Conspiracy Theories

May 14th, 2008, in News, by

Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy theories among opinion leaders in Sumatra, American-Zionist and British conspiracies.

Zionist Conspiracies

The President of LBH Perjuangan Hukum dan Politik, Aldian Pinem, said in Medan, North Sumatra, in early April that the Geert Wilders short movie "Fitna" was an attempt to create the impression that all violence in the world was caused by Muslims.

This was not the case, he said, Islam was a creed that always encouraged its adherents to seek peaceful resolutions to conflicts and there were many Quranic verses to support this. He recommended that Wilders be put to death for his lies.

He went on, in fact all recent violence and conflict in the world was caused by the actions of non-Muslims, in particular Americans and Israelis. The Zionist state of Israel, supported by the USA, had released a violence virus which had spread in three historical stages, they being:

  • 1880-1948, the effort to establish the Zionist state.
  • 1948-1967, the strengthening of the Zionist state.
  • 1967- , the effort to create instability in the Middle East.

Israel used the following agencies, - Hasymer, Squadron el-Bighala, Yasha, Hat Hiya and Hiraf Jad-on -, to spread chaos in the middle east, and the United States then exploited this chaos as an excuse to intervene militarily. beritasore

British Conspiracies

In West Sumatra the head of the Majelis Ulama Indonesia, MUI, Buya Masoed Abidin, recently said the Ahmadiyah sect had been created by Britain as a means of dividing Muslims and ensuring the success of their colonisation of the Indian sub-continent in the 19th century.

Buya Masoed Abidin
Buya Masoed Abidin, who incidentally is an internet geek, see http://hmasoed.wordpress.com/ and http://masoedabidin.blogspot.com/

Therefore the government needed to ban the sect because: antara

Ahmadiyah is not a religious movement, it's a form of imperialism, the purpose is to create division among Muslims and ruin Islam.

What's more, Ahmadiyah was not opposed to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, or other official religions, it's target was clearly Islam and Islam alone.


31 Comments on “Conspiracy Theories”

  1. avatar Rambutan says:

    Islam was a creed that always encouraged its adherents to seek peaceful resolutions to conflicts and there were many Quranic verses to support this. He recommended that Wilders be put to death for his lies.

    Oh, the irony. Brilliant stuff.

  2. avatar Fatur says:

    This is the fact that Ahmadiyah is diferent from Nahdhatul ‘Ulama, Muhamadiyah and so forth. This occurs since Ahmadiyah brings different root notions of Islam. The only solution to cope with Ahmadiyah in Indonesia in my point of view is to let Ahmadiyah exist but they should declare as society organisation (ormas) outside Islam. Forbiding Ahmadiyah to lives and even using Violance is not a solution since we have to respect these diferences.

  3. avatar gigi says:

    The only solution to cope with Ahmadiyah in Indonesia in my point of view is to let Ahmadiyah exist but they should declare as society organisation (ormas) outside Islam.

    For me, the Ahmadiyah should either be banned (if they persist to claim that they’re Muslims) or they (the Ahmadiyahs) should declare that Ahmadiyah is a different religion other than Islam, which should clear the murky water of ambiguity.

  4. avatar Rob says:

    Fatur…

    You cannot declare Ahmadiyya as ormas…They are either a religion or they are banned…it really is simple! The logic here would be that any religion that has been derived from a primary source should be declared a social organization. My guess is that there would be a few Christian groups that would be somewhat reluctant to have the powers that be declaring them to no longer be religions but mere social organizations! “Gee, I am sorry, but you protestants are no longer a religion! As of today you are a social organization! So, please refrain from identifying yoursleves as a religion any further…failure to comply will result in criminal punishments! Have a nice day!”

    Unfortunately, it is not as simple as Gigi suggest, although it would be nice if it was. Ahmadiyya finds their roots in Islam and I cannot see how they could claim to be a religion based on something else when this would clearly not be truthfully the case!

    This leaves the awkward position of “to ban or not to ban that is the question” in the Shakespearean sense. In this case we revert to the prevailing law and for Ahmadiyya that does not necessarily play out as the best way to handle their claim to be a religion. Yet, if Indonesia is really a country based on the rule of law then it is the law that must be enforced…

    So let’s take the argument back to the law. The conspiracy theories abound everywhere in Indonesia…There has been recent discussion about a US conspiracy to get a hold of the bird flu virus in order to construct a biological weapon to eventually be deployed against Indonesia…

    Claiming a conspiracy is always an easy way of upsetting the apple cart…

  5. avatar rima says:

    ahh.. so ahmadiya was created by the brits! those bloody brits, they’re always looking for a way to f**k with indonesians, so jealous of indonesia’s super power 😉

  6. avatar gigi says:

    ahh.. so ahmadiya was created by the brits! those bloody brits, they’re always looking for a way to f**k with indonesians, so jealous of indonesia’s super power 😉

    Try divide and conquer. This tactic is usually employed by stronger powers to keep potential rivals fragmented and divided.

  7. avatar Rambutan says:

    Rob, is there a legal basis to ban Ahmadiyah? As far as I understand there is not. Even the famous SKB is actually a tool to regulate government-internal mechanisms but cannot be used to ban a certain group. I think Jimly Assidiqie was pretty clear when he said that Ahmadiyah should not be regulated by the state as this would violate the constitution.

  8. avatar gigi says:

    Unfortunately, it is not as simple as Gigi suggest, although it would be nice if it was. Ahmadiyya finds their roots in Islam and I cannot see how they could claim to be a religion based on something else when this would clearly not be truthfully the case!

    On the other hand, it’s difficult to call them Muslims by definition. Muslims are people who have professed that there are none worthy of worship other than Allah SWT and that Muhammad (PBUH) is His (last) messenger.

    While Ahmadiyyans claimed that there’s another messenger after Muhammad (PBUH), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The equivalent of that statement to Muslims is like saying that believing in Jesus is not the way to salvation or denying Jesus’ divinity to Christians. I mean, a ‘Christian’ who professed such blasphemous notion is not really a Christian by definition, is he?

    Ahmadiyyans can call their religion Ahmadiyyah or anything else for that matter, but shouldn’t call themselves Muslims because we refuse such new inventions and later insertions to our already established religion.

  9. avatar trane says:

    Gigi:
    “The equivalent of that statement to Muslims is like saying that believing in Jesus is not the way to salvation or denying Jesus’ divinity to Christians. I mean, a ‘Christian’ who professed such blasphemous notion is not really a Christian by definition, is he?”

    An equivalent within Christianity would be the Mormons. Wikipedia on that says:

    ” Jesus Christ is viewed as the head of the church, leading it today through revelations given to a hierarchy of priesthood leaders to whom the keys have been restored. The highest-ranking leader is the President of the Church, who is considered to be a prophet and an apostle.”

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

    The point is this: It does not matter who is and who is not Christian or Muslim ‘by definition’. You may believe that the Ahmadiyahns are wrong in their beliefs, and you are free to hold those beliefs. But you should not legislate against their beliefs. Same with me as a Christian. I may share with Mormons only the holy script. Our interpretations of that script may differ, as our ceremonies and so on. I should not legislate against them calling themselves Christian in the same way I will not have them ban me from calling myself a Christian.

  10. avatar Lairedion says:

    Well said, trane. 😉

  11. avatar Enigmatic says:

    Oh enough of all these conspiracy theories already…

    As if having the theory that Valentine’s Day is a Jewish conspiracy isn’t absurd enough…

    Get a life people…

  12. avatar Mach Jabber says:

    Maybe it’s the second version of the goddidit argument.

    “It’s difficult to explain the complexities of the universe.”
    “Goddidit!”

    “It’s difficult to comprehend this terrible conflict.”
    “Jewsdidit!”

  13. avatar Rob says:

    Rambutan…

    I think there is an argument to made that there is a legal basis. I would love to be arguing against that position because the legal basis for it is weak once you get outside of any arguments that do not rely on some kind of “it’s the best law and order option”.

    I agree the SKB is not going to be strong enough to ban anything let alone a “religion”. The SKB just do not rank in the hierarchy of legislation as contained in Law No. 10 of 2004 on Legislation. I would be arguing that to ban a “religion” or even a sect then you are going to have to come up with a legislative instrument that has a little more gravitas!

    The argument stems from the supposed guarantees enshrined in the Constitution (this is why Jimly has been offering his 2 bobs worth). However, this needs to be read in conjunction with the philosophy of Pancasila (this is Achmad’s area of expertise :D) and other prevailing laws and regulations. So, if one remembers that there are only a limited number of religions permissible on a KTP does this mean by default that Ahmadiyya is not a recognized religion? I think you will find many commentators say that the answer to the previous question is yes.

    Ahmadiyya are a sect of Islam and there is not any other ways I can see that it can be spun. The arguments that highlight the divergence from traditional scriptures by the Mormons (as contained in the comments of Trane) highlights the difficulty that Islam faces in saying that Ahmadiyya is not a sect of Islam. This does not suppose that the teachings or beliefs of Ahmadiyya are right or wrong, rather it merely is noted to highlight that the orgins of Ahmadiyya are clearly Islamic even if other Muslims reject them!

    But back to Jimly…it would be interesting if this came before the Constitutional Court because if Jimly is true to his word as you have the bloke quoted as saying then this case has the potential to remove a section from KTPs across the board. If the State cannot regulate religion or the practice of belief systems then there is no longer any need to have religion recognized on your KTP. This sort of seems to be moving into the “don’t ask, don’t tell” direction.

    All these issues can be fascinating arguments if we could step back from the emotional pros and cons of divergent beliefs and focus only on the legal issues…I guess this is why I love the law, as I love a good, reasoned, and frank argument about the intent, the purposes, and the boundaries of the laws that govern us and our actions.

  14. avatar Rob says:

    Mach Jabber…

    Nice point!

    It is kind of like name your conspiracy….then insert favourite group at “X”…

    “X”didit

    Been busy? Haven’t seen ya round for a while (or is it I haven’t been paying enough attention? 😀 )!

  15. avatar Andrew says:

    WHATEVER FLOATS THEIR BOAT!

  16. […] whom I copied the material from, has the full report here. […]

  17. avatar Hari says:

    You guys quote the most clueless of preachers and dissect their words like a bunch of experts you are 🙂 Try analyzing some of Pat Robertson or any other respectable member of The 700 club for a change.

  18. avatar therry says:

    Mr. Buya Masoed Abidin was definitely raised in a typical Indonesian fashion; whilst running around the house carelessly, little Buya would bump into the table, thus making him bawling his head off and annoying his parents. The parents – too lazy to lecture little Buya to be more careful – blame all the hurt and pain to the table instead.

    “Oohh you poor thing! Did the table hurt you? Did it? Did it? Mommy will smack the table for you okay?” Smack! Smack! “Bad table! Naughty table! See, I’ve smacked it so you don’t have to cry anymore.”

    Little Buya, all smiles and grins, learnt from his parents a valuable lesson: It’s perfectly fine to blame others that simply have no power to defend themselves, or even no knowledge that they’re actually guilty of anything in the first place.

    So what better way to blame the Brits as the originator of Ahamdiyah? And why the Brits? Because he’d mistaken Geert Wilders country of origin to be of UK, instead of the Netherlands. And if someone pointed this out to him, his initial response would probably be, “Look, I don’t know, for all I care, they all look kind of the same to me, ok.”

  19. avatar Marisa says:

    LOL @ therry
    That’s a sick analogy. But, okay, right on..

    I like conspiracy theories, especially those involving UFOs and the intergalactic system, totally wicked! But most of all, I like them because some are SO crazy, they’ve made the rest of us look normal and sane.

    Peace to the world.

  20. avatar Mach Jabber says:

    Conspiracy theories can be good when they’re finely crafted and based purely on suspicions. It’s one way to find out the truth just in case the media did conspired. Even George Carlin agreed on this one.

    But sometimes conspiracy theories are just based on plain hatred and racist ideologies. It’s like, maybe some bad persons did manipulate your newspaper. But should the theory *really* need to mention the likes of the US, the Jews, Freemasonry, yadda yadda?

    @ Rob
    Indeed. As busy as it gets. 🙂

  21. avatar khalid says:

    Muslims were already divided when Brits came. There are said to be 72 sects in Islam. Some of their beliefs are completely opposite.

    Let me give some examples. Shia say that first three Khalifas were hypocrates (Naudhu Billah). Sunni believe them to be rightful Khalifas. Some Shia sect claim that actually the Holy Quran’s revelation was intended for Hazrat Ali (ra) (Alawites- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawites ). Archangel Gabriel confused the Holy Prophet (saw) to be him and gave him the message instead. Devbandi (indian sect) consider the Holy Prophet (saw) to be human. Barelvi consider him to be noor (light). Some sunni prostrate before the graves of their saints and pray and beg from their saints.

    Most of the sects have on one time or another has given religious edict that the other is Kafir or non-Muslim. These edicts have been published in their books. They are not only different in beliefs, they are also different in the practice of different religious rituals and abada (including Salat). There are different Aima (imams) of Islamic Jurisprudence or Fiqh. They are also very different from each other. All this was already there when Brits came. They didn’t have to make any effort to divide the Muslims. Muslims were already divided.

    The Kalimah is ” There is no god but Allah. Muhammad (saw) is Allah’s Messenger”. It is the declaration that Muslim have to make. In the Kalima to declare the Holy Prophet (saw) the last prophet is not included. Most of the sects believe that Jesus (as) will come in the latter days. So they believe that a prophet can come after the Holy Prophet (saw). And they believe that there is still need of reformation of the mankind of a degree that only a prophet can do.

    So why are they trying to kick Ahmadiyyas out of Islam? This is all political stunt. The Mullas want a piece of the pie of political power. Agitation against Ahmadiyyas has proved over and over again to work in other countries. In Pakistan for example it started in 1953. In 1974 prime minister Bhutto declared Ahmadiyya non-Muslims to appease Mullas by bullying the assembly. In 1984 General Zia issued presidential ordinance to make it illegal for Ahmadis to show in anyway that they are non-Muslims. They were prosecuted and jailed for writing Bismillah, Kalima or discussing their faith with others. These politicians created a monster by doing things to appease Mullas. Now the situations is that its is difficult for Pakistan to get rid of mullaism. Taliban in NWFP and Balochistan and Madrissas all over the country are playing havoc with law and order. Same thing started in Bangladesh. And now mullas are gaining political ground there too. The Bangladeshi mulla learned from their Pakistani brohters. Indonesian mulla is now trying to replicate this.

  22. avatar khalid says:

    “n 1984 General Zia issued presidential ordinance to make it illegal for Ahmadis to show in anyway that they are non-Muslims.”

    Sorry I meant

    “n 1984 General Zia issued presidential ordinance to make it illegal for Ahmadis to show in anyway that they are Muslims.”

  23. avatar Mach Jabber says:

    Thought-provoking indeed, Khalid! But in the grassroots, is the spirit of the anti-Ahmadiyya all that intricate? Observing the nation’s recent “spiritual rise”, I’d suspect that it’s just a petty case of tribalism.

    In religion’s ‘top brass’, maybe, but I doubt those that threw bricks to Ahmadi mosques did so out of some cunning political schemas.

  24. avatar khalid says:

    Mulla Abidin said:
    Ahmadiyah is not a religious movement, it’s a form of imperialism.

    My response:
    This statement does not mean anything. How is a religious movement defined? If some people organize to attain some goals that they say are religious beliefs, then that is a religious movement. How are Ahmadis promoting an imperialist agenda? No proof has ever been presented.

  25. avatar khalid says:

    Mullah Abidin said:
    “Ahmadiyah sect had been created by Britain as a means of dividing Muslims and ensuring the success of their colonisation of the Indian sub-continent in the 19th century.”

    My response:
    As I have mentioned before, the divisions among Muslims are older than the Ahmadiyyas. The establishment of Ahmadiyya has actually had an opposite effect. If you’ll notice, all the other sects have actually united against the Ahmadiyyas. The mainstream Muslims have never accepted (distinct) Ahmadiyya beliefs in large numbers so far. From day one there have been religious edicts against Ahmadiyyas. The claims that founder of Ahmadiyya made alienated the majority of Muslims from the very first day.

    As to whether the British were establishing the Ahmadiyyas–this claim is clearly ludicrous. Why would the British try to establish a sect when they were directing their efforts towards conversion to Christianity? Moreover, when you examine the claims of the Ahmadis–one of the most important being the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross and did not go up to heaven, but instead moved to Kashmir–it becomes even clearer that the Christian British could not have established this movement. If you read the Ahmadi books, you’ll find that Hazrat Ahmad has very clear and convincing proofs against this main tenet of Christianity. Why would the British back and support someone like that? The answer: they wouldn’t.

    There is no document or impartial research that can prove that Ahmadiyya were planted by the British. On the contrary there is a lot of evidence that British Officers supported some other Muslim mainstream Mullas like Ahraris (A main stream Muslim scholars group in India) against Ahmadis.

  26. avatar khalid says:

    Abidin said:
    What’s more, Ahmadiyah was not opposed to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, or other official religions, it’s target was clearly Islam and Islam alone.

    My response:
    Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (founder of the Ahmadiyya Community) wrote many books about the false beliefs of Christianity. In the late 1800s, it was a bad time for Muslims. The Christian missionaries were predicting that they would convert the whole population of the Indian subcontinent to Christianity in a few decades. Christian missionaries used to ask Muslims, “You believe that Jesus (as) is alive in heaven and will come back and Muhammad (saw) is buried in Medina. So who is greater? Who should you follow? A dead prophet or a living one?” They converted hundreds of thousands of Muslims to Christianity using this logic. Some of the Muslim scholars also became Christians and wrote blasphemous books against Islam and the Holy Prophet of Islam. At that time Hazrat Ahmad claimed that Jesus (as) has died. He proved his death from 30 verses of the Quran. That was the first time that a religious edict of him being Kafir (non-Muslim) was issued by a large number of Mullas. So actually he opposed Christianity and hit the root of Christianity, while the other Mullas supported Christianity by their actions.

    So while the Mullas wrote books saying that Jesus (as) is in the heavens, Hazrat Ahmad proved that Jesus (as) did not die on cross. He also proved that Jesus (as) migrated to Kashmir, where he died at the age of 120. He also discovered a tomb in Srinagar that is said to be Eisa Sahib or Yuzasaf’s tomb. Thus he proved by this that Jesus (as) is just a human prophet. His book Jesus in India is a scholarly book on this subject. It can be read at
    http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/index.html
    You can also read more about tomb of Jesus (as) here
    http://www.tombofjesus.com

    Hazrat Ahmad also wrote books on wrong beliefs of other religions too. Among them are his books on Arya Samaj, Sanatan Dharam, Barhamoos, Sikhism etc. He showed in his book the illogical teachings of Vedic religions. He proved in one of his books that the founder of Sikhism Baba Nanak was actually a Muslim saint.

    The above does not mean that Ahmadiyyas are personally against any people. Their motto is “Love for all. Hatred for none.” They are also involved in social work all over the world. Especially third world countries. They have opened schools, hospitals etc. They also worked in Banda Ache, Pakistan earthquake, Katrina and other natural disaster.

  27. avatar khalid says:

    Mach I agree that the common Muslim does not know about that. Common Muslims have very limited knowledge of Islam. Whatever the Mullah say the majority of common people accept. Muslims love their faith, the Holy Prophet (saw) and the Holy Quran. But they are ignorant of the real teaching. They don’t have critical thinking in the matter of their faith. The problem is with their mullahs. They love to have power. They were looked down upon for a very long time, as being no good. Now they are back with a vengeance. They have learned to play politics. They have a lot of time in their hand to plan. Most of them are seasoned rhetoricians. They know how to flare up emotion of masses. Now they are also being funded by oil rich states. They use Ahmadiyya issue and other such issues as tools to be in media limelight. They have been successful in mobilizing masses with help of Ahmadiyya issue in the past.

  28. avatar Pnoz says:

    Believe or not indonesia someday will be a super power!!

  29. avatar Enigmatic says:

    Pnoz Says:

    May 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
    Believe or not indonesia someday will be a super power!!

    Agreed… But not in this generation. Sadly, maybe not the next too. Maybe 10 generations down the road?

  30. avatar Rob says:

    Or not!

    The idea of Indonesia developing into a superpower is contingent on so many things falling into place at the right time and in the right way…

    Peak oil is going to undermine any efforts Indonesia might mount to become a world superpower. Becoming a superpower based on population alone will never happen. If population was the determining factor then the current world superpowers would be China and India, maybe this will come to pass in the next generation or so!

    Indonesia on the other hand is struggling to overcome sectarian and communal violence, pressure on its natural resources from both local and international interests, an inability to control domestic fuel prices, rising poverty, the list could go on!

    One day Indonesia will be a superpower, maybe. But, that sadly will not be in my life time!

Comment on “Conspiracy Theories”.

RSS
RSS feed
Email

Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-18
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact