BASUKI TJAHAJA PURNAMA

AND INDONATIAN JUDICIARY

MUSLIMS ARE SAME EVERYWHERE

SARASIJ MAJUMDER

 

Another example from Indonesia shows how a democratic country changes when Muslims become the majority.  Verses of Quran can have different meanings depending on who interprets them.

The case of Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, commonly known as AHOK,  is one of the most high-profile legal and political events in Indonesia in recent years. Ahok, a Christian of Chinese descent, served as the Governor of Jakarta from 2014 to 2017. His tenure was marked by significant infrastructure projects and efforts to improve governance. But MUSLIMS didn’t like his  direct and often blunt  but TRUTHFUL and impartial leadership style.

HE WAS CHARGED BY BLASPHEMY, AND WAS CONVICTED.

THE BLASPHEMY CASE

The case that brought Ahok into the international spotlight began in September 2016 when a video surfaced showing him quoting a verse from the Quran, Al-MA’idah 5:51, during a speech to residents in the Thousand Islands. In his speech, Ahok suggested that some people were using the verse to deceive voters into thinking ‘That Muslims Should Not Be Led By A Non-Muslim’.

This remark sparked a massive controversy. Some Islamic groups accused Ahok of BLASPHEMY, claiming that he had insulted the QURAN. This led to widespread protests, including several large demonstrations in Jakarta organized by Islamist groups, notably the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI). The protests, which drew hundreds of thousands of people, were some of the largest in Indonesia's recent history.

THE TRIAL AND CONVICTION

Ahok was formally charged with blasphemy in November 2016. His trial began shortly thereafter and was highly publicized, with extensive media coverage and intense public interest in Indonesia, as well as  in the educated world. Throughout the trial, Ahok maintained that he had no intention of insulting Islam and that his comments were taken out of context.

Despite his Défense, on May 9, 2017, Ahok Was Found Guilty Of Blasphemy And Sentenced To Two Years In Prison. The verdict was seen as a victory by hardline Islamist groups but was controversial both domestically and internationally. Many people argued that the case was politically motivated and that it demonstrated the influence of conservative Islamic groups in Indonesian politics. The conviction was also seen as a setback for religious tolerance and pluralism in the country.

AFTERMATH AND RELEASE

Ahok's conviction effectively ended his political career , and he withdrew from the 2017 Jakarta gubernatorial race, which he had been favoured to win. He served almost two years in prison before being released in January 2019, earning time off for good behaviour.

During and after his imprisonment, Ahok received significant public support, and his case remains a symbol of the challenges faced by religious and ethnic minorities in Indonesia, or for that matter, in any Muslim Majority Country. After his release, Ahok initially maintained a low profile but later returned to public life, taking up various roles, including a position as a commissioner at the state-owned oil company PETRAMINA.

BROADER IMPLICATIONS

The Ahok case had significant implications for Indonesia, as well as countries with large Muslim population. It highlighted the growing influence of conservative and hardline Islamist groups in the country, which has the world's largest Muslim population, and also in the MUSLIM  WORLD. The case also raised concerns about the use of blasphemy laws, which many believe can be exploited for political purposes. Additionally, it underscored the challenges of maintaining religious and ethnic pluralism in Indonesia's democratic system.

Ahok's case is often cited as an example of how identity politics can be used to influence elections and political outcomes in Indonesia, and it continues to be a reference point in discussions about democracy, religious freedom, and the rule of law in the country.

This is the impact of Muslims becoming the majority in any country.  Rational Muslims can't do anything because  the leadership is always with Fundamentalist  and Jihadi Muslims. Hatred toward other religions can easily be justified on religious grounds in ISLAM. THEY ARE EVEN INDOCTRINATED TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS BETTER TO HAVE A CORRUPT MUSLIM LEADER THAN A GOOD AND QUALIFIED NON-MUSLIM LEADER.

However, in countries where they are the minority, they will always defend themselves by saying that the verses that seem hostile to people of other faiths are not meant as they are written, because every verse is connected to others. Yes, they will always say that Islam teaches peace, but this changes once they become the majority.

In the subject case , “Ahok was reminding the people of Jakarta not to fall for the slander of his political opponents who were exploiting Quran’s  Al-MA ‘Idah, Verse 51 to discourage people from voting for him.” This kind of thing often happens in Indonesia, where religion is mixed with politics. Ahok’s good intention of educating his people not to be ignorant and easily swayed by religious dogma ended up landing him in prison.

In conclusion, this happened because there are many verses in the Quran that contain hatred toward non-Muslims, which people who claim to be Muslim use as justification to attack other religions. This is why there are many Muslim terrorists.

Now—I conclude with couple of statements:--

1.0  I have gone through Quran's Al-MA ‘Idah, Verse 51 in details, to understand the case,  but I don’t have any intention to QUOTE  that in this BLOG, and discuss on subject verse with the sole purpose of to avoid any Islamist Controversy. You can read it in Quran. But—in my opinion, AHOK' s case was blown much  out of proportion. I refrain from commenting on the Ruling.

2.0 My subject is the study of cause and effect of  conflict between Islam, and Other/Hindu religion.

3.0 A country can remain SECULAR, as long as it is a “NON-MUSLIM”  majority country, and then only  can be ruled by neutral  LAW, in an impartial manner.

4.0 We have seen what happened in Bangladesh, which started as a “SECULAR MUSLIM DEMOCRATIC “ country. It is now no-where near that.

5.0 In INDIA, which is a HINDU majority country--we must not forget what happened to Smt. Nupur Sharma, due to pressure from local, and global Muslims.

Disclaimer:-- My BLOG is based on  the references listed below, and to share it in INDIA,  an incident happened in Indonesia, but has relevance in India, as India has large Muslim population.  Reference of any religion, Holy Book, or Group of person is only for the purpose to remain truthful to narrate the incident.

References:- There are many references. I have read many, took notes to write this BLOG, and listed below a few.

1.0 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39853280

2.0 https://www.voanews.com/a/ahok-case-highlights-indonesia-s-dangerously-ambiguous-blasphemy-law/4760596.html

3.0 https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/public-prosecutor-v-basuki-tjahaja-purnama-aka-ahok/

4.0 https://asialink.unimelb.edu.au/insights/the-ahok-show-trial-and-indonesias-politicisation-of-religion

Image:-- GOOGLE/ WHOEVER IS OWNER OF THE PHOTO IS CREDITED.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog