4/11, 25/11 and 2/12 anti-Ahok demonstrations

fastpitch17 said:
The National Police Chief says that the Ahok proceedings will be televised in the name of transparency. Not sure what I think of this because you know there will be people of differing interpretations of what is being said. They have already spoken to the FPI leader and called him an "expert witness" but, he has no credentials to be an expert in anything. It seems the kangaroos have already been entering the court room for this. Ahok has announced that he has made plans for his family and they are prepared if he should go to jail so he doesn't seem to be taking anything for granted.
This may just come down to who's face is going to be saved? Ahok's on the side of a Democracy of laws, or Religion representing a far right radical approach. One can only hope that Indonesia chooses democracy and sees all this as being political moves and not religious.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that Ahok has already been charged...I thought it was only at the investigation stage.
I read Ahok went to an Islamic school so he should be well versed in Koran....isn't that all they learn there...:pray2:
 
So far I can't find fault with the police chief. I think Jokowi was right in choosing him. He did say that if anything is found to be good evidence in the pre investigation it will go forward to the Investigative part. If not, it will end. It is pretty well known that the instigators are using a video they know has been doctored but still refuse to back off because that is all they have and know they can't just up and say, "OK, it's all politics."
 
Davita said:
Does this mean that Ahok has already been charged...I thought it was only at the investigation stage.
I read Ahok went to an Islamic school so he should be well versed in Koran....isn't that all they learn there...:pray2:
Click to expand...
No, it is just the pre investigation for it which is interviewing people and finding evidence if there is any. Ahok since being Governor has done a lot of good for Jakarta Muslims. I believe many know this.
 
fastpitch17 said:
So far I can't find fault with the police chief. I think Jokowi was right in choosing him. He did say that if anything is found to be good evidence in the pre investigation it will go forward to the Investigative part. If not, it will end. It is pretty well known that the instigators are using a video they know has been doctored but still refuse to back off because that is all they have and know they can't just up and say, "OK, it's all politics."
Click to expand...

Can you explain how it has been "doctored?" I have seen some that were edited, but even in a version that hasn't been redacted his comments would be construed as blasphemous in Muslim circles. To suggest that Muslims can be fooled or lied to using the Qur'an, a document held to be to the immutable word of God without error, is something they'd consider offensive. It really does say what his critics claim, that Muslims cannot allow Jews and Christians to be 'awliya, guardians, over Muslims.

The point is that blasphemy laws are nebulous enough to be used to stifle speech and critics, that they are a tool of autocratic regimes rather than pluralist democracies. His critics are not at all wrong that he's "guilty" of blasphemy by Muslim standards, though.
 
Apparently the Muslims in pulau series where Ahok made the original speech didn't think it a big problem? Or did they? If they did, how did ahok was able to leave the meeting without incident?

I guess it is obvious that not all Muslims think the same about this issue (what ahok said)
 
Dan said:
Can you explain how it has been "doctored?" I have seen some that were edited, but even in a version that hasn't been redacted his comments would be construed as blasphemous in Muslim circles. To suggest that Muslims can be fooled or lied to using the Qur'an, a document held to be to the immutable word of God without error, is something they'd consider offensive. It really does say what his critics claim, that Muslims cannot allow Jews and Christians to be 'awliya, guardians, over Muslims.

The point is that blasphemy laws are nebulous enough to be used to stifle speech and critics, that they are a tool of autocratic regimes rather than pluralist democracies. His critics are not at all wrong that he's "guilty" of blasphemy by Muslim standards, though.
Click to expand...
From all I read on it, the speech that was given was recorded and the speech Buni Yani put on social media cut out one word thus making it sound as if Ahok was saying the Quran lied. In Buni Yani's example, I understand their is a clear edit jump in the video at the point the word was removed and even some Muslim scholars here have denounced it as being edited and not saying what was said in the original, longer video.

Plus, what I'm seeing on social media is these FPI and other experts don't know the Quran from their asses. Seems many say the Quran says to ignor anyone who speaks against you.
 
There is a big difference between saying the Quran lied to don't let people use it to lie to you.
 
fastpitch17 said:
There is a big difference between saying the Quran lied to don't let people use it to lie to you.
Click to expand...

Yes this is the crux of it. Yet Ahok is responsible for what he did not say but so far the guy doing the editing is not. I do understand there is a group who believe Ahok should not govern period, because he is not Muslim.
 
Daniel50 said:
Yes this is the crux of it. Yet Ahok is responsible for what he did not say but so far the guy doing the editing is not. I do understand there is a group who believe Ahok should not govern period, because he is not Muslim.
Click to expand...
That is what part of this is all about. Eliminate him from the election to make it easier for the other two to have a chance. Ahok may have used something he shouldn't have and should have been smart enough to know that. In the end, he gave a very nice and sincere apology for using the Quran even in general terms.
 
Jakarta Deputy Governor Djarot Saiful Hidayat has been cancelling campaign stops due to warnings from Mass Organizations. So, they are going to stop them any way they can.More proof it isn't about the Quran but all about politics.
 
Dan said:
Can you explain how it has been "doctored?" I have seen some that were edited, but even in a version that hasn't been redacted his comments would be construed as blasphemous in Muslim circles. To suggest that Muslims can be fooled or lied to using the Qur'an, a document held to be to the immutable word of God without error, is something they'd consider offensive. It really does say what his critics claim, that Muslims cannot allow Jews and Christians to be 'awliya, guardians, over Muslims.

The point is that blasphemy laws are nebulous enough to be used to stifle speech and critics, that they are a tool of autocratic regimes rather than pluralist democracies. His critics are not at all wrong that he's "guilty" of blasphemy by Muslim standards, though.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on how one interprets the verse, is it possible that you can twist the meaning of some? Maybe there are also some verses in the Quran that can be interpreted differently, which is why we are seeing conflicts among Muslims? Like hijab for example, some believe it as necessary, others not. So what do you call those who twisted the meaning of the verse (for political purpose), Ahok called them liars (not the Quran, of course).

Governors are not ‘guardians’ of the people, are they? If they are, then Bhinneka Tunggal Ika cannot be possible.
 
Indeed. You can't work for a person or company with management of another religion then. Nor could you emigrate to a non Muslim country.
 
fastpitch17 said:
Buni Yani could be named a suspect.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/11/06/buni-yani-could-be-named-suspect-police.html

probably not.
Click to expand...


Haters gonna hate of course.

Now what Ahok tried was the 'inoculation' technique.

But the problem is that many of these people don't seem to read or see other sources besides their own extreme. A bit like that Starbucks letter with the Israeli army at the time. You can say and prove whatever you like but if people only get the version from their own leaders, it makes no difference.
 
Well, the Quran is the immutable word of God, so I was told Muslims believe. But in that case there should be no discrepancies on its meaning. It should be clear.

But that's irrelevant in this case because the issue is that Ahok only said that people shouldn't be deceived by others who use the Quran to xxxxxx.
 
rabbit_39 said:
Well, the Quran is the immutable word of God, so I was told Muslims believe. But in that case there should be no discrepancies on its meaning. It should be clear.
But that's irrelevant in this case because the issue is that Ahok only said that people shouldn't be deceived by others who use the Quran to xxxxxx.
Click to expand...
I would invite you to look at all Quranic exegesis on this verse and tell us if you find one that has a discrepancy on something so clear as to be basic and universally understood by Muslims. They aren't deceiving anyone: it says precisely what they claim it says. The fact that the Indonesian language uses both the plural 'awliya (usually spelled aulia) and wali (the singular, taken exactly) also means that absolutely nothing here was "lost in translation."

For him to claim that the public has been lied to in reference to a verse which says something very plain is taken to mean that people are being deceived by their holiest revelation. That's their ammunition against him.

If he hadn't used language as strong as bohong we'd probably not be hearing very much about it. But he did, he's always shot from the hip and this time around it bit him in the ass. I am not particularly pleased by this development, Ahok is a very competent leader and the right man for the job. Indonesia would do well to do away with draconian blasphemy laws.

But he did break the law, as nebulous and ridiculous as it is, and I think they'll try him for it.
 
And for all of you taking the stance that this is a matter of "interpretation," do note that your usual favorites in Nadhlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah are oddly quiet on this matter. They are encouraging a public trial and discouraging demonstrations, but also are not willing to back Ahok and stand up and say "he did not commit blasphemy." Their hands off approach is to let the system do its work.

But I suspect even they believe he is guilty and none of them will deny what that verse from al-Maidah says.

And my suspicions appear to be correct. From the "voice of NU":

"Dikatakannya, keputusan yang dikeluarkan MUI adalah pendapat keagamaan MUI terhadap pernyataan Ahok, bukan tafsir Al-Maidah, yang setelah dikaji oleh komisi fatwa disimpulkan bahwa memang ada penghinaan terhadap Al-Qur’an atau ulama. "

"Kiai Ma’ruf yang juga rais aam PBNU juga menegaskan, tidak ada perbedaan sikap antara NU dan MUI."

http://www.nu.or.id/post/read/72426/kiai-maruf-mui-tidak-dukung-demo-terkait-ahok

This is someone from MUI speaking, mind you, but posted on NU's own mouthpiece.
 
Last edited:
Did you compare the original and manipulated version of the video Dan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Follow Us

Latest Expat Indo Articles

Latest Tweets by Expat Indo

Latest Activity

New posts Latest threads

Online Now

No members online now.
Total: 162 (members: 0, guests: 162)

Newest Members

Moderation Team

  1. atlantis

    atlantis

  2. D

    dafluff

  3. El_Goretto

    El_Goretto

  4. J

    john madden

  5. ponyexpress

    ponyexpress

  6. Puspawarna

    Puspawarna

Share this page

Forum Statistics

Threads
6,750
Messages
113,913
Members
4,045
Latest member
kuykuykuy743
Back
Top Bottom