign. They’d been opposing the ruling caliphs (Muhammad included), killing no fewer than 3 of Muhammad’s 4 closest disciples (khulafaur rasyidin).
    They are simply terrorists. And they oppose Islam, with the same M.O. employed by today’s terrorists.

    Do read the review.

  28. @aibnu, dengan logika yang sama maka pengeboman ditempat ‘maksiat’ lain juga anda benarkan ? Beranikah anda menanggung akibat bila seseorang yang mendengar pernyataan anda ini melakukan hal yang tersirat dalam ucapan anda ini ?

  29. @ K. geddoe
    we are living in our dark age. at least from my part.
    alien language to avoid trolls doesn’t affect on all of them after all😀
    perhaps try attacting more elves next time? *long live Gondor*:mrgreen:

  30. if you read the omar nasiri story “inside the jihad” you will see that so many faction even inside the mujahidin. In afganistan there are taliban, hekmatyar, and mujahidin.

    so what do this guy came from? even osama is said not belonging to any faction cause he sometimes also hate those guys when they go to far or not as expected by him

  31. @sitijenang

    perhaps try attacting more elves next time?

    Aren’t they the wandering ghosts that support the protagonists to defeat the orcs?😕

    *lost focus*

    Ehm…

    alien language to avoid trolls doesn’t affect on all of them after all😀

    I think it’s just a leak…IMO, had this post written in Indonesian, it would go to BOTD and more people would read and easily understand. There would be bigger chance to have trolls here.

    @K. geddoe
    Next time you may want to write in tlhIngan Hol or Hopelandic:mrgreen:

    BTW how come there are so many trolls lately?😕

  32. @ sora9n

    Just for the sake of the argument, we can’t really compare these two naively like that, can we? Even putting that aside, it’s not entirely all that consoling either; this is the 21st century. God knows what the Dark Ages Christianity could have done with WMDs.

    Not to say it’s likely, just being paranoid. It’s healthy when done occasionally.

    BTW, yes, I meant “or”. Thanks.

    @ dnial

    Maybe some fight for genuine political reasons. Some other, however, might simply be doing the whole thing for the sake of the us-and-them spirit.

    (And I love the Alien Bush meme.)

    @ spidolhitam

    My guess is as good as yours.😕

    @ aibnu

    Kalau Anda hobi melihat sesama manusia saling membantai, terserah. Tidak usah bawa ayat-ayat. Tidak usah sok jadi korban.

    Tolonglah tak usah haus darah. Kalau mau masuk surga, biar besok dosa Anda dan keluarga Anda saya tanggung semua; biar saya yang ke neraka. Asal Anda dan saudara-saudara barbar Anda itu jangan berbuat kerusakan lagi di dunia ini. Setuju?🙂

    @ dnial (2)

    How tragic, if we were to go back to the age of sticks and stones because of these…

    @ Fritzter

    I beg to differ; you’re missing the point. Saying those is easy, and people have been telling those zillions of times. Screaming “Terrorism is not Islam” is one thing, but to get people to believe it, is another.

    Some of us say terrorism is unislamic, then support the jihadists.
    Some of us say terrorism is unislamic, then say racist, antisemitic things.
    Some of us say terrorism is unislamic, then call for the beheadings of those who disagree.

    Action speaks louder than words.

    It’s not Islam we’re talking about: it can be the most peaceful religion of all time, or it can be the most violent — it doesn’t matter. What matters is its adherents’ attitudes.

    Why so serious😆 ?

    Indeed, maybe I should sit back and relax…

    @ gentole

    Well! Trackback here if you change your mind.

    @ oddworld

    Jangan dikasih makan.😀

    @ sitijenang

    I don’t follow Tolkien.😦

    @ spidolhitam (2)

    Ah, that’s splendid! Let them fight among themselves and leave the rest of us to our own devices!

    @ Snowie

    Silakan kembali kalau sudah sembuh kunang-kunangnya.😀

    @ lambrtz

    Vonlenska?😆

  33. @ K. geddoe

    Just for the sake of the argument, we can’t really compare these two naively like that, can we?

    Aw, c’mon. Like you don’t know me. It’s supposedly tongue-in-cheek.😆

  34. [OOT]

    @ sitijenang

    perhaps try attacting more elves next time? *long live Gondor*:mrgreen:

    Alas, Sire, for no longer we see Elves in Middle Earth. Even Lady Arwen the fairest, beloved of King Elessar’s age, has now passed—withered as the last leaves fell in Lorien!😦 :mrgreen:

    [/OOT]

  35. any suggestion how to over come this case, in order our childs not to follow this way? if goverment haven’t interesting and not care.

  36. Pingback: the.tintamerah.info » Paranoia

  37. Action speaks louder than words.

    It’s not Islam we’re talking about: it can be the most peaceful religion of all time, or it can be the most violent — it doesn’t matter. What matters is its adherents’ attitudes.

    Wrongful “action” and wrongfully-supporting “attitudes” are all due to two things: idiocy and misperception, caused in part by a long history of misinformation on Islam.
    In this country, we know this is a religion whose ‘selected values’ were used as means to fight colonizations. In those days, I doubt you can get people to stand up and fight the Dutch by saying “Islam teaches us to be compassionate and forgiving”🙄 .
    This rooted misconception is no doubt a breeding ground for terrorism concepts.

    If you’re at least interested in solution, not just in having a cerebral workout, then you might want to consider the proposition that idiocy and misperception can be best dealt with by providing information.

    When terrorist acts feed on supports from idiotic and mispercepting adherents, the best (although not the swiftest) way to eliminate them is to hack away their food supply. That is, by eradicating misperception, one flock of idiots at a time, using sources of ‘believable’ information, through mediums that can actually reach these flocks.
    I believe, the book I’ve mentioned is one of this mediums.

  38. Action speaks louder than words.

    It’s not Islam we’re talking about: it can be the most peaceful religion of all time, or it can be the most violent — it doesn’t matter. What matters is its adherents’ attitudes.

    Wrongful “action” and wrongfully-supporting “attitudes” are all due to two things: idiocy and misperception, caused in part by a long history of misinformation on Islam.
    In this country, we know this is a religion whose ’selected values’ were used as means to fight colonizations. In those days, I doubt you can get people to stand up and fight the Dutch by saying “Islam teaches us to be compassionate and forgiving”🙄 .
    This rooted misconception is no doubt a breeding ground for terrorism concepts.

    If you’re at least interested in solution, not just in having a cerebral workout, then you might want to consider the proposition that idiocy and misperception can be best dealt with by providing information.

    When terrorist acts feed on supports from idiotic and mispercepting adherents, the best (although not the swiftest) way to eliminate them is to hack away their food supply. That is, by eradicating misperception, one flock of idiots at a time, using sources of ‘believable’ information, through mediums that can actually reach these flocks.
    I believe, the book I’ve mentioned is one of this mediums.

  39. @fritzer

    In this country, we know this is a religion whose ’selected values’ were used as means to fight colonizations. In those days, I doubt you can get people to stand up and fight the Dutch by saying “Islam teaches us to be compassionate and forgiving”🙄 .

    Nope… not entirely true…
    Yes there is a holy war against, well, 5M(Mabuk, Madat, dll) for lack of my vocab, in Padang (well it’s West Sumatra I recall) leaded by the famous Imam Bonjol (Adat vs Padri things, i get it in PSBP in third class), the loosing Adat then called the help from VOC for help, the rest is history.

    But the main pillar and the most significant contribution from Muslim is SDI (Sarekat Dagang Islam) the most effective organization at that time, then come Muhammadiyah and NU.

    Where is the violence part?

    Yes, our freedom is started by violence (political, sporadic and insignificant in scale but frustating for VOC) but won by organized political movemement started by Muslim (SDI and later SI, Muhamaddiyah, Masyumi, NU) and youth value (Sumpah Pemuda) and ended by National value and Youth value (remember Rengasdengklok?).

    What I’m trying to say, why resort to violence part when we haven’t exhausted all the alternatives?

    Their terror are not lessen the oppression on Palestine, and maybe make it worse.

    @geddoe

    Some of us say terrorism is unislamic, then support the jihadists.
    Some of us say terrorism is unislamic, then say racist, antisemitic things.
    Some of us say terrorism is unislamic, then call for the beheadings of those who disagree.

    Well, Some of them don’t think Amrozi is a terorist either, just misguided extermist brothers. Hell, what’s the difference?

    And don’t forget some of them honestly believe that they are just being framed by USA and Israel. And why the terorist confess guilty? Right, USA and Israel trick or force them.

    Not to forget that troll that says “they just bombing some maksiat place, what the fuss about?”

    This is crazy world we live in.

  40. Saya jadi inget kata seseorang mengenai beberapa bule yang jadi mualaf, “Orang-orang itu pada masuk Islam bukan karena melihat sisinya yang garang dan keras, melainkan karena melihat sisi yang ramah, lemah lembut, dan penuh kasih.”🙄

  41. @fritz

    Wrongful “action” and wrongfully-supporting “attitudes” are all due to two things: idiocy and misperception, caused in part by a long history of misinformation on Islam.

    I don’t think “misinformation” is the right word here for no one is able to know for sure what Muhammad really said and did 15 hundred years ago. The history of Islam, like all other religions, is shrouded by tribal feuds, conflicting theologies, diverging Koranic interpretations and, the worst of all, false hadits made by bigots and political opportunists. Your suggestion presupposes that there is such a thing as the true, unbiased information on Islam, and that we are capable of accessing it. The fact is that Algazali and Ibnu Rushd arrived at different conclusions, while they were reading the same holy book. If you try to asses the Koran objectively, you’ll find it a peaceful and at the same time a violent scripture. Isn’t it funny that the people we deem ignorant and therefore should be enlightened are now looking for ways to make us “enlightened”?.

    We just can’t approach those “holy” words objectively. Sometimes, IMHO, we really have to choose, select, ignore, discard, refine, contextualize and even bend the meaning of certain Koranic verses to make Islam less violent. In other words, we have no choice but giving the “wrong information” to root out terrorism. You know, there is a point where the moderates, liberals and fundies are forced to make a leap of faith. This is where all arguments fail.

    I have my own idea of Islam. It may not be 100 percent correct, but I hope it is inclusive and far from being violent.

    If you’re at least interested in solution, not just in having a cerebral workout, then you might want to consider the proposition that idiocy and misperception can be best dealt with by providing information.

    We blog, we are in the process of disseminating information.

  42. Yes, our freedom is started by violence (political, sporadic and insignificant in scale but frustating for VOC) but won by organized political movemement started by Muslim (SDI and later SI, Muhamaddiyah, Masyumi, NU) and youth value (Sumpah Pemuda) and ended by National value and Youth value (remember Rengasdengklok?).

    I have to disagree with you on that.
    I say our freedom started with violence and won with violence. The only thing that gave freedom to this archipelago is the Atom bomb. No less. And that is one of the first forms of terrorism ever introduced to mankind.

    Yes, political movements and youth pledge play a role too: as proof that there are in fact civilized human beings in this piece of global colony, not just illiterate yellow aborigines.

    But the undeniable fact remains clear: This freedom was not won by talks.
    Jap would’ve never surrendered if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been wiped out.

    Rengasdengklok? As I remembered it, it was a display of semi-violence as well. Soekarno was kidnapped and forced to stop being a slow-ass coward and get on with the proclamation already – or else.

    Well, Some of them don’t think Amrozi is a terorist either, just misguided extermist brothers. Hell, what’s the difference?

    None.
    For them, there is no better solution but search-and-destroy missions.

    The solution I offered above is not for them (or any that spawns later), but for the rest of the nation. To prevent and reduce spawning, and to cut away their food supply: supports from misinformed adherents.
    Re-inform. re-inform.

    And don’t forget some of them honestly believe that they are just being framed by USA and Israel. And why the terorist confess guilty? Right, USA and Israel trick or force them.

    Not to forget that troll that says “they just bombing some maksiat place, what the fuss about?”

    All that are misinformations, don’t you agree?

  43. gentole

    The fact is that Algazali and Ibnu Rushd arrived at different conclusions, while they were reading the same holy book.

    And it’s a good thing that they did. So why can’t others do that as well?
    Because they aren’t getting enough of this information.
    Whether progressive Islam is authentic or not is beside the point. The point is that it’s up to some good.

    I don’t think it is the “better truth” that earns the fundies more followers than the liberals; it is simply because they’ve been getting a lot more coverage and opportunities to make themselves heard more often. This is simply because they got here first.
    The alternative perception (if not the ‘true, unbiased information‘) will have to be made heard equally often in order to get more followers.

    This is because an idea is excepted often not because it is truthful, but because it has the majority votes.
    The more people say “terrorism is bad”, the better.
    And to do that, you need to reach more people.

    We blog, we are in the process of disseminating information.

    True, but among which people? Aiming at which audience?
    Geddoe implied it himself, he’s avoiding trolls.
    While in fact it is the trolls that need to be “enlightened”.

    No, I don’t think having a healthy debate such as this is ‘disseminating information’.
    Disseminating information is when you have a fixed target, aim to actually get your message across and taken in.
    When your target shoots back at you and you enjoy returning fire, that’s not dissemination.
    That’s cerebral workout.
    I’m not saying it’s bad though,😀 but it’s just not ‘disseminating information’.

  44. @ sora9n

    It’s supposedly tongue-in-cheek.😆

    Hoo.😀

    @ feriadiisander

    IMO, broaden their horizons; don’t keep them in homogenous environments too long.

    @ Fritzter

    Wrongful “action” and wrongfully-supporting “attitudes” are all due to two things: idiocy and misperception, caused in part by a long history of misinformation on Islam.

    Assuming this were true, then it doesn’t change the fact that the Muslims themselves are responsible of corrupting the image of their religion. Indeed a portion of them should be found guilty of idiocy (e.g. terrorists, bigots) and misinformation (e.g. propagandists, ban-and-protest-all-criticisms-ists).

    If you’re at least interested in solution, not just in having a cerebral workout, then you might want to consider the proposition that idiocy and misperception can be best dealt with by providing information.

    Currently doing so.

    @ dnial

    That’s what I was talking about: why the hesitance of disowning the terrorists? Why so many but’s?

    Not to forget that troll that says “they just bombing some maksiat place, what the fuss about?”

    Bah, this kind of thing is what Bung Sora would call “craptalks”.

    Personally, I call it “vacuous verbal masturbation”.

    @ Catshade

    Kesimpulannya?🙂

    @ Moerz

    I cannot digest much information here… Care to elaborate?

    @ gentole

    You wretched inkarus sunna!😈

    Ah, yes, yes. I somehow see the pressures directed at Islam now as a chance to look back and think about religion more critically. I celebrate that kind of thinking. Bravo.

    @ Fritzter (2)

    And it’s a good thing that they did. So why can’t others do that as well?
    Because they aren’t getting enough of this information.

    “Why can’t others do that as well”? They already did, and hence you have people like you, who screamed that Amrozi’s terrorist acts are unislamic, and people like, well, Amrozi.

    So why complaining?

    But maybe what you meant was;

    Whether progressive Islam is authentic or not is beside the point. The point is that it’s up to some good.

    If that’s that, then yes, I wholeheartedly agree.

    I don’t think it is the “better truth” that earns the fundies more followers than the liberals; it is simply because they’ve been getting a lot more coverage and opportunities to make themselves heard more often. This is simply because they got here first.

    Indeed, and best not forgetting the fundamentalists’ attitude towards new ways of thinking. Defensive and almost violent. I mean almost violent.

    True, but among which people? Aiming at which audience?
    Geddoe implied it himself, he’s avoiding trolls.
    While in fact it is the trolls that need to be “enlightened”.

    Nice criticism — although this writing is cathartic in nature. Thank you.

    No, I don’t think having a healthy debate such as this is ‘disseminating information’.
    Disseminating information is when you have a fixed target, aim to actually get your message across and taken in.
    When your target shoots back at you and you enjoy returning fire, that’s not dissemination.
    That’s cerebral workout.

    But, for the sake of the argument, do remember that the writing themselves can be read without churning through the comments, leave alone participating in the said debate.

  45. @Fritzter

    But the undeniable fact remains clear: This freedom was not won by talks. Jap would’ve never surrendered if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been wiped out.

    I used to think that way. But believe me, bro, explaining a historical event like the independence of a state is a lot more complex than explaining a falling apple. I think you’re oversimplifying the course of history here. I believe it is unwise to reduce 100, 200 or even 300 years of history into a single event.

    The alternative perception (if not the ‘true, unbiased information‘) will have to be made heard equally often in order to get more followers.

    They have heard alternative views on Islam, and they believed those views were invented by the Jews and the CIA.

    No, I don’t think having a healthy debate such as this is ‘disseminating information’. Disseminating information is when you have a fixed target, aim to actually get your message across and taken in.

    It sounds more like a propaganda there, bro. I beg to differ. I have been dealing with this issue since I was in high school — that’s about eight or nine years ago. Again you’re simplifying the problem. It’s like that you’re assuming the fundies will just take for granted everything we say about Islam. They resist, they almost always do, that’s one important variable you seem to ignore.

  46. Kesimpulannya?🙂

    If you want to let more unbelievers suffer in hell, it’s violence all the way, baby! Lagipula, semakin sedikit orang masuk surga, semakin lapang kapling anda nanti di sana.🙂

  47. @gentole

    I think you’re oversimplifying the course of history here. I believe it is unwise to reduce 100, 200 or even 300 years of history into a single event.

    Oversimplifying, eh? Yeah I get that a lot.
    When I see two dots need connecting, I draw a straight line through them. Others like to draw a damn labirin.
    That’s just me. Life (or history, for that matter) is already complicated like it is, I’m not going to be the one to make it more complicated for lesser marbles to grasp.

    As for compressing 100, 200, 300 years into a single event, well again it’s pretty simple the way I see it:
    What our ancestors had been doing from 1600’s to 1900 had accumulated to nothing. What really made a difference was the Dutch’s newly-adopted ethical politics (I dont’ know if that’s the right term🙄 )that allowed (no one won it – they were allowed) them to form parties, etc.
    That was due to the global political phenomenon that was going on at that time (aristocracies crumbling, communism & capitalism emerging, etc).
    We never won anything; we were simply dictated by everything that was going on worldwide.
    We “won” freedom when colonialism was no longer fashionable and when liberation got hip.
    Of course, I’m grateful our ancestors had seen these opportunities and made use of them. But I still cant’ see them as “mighty heroes” – only “martyrs”. I don’t think the latter is less heroic, though.

    My statement that the Atom bomb gave us freedom, summed up this concept: The Goliaths did the actual fighting, while we did the dying and the talking.
    Of course, all that 3 centuries of dying helped too, but I still won’t say we won.
    We were saved.
    So we should stop bragging.
    😯

    Well, talk about bein’ OOT!!:mrgreen:
    Say, I really like history better than religion (although I suck at both😆 ).

  48. @ gentole | Fritzter

    Ah, since this scarcely has anything to do with what I was talking about in the main entry, while I am happy to follow the discussion, I have nothing to say.😀

    I’ve been leaning towards Mas Fritzter’s more brutal approach (prior to reading this debate), but not totally convinced.

    @ Catshade

    Beuh…😆

  49. Ah, now that the blog owner has given his consent for us to go on with this OOT discussion, I am more than happy to give a reply.😀

    It is true that nothing in history happens because of a single cause, except perhaps the creation of this universe, the first blast that made everything come into being. If there were no mad scientist who cared to make the atom bomb to devastate Hiroshima-Nagasaki, the Japanese would have not lost the war. If the Jews were never expelled from Israel and never lived in diaspora for ages, Albert Einstein would have not lived in the US and the Allies would not have won the war easily. If the Arabs did not migrate to southern Europe and interact with the Europeans, there would perhaps be no colonization at all, as the Greek legacy would never ever get to Europe. Look, if you follow the chain of events, nothing and no one deserves a credit for what he/she did was just a result of a condition produced by various preceding events. This is called determinism. If you look at the world using this paradigm, then everything is inevitable, including the “gift” the Japanese gave us, and the “ethical politics” implemented by our former masters.

    Of course, I’m grateful our ancestors had seen these opportunities and made use of them. But I still cant’ see them as “mighty heroes” – only “martyrs”. I don’t think the latter is less heroic, though.

    Aha, our ancestors did something; they used the opportunities! But which ancestors? It is of course impossible to talk about Indonesia prior to the early 20th century during which the nationalist movements began to flower in almost every region controlled by the Dutch. Do recall that we actually did not get our freedom from the Japanese, which came to us as an “Old Brother”, but from the Dutch, who after the Allied defeated the fascists intended to regain the Netherlands-Indie. Not until 1949 and after much debates and bloody wars did the kompeni recognize Indonesia as a sovereign state. I admire Sukarno as much as I admire Tan Malaka. They both fought with their own ways. We gained our freedom because we won it by taking actions while we were given the chance to take it. Our forefathers knew that it was the chance. They did not care so much about whether it was provided by Allah SWT or it was simply a result of a series of global events. They did something. That’s an undeniable fact.

    As to whether what they did was big, extraordinary, heroic, etc, I believe this has more to do with feeling than reason. To some people, criticizing imperialism is not really such a big deal. You know, if I lived during the colonial times, I don’t know if I would be on the side of Sukarno or of some people who thought that it was better that we live under the Dutch ruling. Indeed, you might even contemplate that we would have our freedom with or without Sukarno, and that’s just fine. It’s just that, for some philosophical reasons, I have always been against determinism.

    Btw, I studied both history and religion, but I like philosophy more. And I am never good at the three subjects.:mrgreen:

  50. @ gentole

    Just a sudden thought;

    Interesting how you relate the whole issue to the idea of Determinism (which is, from what I read in Hawking’s writings and that gigantic chain of posts our good friend Sora had written; almost scientifically obsolete). Indeed it can be said in this light our Founding Fathers deserve little or no credit: we owed our independence more to the Little Boy than any real struggle. We may reason that they “seized the opportunity”, but of course, we may simply apply the deterministic approach further and find that even their act of seizing the opportunity was triggered by some other forces or events.

    But what makes the Little Boy any less “determined”?😕

    Surely the dropping of the atomic bomb owed its very existence to, say, the rise of Nazism, which in turn owed its very existence to Adolf Hitler’s acute antisemitism, and Hitler may have not been guilty of such a crime, since, well, maybe he can’t help it being brought up in a rather bigoted Catholic environment? We can trace this further and further backwards, and in the end we may as well owed our independence to some cavemen deciding what to eat for his dinner. Go hang the picture of it in our classrooms.😀

    Now, do note that this is essentially a self-defeating idea. If in this light nobody is actually responsible for his actions, then the concept of merits would be obsolete altogether. There is no “real merit”, only “fake merits” inherited from the chain of events. The million dollar question being: Why not just redefine the concept of “merit” and cut off the whole real/fake thing altogether?🙂 Suddenly this is a linguistic problem.

    A good analogy of another self-defeating idea would be to poetically say that “we are all politicians”. It may be suggested that “all of us, to some extent, participate in politics”, and therefore “we are all politicians”. But if everyone is a politician, then the term itself would become meaningless, and we are left with the needless distinction of “politicians in a classic sense” and “normal people now considered politicians due to a philosophical idea”. Might as well cut the crap and go back to square one: we have “politicians” and “non-politicians” respectively.

    * * *

    So, either the Founding Fathers are real heroes (in which the world is not deterministic), or they are de facto heroes in the deterministic world.

    Of course, Mas Fritzter could reason that our world are not deterministic, only the ratio between what the Founding Fathers did and the impact of the atomic bomb are so jarring in a sense that the Fathers did so little when compared to the Bomb, hence not deserving the term heroes. But I find this less likely to be justified.

    Now awaiting further response from Mas Fritzter.🙂

  51. @K.geddoe

    Masbro, I made it clear there that I did not vote for determinism. And do note that I reject the idea for philosophical, not scientific, reasons — without freedom there is no “good” or “bad”.
    But everyday physics, according to my readings on QM in Sora’s blog, is still deterministic in a way that you will surely die if somebody hit your head with a sledge hammer a thousand times.

    Suddenly this is a linguistic problem.

    Yes, it’s true. We have discussed this before?

    Might as well cut the crap and go back to square one: we have “politicians” and “non-politicians” respectively.

    That’s what I do when discussing about terrorism [hei, we’re back on the track!). Let’s just go back to our everyday-world and everyday-reasoning where killing “innocent people” is bad without having to ponder too far on what actually drove people to kill.[Is it capitalism, US hypocrisy, Israel’s occupation on Palestine, poverty, religious bigotry, idiocy, God’s will and omnipotence, dialectical materialism, determinism? All these things are craps!]

    Of course, Mas Fritzter could reason that our world are not deterministic, only the ratio between what the Founding Fathers did and the impact of the atomic bomb are so jarring in a sense that the Fathers did so little when compared to the Bomb, hence not deserving the term heroes. But I find this less likely to be justified.

    Thanks for making it clear, Masbro. The impact of the atomic bomb was of course enormous but that doesn’t mean that it was decisive. The Little Boy might end the war but it did not necessarily determine or lead us to our freedom from imperialism. If the question is: “who gave us our freedom?”, then it would be our forefathers, the conscious actors who fought for it. The Little Boy was nothing but exploding atoms.

    Mas Fritzter, we’re waiting.

  52. @ gentole

    Masbro, I made it clear there that I did not vote for determinism. And do note that I reject the idea for philosophical, not scientific, reasons — without freedom there is no “good” or “bad”.

    Of course — I wrote the whole piece with that in mind, and not that whether it is true (or otherwise) matters anyway. It’s catch 22: the Founding Fathers are heroes even with determinism in mind (moreso if otherwise).😕

    Let’s just go back to our everyday-world and everyday-reasoning where killing “innocent people” is bad without having to ponder too far on what actually drove people to kill.

    Hohoho! This is one strong speech; you’d make an excellent orator. Agreed a hundred per cent.😀

  53. Baru mau sembuh, tapi berkunang-kunang lagi, membaca dialog dirimu dengan mas gentole…

    jadi pengamat aja lah dulu…

    lagian kalo masalah seperti ini pembahasannya bakal nggak bisa sebentar.

Comments are closed.