Some 100,000 Islamists have met in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, to press for the re-establishment of a caliphate across the Muslim world.
The Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir – which organised the conference – said it had been the largest gathering of Muslim activists from around the world.
A caliphate – or single state for Muslims – last existed in 1924. Hizb ut-Tahrir regards this as the ideal form of government, because it follows what it believes are the laws of God as set out in the Koran, rather than laws designed by man.
The group says it seeks to set up a caliphate by non-violent means – but many experts see it as ideologically close to jihadist groups.
It is banned in most of the Middle East and parts of Europe.
Just what Muslims need to really screw up their lives: their community united under shari’a. With “under” being the operative word.
I just hope this doesn’t give those ignorant neo-con FREEDOM hating bastards on the religious right any big ideas.
I don’t use this phrase too often, but this is news begs for it.
WTF!??
Yeah…when I was living in Indonesia (almost 7 years) these sorts of ‘demostrasi’ as locals call it happens from time to time. If the organisers feel they won’t have as big as a turn out they hope for they offer locals free food or even a few Rupiah (Indonesian currency) for the Rent-A-Crowd in other words to add bulk. Of course the locals get curious about what the fuss is about and join in especially if there are TV cameras!!
My folks rang me on day worried as hell about a large demonstration in Jakarta the other day. I was in a meeting and asked is anyone know about this. A few phone calls later and indeed there was a demonstration but it was mostly overplayed by the foreign media – CNN which is what my folks say as ‘Breaking News!”. LOL!
This is not to say there isn’t a hard line faction in Indonesia but they are definitely in the minority – like those pesky in-your-face Christians in the States. 😉
Cheers
I’ll start to fear the “Religious Right” to the same degree that I do the Islamists, when the former start crashing planes into buildings.
Good to see your fear is so narrowly defined, Frank. Your president must love you.
Have no concern over diminished civil liberties, civil rights, opportunities for all citizens of this land. After all, nothing you have to worry about – as long as you don’t step out of line. And that’s not likely, is it?
So which of your civil liberties, rights, and opportunities have been denied or abridged, “god”?
Still stuck in that egregious bag,, eh, Frank? If it hasn’t happened to you, personally – yet – it’s not important. This isn’t the place I care to or need to itemize personal confrontations with bureaucrats who diminish Constitutional freedoms.
All I cared to point out is your own narrow support for the sort of backwards politics fashionable among those who care nary a whit about their fellow citizens.
But, thanks for the straight line.
You’re just a rich white American liberal who has a need to be a victim. I prefer to worry about the real victims of oppression in Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma, Iran etc.
Better replace the batteries in your cordless crystal ball, Frank.
Your statement is about as wrong as your sudden (and out of character) conversion to commitment to the needs of folks in the 3rd World.
I don’t use this phrase too often, but this news begs for it.
WTF!??
So whom exactly do you care about, “god”? I haven’t seen any evidence that you care about anyone, in America, or outside of it. The only thing you seem to care about is bashing those with different political beliefs than you.
The Comments Guide for DU makes it clear that flaming isn’t especially approved of, here. So, Frankie-poo, you’re reasonably secure from the sort of flame wars that infested online discourse back before your time.
You stepped onto this dialogue to defend the Religious Right. Given the track record of reactionary politics, deceit, bigotry and anti-scientific ideology from Christian Crusaders, did you expect to have your defense of that foolishness welcomed as some sort of positive alternative to the unity in sharia proposed by the conference in Jakarta?
Frank—how can you reject the insightful counsel of god? Read your own post. “You won’t care about religious influence over the laws and culture of GOUSA until they start flying airplanes into buildings?” Can that possibly be true, or are you just too stubborn to admit you overstated your position?
Bobbo –
One, that’s not what I said in my post.
Two, the American religious right is NOT going to start flying planes into buildings. And anyone who thinks otherwise has more than one screw loose.
God –
Sorry, I forgot – nothing that you have ever said could be called “flaming”.
I have no great love for the “Religious Right”. But to suggest that there is no difference between them and Islamists is utterly idiotic. I’ll take the mote, you can have the beam.
#4 – Root-beer Frank
I hate to pile on (oh, who am I trying to kid? I love piling on!), but if memory (or my browser’s cut/paste function) serves, you said something on the order of:
“I’ll start to fear the “Religious Right” to the same degree that I do the Islamists, when the former start crashing planes into buildings.”
So am I to take it that shooting doctors in cold blood through the window, as they wash dishes – or blowing up nurses and security guards showing up at their jobs at a clinic – American citizens, I seem to remember – these are not a problem for you, right?
So exactly how many abortionists have been murdered in the USA in the past 34 years, Lauren? As I recall, one can count them on the fingers of two hands. Still too many, but utterly trivial as compared to the victims of Islam (or even Hinduism).
And in how many of these cases were the killers not sought/prosecuted, let alone executed, as in the case of Paul Hill?
Mindset, Frank. Not numbers.
Sorry Lauren, without “numbers”, the “mindset” is meaningless.
I’ll let you folks continue to ignore the actual article that John posted. Enjoy your little echo-chamber.
This just in to the Department of Erroneous Attributions:
John didn’t post this, Eideard did.
It wasn’t John who posted it. But I’m nitpicking.
I’m not sure why you two are wasting time bickering over this. The radicals from the Christian right are worth keeping an eye on. But there’s a huge difference between a guy killing an abortion doctor and a group of people planning out how to hijack multiple airplanes and kill thousands of people.
It’s not a matter of liberal vs. conservative. It’s a matter of right and wrong. Making it a political issue is just laziness.
Lauren –
Well it wasn’t Uncle Dave, that’s for sure. 🙂
Muslims are certainly doing a better job running their side of this war than we are.
The sooner we admit that the “War on Terror” is a “War on Islam” the better. The other side declares that they are out to take over the world on a daily basis.
Bah! It’s still those nasty evil Buddhists we need to worry about. After all, they’re the (only) ones whose terrorist groups have been proven to posess, produce and use WMDs…
…or maybe we should start using finer granularity in our grand sweeping labels and not make assumpitons about what 1.3 billion people think based on the ravings of a few mixed nuts.
That said, Hizb ut-Tahrir ranks about as high on the squirrel-food-o-meter as Scientology.
14—Frank, are you really that rigid in your thinking, or do you think it is clever to avoid the consequences of your ideas with such an inane dodge?
Do you really have no concerns about the religious right in this country until they fly airplanes into buildings or is there anything short of this that might grab your attention? How about getting Bush elected president? How about getting abortion outlawed? How about degrading GOUSA into a third world status with its anti-science bible thumping?
Probably three examples you are happy with?
Bobbo –
Before you accuse others of “rigid thinking”, you might consider your own first. Instead of seeing the world exclusively in black and white, you might study the concept of motes versus beams.
“Right wing christianity” is the mote. Radical islam is the beam.
Frank – Check this out…
http://tinyurl.com/2cooau
Cheers
26—Frank, you are a real trip. I’ve never seen such rigidity, denial, and projection wrapped so tightly.
I am requesting that YOU admit to a continuum of harm, and you accuse me of thinking in Black and White terms and defend your lack of continuum by sustituting motes and beams? ===Guffaw, haw, haw. Hellooo? Knock, Knock??
You see, Motes and Beams is black and white, not thinking in shades of gray which is what I’m asking you to do.
You are a very special case. Try to understand what you just did – -and grow.
OK, bobbo, maybe I need to talk a little slower?
Mote = light grey
Beam = jet black
If you didn’t know what they meant, then why couldn’t you have just admitted it instead of this useless tantrum?
31—Well if that is what mote means, then I have you completely wrong. WHAT was I thinking–to equate light grey with white and jet black with black and thinking that showed a lack of a continuum?
Frank———–what dictionary are you using so’s I can come up to speed?