#it was a starting point to charge him under the blasphemy law | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

master-sass-blast · 5 years

Text

Strong as Stone --Part Forty-Two.

Welcome back! Sorry for the brief hiatus; depression was kicking my ass (still is, but I’m determined to move forward), but now I’m back and

GOOD LORD I HAVE MADE SOME ANGST. WOW.

So, uh, last time we learned that M’Baku and Okoye are going to have a baby! Yay! How wonderful!

This time, we get to see the pre-stages of Dewani’s trial --and it gets angsty. Whooooo boy.

This chapter is rated T for the following: heavy angst, discussions of death, and angst. Angst angst angst.

Pairings: Okoye x M’Baku and Shuri x OC.

Yupp. Angst heavy update. You’ve been warned.

(Side note: I had to edit the title twice because I got the wrong number. The fuck is wrong with me?)

@the-last-hair-bender, @skysynclair19

Not every fight you face will be one you can control. There are times when you are the game master, and there are times where you are merely a piece on the board.

It’s hard to be a piece on the board when you know the stakes are high, because doing your best will never feel like enough --especially if you lose.

There is no magic answer, my dears, for avoiding the fear or the loss. All you can do is put one foot in front of the other.

Sometimes, moving forward is the only answer.

“This will be so much easier once the rail system is finished.”

Okoye couldn’t help but smile as she carefully --expertely--piloted her ship through the mountain range that led to the Jabari lands. “Is that so?”

“Don’t act like it won’t be!” Shuri said with a laugh, momentarily pausing her pacing around the cabin of the craft. “Just sit back and ride. It’ll be shorter, too.”

“Shortest distance between two places is a straight line,” T’Challa agreed without looking up from the book he was reading.

They were headed to the Jabari lands so that they could prepped for Dewani’s impending trial; they’d all have to give testimony in defense of the Chief’s sister --which they were all willing to do, no questions asked--and were flying out a week early so they could get a sense of what would be required of them and how the trial would proceed.

As far as Okoye was concerned --as far as they all were concerned--it was a sham. As soon as the trial started, F’Tendi’s history of abuse would come out, and that’d be the end of it. The curmudgeon would hang himself on his own rope, and Dewani would be freed from her uncle’s looming, oppressive presence.

Shuri, however, was nervous. She’d started pacing the perimeter of the cabin as soon as they’d taken off and hadn’t stopped for almost an hour.

Okoye knew the princess was young, and that youth could lend itself to restlessness and worry, but she also knew that Shuri was remarkably level-headed --and that if there was anyone who would have an inside eye on how the trial was shaping up, it was Shuri; she was Dewani’s girlfriend and confident, after all.

So, if Shuri was nervous, there had to be a reason for it… right?

You’ll find out one way or another, Okoye told herself as she steered her ship through a narrow pass. For now, focus on making it to the Jabari lands in one piece.

There was, in fact, a reason for Shuri’s nervous energy.

A very large, very --figuratively--sticky one.

According to the elder representing Dewani’s case --since M’Baku was the chief of the tribe he couldn’t present her case himself, so it had been delegated to a trusted advisor--most of F’Tendi’s charges were superfluous. Homosexuality wasn’t a crime under Hanuman’s tenaments, and F’Tendi’s abuse towards Dewani over her orientation was grounds for his own expulsion from the tribe.

Rescuing Adesina from the cult territory, however, was more than enough to land Dewani in hot water.

“She was dying!” Shuri snapped once she’d processed the information. “I’ve got more than enough medical records to prove--”

“And we will definitely be relying on those records as physical evidence, your Highness,” the elder said evenly, “but the point still remains: entering the cult territory is expressly forbidden. And, given that Sister Dewani ventured there many times and interacted with a member of the cult, she can be tried for expulsion.”

“Adesina was a victim --is a survivor--of heinous, horrific physical abuse!”

“Again, the physical evidence you have will be very handy in proving that.”

“So what’s the issue, then? Why are we even worried about Dewani’s rescue mission?” Shuri exclaimed with a scowl. “It was a goodwill mission! She risked her own life and standing to save someone else --someone that she didn’t know, that by all means should’ve been inconsequential to her. Why isn’t her compassion--”

T’Challa placed a hand on his younger sister’s shoulder. “I think the elder is trying to get to that point, but they do need the opportunity to get a word in edgewise.”

“Your Highness, you were present when Dewani asked Adesina to aid in the battle against Thanos, correct?”

Shuri’s narrowed. “What does the battle have anything to do with… anything? Thanos was trying to destroy half the world. Dewani was trying to help save it.”

“According to certain testimonies, Dewani had prior knowledge of Adesina’s powers and asked her to use them against Thanos.”

Okoye felt her heart sink. Shit.

Rescuing Adesina could easily be spun as a goodwill mission --primarily because that’s exactly what it had been. But encouraging Adesina to use her powers?

You don’t have to belong to the tribe to see where encouraging a demon to use their powers might come across as blasphemous.

“Well, we all saw Adesina use her powers when HYDRA attacked the palace,” Shuri reasoned. “Technically, there’s no legitimate way to establish that Dewani had any prior knowledge of Adesina’s powers before then. And, given the severity of the fight we were facing with Thanos, we needed all the help we could get; Adesina’s inclusion is practically in consequential.”

“Perhaps in the logistical scheme of things, but inciting a person to use dark magics is still considered an act of blasphemy,” the elder said with a small, somewhat amused smile. “Though, I might ask you to help present the case. You seem to have all the arguments formulated already.”

“Given that asking for Adesina’s help was an act of blasphemy regardless of how we look at things, what does that mean for Dewani?” T’Challa asked.

“The context of the situation might be enough to sway the council into pardoning her, especially of Adesina is truly repentant of her upbringing.”

“And if it’s not?” Okoye asked.

“She’d just be banished,” Shuri interjected. “Right?”

The elder grimaced. “Given that Adesina is a legitimate conduit of Ravana, no. Inciting the use of dark magics on that scale is ground for execution.”

Okoye’s eyes widened as Shuri let out a horrified “What?” “Isn’t that a little severe? She was heinously abused by her uncle for years and lost her brother in the fight with Thanos only a handful of weeks ago. And she only asked for Adesina’s help to try and save the world!”

“The law is the law. We can only hope that the council will be merciful and see Dewani’s choice as an act of youthful foolishness, rather than act of malicious defiance.”

T’Challa grabbed Shuri’s hand, effectively cutting the teen off before she could go on a tirade. “How can we help ensure that outcome?”

“Attesting to Dewani’s character and commitment to her tribe will be important --and providing testimony about F’Tendi’s mistreatment towards her. He’ll be presenting the case against her, and the worse of a light we can paint him in, the better Dewani’s chances are.”

Shuri stood up abruptly and darted out of the room. “I need to see Dewani.”

“It’s alright,” the elder said when T’Challa got up to go after her. “We have all week to prepare, and trying to cram everything in now isn’t going to help.”

Okoye nodded, then stood when T’Challa did. I need to speak with M’Baku.

M’Baku and Dewani were out in one of the gardens, sitting together on one of the many benches that dotted the green space. Dewani was curled up in her brother’s lap --as much as she could be, she was almost T’Challa’s height now and almost the King’s size as well--and had her face buried in his neck. M’Baku had his arms wrapped around his sister, and he looked like he’d just seen the face of death.

They know, Okoye realized. They know she could die.

Dewani popped out of her brother’s lap as soon as she saw Shuri, and then she was slumping against her girlfriend, heaving ragged sobs.

Okoye slipped past them to get to M’Baku. She held him as tightly as he held her, pressing kisses against his chest. “I’m so sorry, my love.”

“I’ve worked so hard to protect her--”

“I know.”

“--and her good intentions could get her killed.”

Okoye grimaced as she felt her throat constrict with emotion. “I know.”

M’Baku let her go and looked off to the side, away from everyone else, as he blinked rapidly. “If I-- if I had adopted her sooner, there might’ve not even been a trial. I would’ve known about her orientation sooner, handled things myself, and all this could’ve been handled quietly. She’d be safe.”

“This isn’t your fault,” Okoye insisted quietly as she rubbed her hands up and down his arms.

“Chief M’Baku,” T’Challa said as he walked up to them. “I’m so sorry.”

“That makes two of us.”

“Is there--” T’Challa paused, grimaced, then continued. “Is there anything I can do to help? Anything that might… prevent an execution order?”

Can he use his status as King to interfere so that Dewani’s guaranteed to stay safe, one way or another, Okoye translated mentally.

M’Baku smiled bitterly and shook his head. “I’m afraid not. It’s out of both our hands. We can only hope that the council judging her is lenient.”

Okoye clenched her teeth together as she watched Dewani and Shuri hold each other. Bast, please let it be so.

“I don’t know. I just don’t know.” M’Baku was sitting on the edge of his bed, head in his hands. “If it was just F’Tendi’s abuse and her orientation in question, I wouldn’t be worried--”

“Things have changed,” Okoye said softly as she knelt in front of him. “I get it.”

“The elder presenting Dewani’s case is worried that F’Tendi will use her relationship with Shuri to prove her lack of devotion to Jabari tradition and that she encouraged Adesina to use her powers to bring about the apocalypse.”

“That’s a load of bullshit. Anyone will be able to see through that.”

M’Baku shook his head. “My people are terrified of the cultists. Different beliefs and practices aside, there’s a long history of hatred and hurt there. I’m scared it won’t take much for them to transfer that to Dewani, misplaced as it is.”

“M’Baku, look at me.” Okoye cupped his face in her hands when he did. “Dewani’s going to make it out of this. She will. As soon as the elder representing her case starts talking about F’Tendi’s history of abuse, he won’t have a leg to stand on. He’ll be laughed out of the room.”

M’Baku sighed heavily before drawing her into his arms. “I wish I could have your faith.”

“Things will work out. They will.” They have to.

M’Baku pressed his lips against her forehead, then pressed one of his hands against her stomach. “How are you feeling?”

“Tired, but alright. I’ve already had to cut back on my coffee intake.”

“Horrors. Have you thought about any name choices?”

Okoye chuckled. “Isn’t it a bit early for that? We’ve only known we’re having a baby for a couple weeks now.”

M’Baku was silent for a moment, then said in a trembling voice, “I was thinking… if we had a girl --if Dewani doesn’t--”

Okoye wrapped her arms around his neck and held him as he buried his face into her shoulder and sobbed. “It won’t come to that. We aren’t going to have to do that.” She squeezed her eyes shut as she felt her own tears start their escape. Bast, please don’t make us do that.

#sass writes #black panther fanfiction #okoye x m'baku #shuri x oc #angst warning #this is so angsty and i'm so sorry #wakanda forever

3 notes · View notes

southeastasianists · 6 years

Link

It’s a long drive to the city of Tanjung Balai in North Sumatra, Indonesia—almost five hours from the provincial capital of Medan, on winding roads past emerald green paddy fields and through palm oil and rubber plantations. The city is one of the main ports in North Sumatra, and connects both Malaysia and Singapore with Indonesia. Like many port cities, a large proportion of residents in Tanjung Balai make their living from the sea.

Meiliana, a Chinese-Indonesian and a Buddhist, was no exception. Having lived on Jalan Karya in Tanjung Balai for eight years, she owned a simple store selling salted fish with her husband, Atui. But in July 2016, Meiliana’s life was thrown into disarray, and in August 2018 she was sentenced to one and a half years in prison for blasphemy by the Medan District Court.

How it all began

It started out almost as a throwaway comment.

In July 2016, Meiliana walked across the road from her small house on the sleepy street of Jalan Karya to buy breakfast buns from Kasini, a 51-year-old Javanese Muslim who owns a small shop selling sundries. It was something she did almost every morning.

Kasini and Meiliana weren’t exactly friends, but they had a cordial relationship. At Eid-ul-Fitr, the end of the Muslim fasting month, Meiliana would bake cakes and take them to Kasini’s house.

On that fateful morning, as Meiliana paid for her buns, she had a request for Kasini. “Can you tell Wak [grandfather] to turn down the volume of the mosque speakers? It’s so loud it hurts my ears.”

Kasini’s father, 75-year-old Kasidik, has worked at the Al Ma’shum Mosque since 2007 as one of its caretakers. Five times a day, he walks the few feet to the mosque from the home he shares with Kasini and her children and puts a cassette in an old-fashioned tape player. The azan (prayer call) then rings out across Jalan Karya, reminding Muslims that it’s time to pray.

Karsini didn’t think much of Meiliana’s comment, other than wondering why, having lived just ten paces away from the mosque for the last eight years, she was suddenly bothered by the sound of the azan.

“I did think, why is she saying this to me?” she tells New Naratif. But the mood was calm, and Kasini passed the request on to her father. He, in turn, told another caretaker, who then told the imam (the spiritual leader of the mosque).

That comment, first made over a breakfast bun, then started to take on a life of its own.

Just a few days later, Kasini and Kasidik noticed that the street outside Meiliana’s home was suddenly clogged with cars and motorbikes. People started showing up at all times of the day and night, and they could hear shouting. At one point Kasini says she thought she heard Meiliana’s eldest son exclaim, “We’re all adults here! What’s wrong with you?”

Word of Meiliana’s comment about the mosque speakers had spread from a neighbour to her father, from a father to his co-workers, from the co-workers to more neighbours, and from the neighbours to social media. The message got distorted as it passed from one to another, and eventually people were saying that Meiliana had tried to stop the Islamic call to prayer and insulted Islam, violating Indonesia’s infamous blasphemy law (Pasal 156A KUHP), which carries a maximum five-year prison sentence.

A few days later, Meiliana’s husband Atui went to the mosque to publicly apologise for his wife’s comments. Meiliana was either too scared or too stubborn to go with him. In the end, it hardly mattered; her husband’s apology failed to insulate her against what happened next.

Prominent Islamic organisations, such as Front Umat Islam (FUI), successfully pressured the police to file an official report (link in Bahasa Indonesia). In 2017, the North Sumatra chapter of the Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), one of the largest Muslim organisations in Indonesia, issued a fatwa (a non-legally binding but official pronouncement on Islamic law) against Meiliana. A mob proceeded to riot, pelting Meiliana’s home with rocks and bottles. They then set fire to Buddhist temples in Tanjung Balai.

Kasini claims that Meiliana was originally taken into custody for “her own protection”, as the authorities were worried she’d be lynched if she stayed at home. But instead of protecting her, they charged her with blasphemy.

According to one of Meiliana’s lawyers, Ranto Sibarani, the court proceedings were chequered at best.

The prosecutors presented the fatwa and a written statement from a witness at the riot outside Meiliana’s home as evidence. Sibarani claims it was mostly based on hearsay; no recordings of the original comment were provided. “They brought the mosque amplifiers as an item of evidence,” Sibarani tells New Naratif. “The officials welcomed the rioters with open arms. The case was heavily influenced by an intervention from the masses.”

A sense of disbelief over the legitimacy of Meiliana’s case continues to loom large. “She did not commit blasphemy. What she did was offer a neighbourly complaint, and that is not an insult to Islam,” Ismail Hasani, the research director at the rights advocacy group Setara Institute, told The Washington Post. “More generally, we believe that the blasphemy law itself does more than anything else to limit freedom of religion in Indonesia.”

Particular to Meiliana’s case, there’s also been a debate about the volume of the call to prayer, and whether a request to lower it qualifies as blasphemy. In 1978, Indonesia’s Religious Affairs Ministry released (link in Bahasa Indonesia) instructions on how to properly manage the volume made by a mosque amplifier, prioritising melody over loudness; Indonesia’s current vice president, Jusuf Kalla, has also advised mosques in Indonesia to be mindful of the volume of their speakers, and dispatched technicians to help fix faulty amplifiers.

Kasini says she feels “exhausted” by the case. She had to go to the police station countless times to give her testimony about Meiliana’s comment, and once attended court in Medan to give evidence. She says that when she made her statement to the judge, Meiliana was not there to hear the testimony against her, so the former neighbours didn’t have to face each other.

When asked if she believes Meiliana committed blasphemy, Kasini shrugs her shoulders and looks confused. “I don’t know anything about the blasphemy law, so I just leave it up to the judge. He must have known what he was doing,” is all she will say.

Kasini isn’t the only one who’s exhausted.

Meiliana’s story is one of fatigue for anyone who has tried to follow the trajectory of Indonesia’s nebulous and opaque blasphemy law, and the myriad cases that have unfolded over the years, always following a similar pattern.

Here, the cycle continues: frivolous litigation favouring the offended and mobilised mob; a president’s inability “to intervene in the legal process”; an outpouring of signatures in an online petition (link in Bahasa Indonesia); political convenience.

The blasphemy law in Indonesia is built upon all of these things—this is the story of how it’s wielded, how it unfolds, and how it (still) stands.

Indonesia’s problem with blasphemy

The blasphemy law has its roots in the administration of Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno. Signed into force by Sukarno in 1965, the law was originally meant (link in Bahasa Indonesia) to “accommodate requests from Islamic organisations who wanted to stem the recognition of indigenous beliefs.” It was later used as a way for President Suharto, the authoritarian second president of Indonesia, to prosecute anyone who dared to criticise his government.

Attempts to revoke the law have failed on more than one occasion. Indonesia’s fourth president, Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid—who wrote an article in 1982 for Tempo magazine entitled “Tuhan Tidak Perlu Dibela (God Does Not Need to be Defended)”—was once involved in an unsuccessful petition to revoke the blasphemy law. In July 2018, a petition launched by the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Indonesia, who claimed that the law inhibits their religious freedom, was also rejected.

Anyone who stands accused of blasphemy in Indonesia also faces a tough legal battle with little chance of acquittal.

“Since 2004, there hasn’t been an appeal [in blasphemy cases] that has been granted by the court,” Andreas Harsono, a researcher at Human Rights Watch, tells New Naratif. “Out of 89 cases [in Indonesia’s sixth President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration], 125 [individuals] were convicted. And out of 20 cases, 22 [individuals] were convicted in President Joko Widodo’s current administration.”

One of the more recent blasphemy cases involved the erstwhile Jakarta governor, Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama, who was sentenced to two years in prison under the blasphemy law. Accused of insulting Islam for having quoted the Quran while on the campaign trail during the 2017 Jakarta gubernatorial election, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets, calling for Ahok to be imprisoned.

Although the scale of Ahok’s case was far greater, the patterns in Meiliana’s case mirrored his.

A continuing streak of religious intolerance

At the very heart of Meiliana’s case—and all of the other cases preceding it��is Indonesia’s continuing streak of religious intolerance.

Tanjung Balai is known for having a sizeable Chinese-Indonesian population; Chinese traders, arriving by sea, started to pour into the area in the 1800s. According to official records, the city has just over 185,000 residents, 157,000 of whom are Muslim and 11,000 of whom are Buddhist. At times in the city’s history, tensions between the different communities have flared.

In 2009, Tanjung Balai bore witness to the removal of a Mahayana Buddha statue. “The appearance of the Buddhist statue elicited a violent reaction from Islamic leaders. Wahhabi leaders under the United Islam Movement (GIB) organised rallies and protests in May and June last year, calling for the statue to be taken down. They argued that it tarnished the image of Tanjung Balai as a Muslim town,” wrote Human Rights Watch in a report.

Following Meiliana’s comments in 2016, a mob tore through the city and targeted several of its 16 Buddhist temples.

This outbreak of violence is now considered to be one of the worst examples of racially motivated mob “justice” that Indonesia has seen since 1998, when rioters attacked primarily Chinese-Indonesian communities in Medan, looting from shops and attacking local residents. The riots then swept across the country, leaving 1,000 people dead.

Atu is the 68-year-old caretaker of the Tiau Hau Biao Buddhist Temple, which sits on the estuary of the Asahan River in Tanjung Balai. The air is heavy with the scent of drying fish, and fishermen sit in front of the temple and cast their nets in the shadow of its crimson roof.

Atu has worked as a caretaker of the temple for 10 years, since it was first built, and works from 5am to 8pm, seven days a week. His main duties include sweeping the floors and replenishing the incense. Back in 2016, he was at home when the temple was attacked in the middle of the night. When he arrived in the early hours of the morning, the building was still aflame.

“I don’t know how much gasoline they brought with them, but they sure used up every single drop,” he tells New Naratif. Atu, and local residents who had come to help, set up a crude pump system to funnel water from the river to quench the flames.

It took over an hour to put the fire out.

Once the flames subsided, Atu saw that the roof of the temple has been destroyed. The statues had been burned. The floor tiles smashed.

The restoration of the temple to its former glory took several months. According to Atu, the money promised by the government to help pay for it never materialised. Instead the refurbishment was made possible by donations from the local community.

19 perpetrators were eventually caught. According to news reports, “Eight were charged with looting, nine with malicious destruction of property and two with inciting violence”. All were given sentences ranging from one to four months in jail. Despite having ransacked official houses of worship, none of the rioters were charged with blasphemy, because no one filed an official complaint against them—one of the stipulations for someone to be tried under the law.

Atu laughs dryly and shakes his head when asked about this. “Not fair, of course it’s not fair. They should have got longer sentences.”

He also says that the case appears to show a trend towards rising religious intolerance in Tanjung Balai. “We used to be more united, but now the different religious groups have started to split,” he explains. “For years I went to sea as a fisherman and left my family at home. I never worried about them.”

Now he can’t forget the sight of his beloved temple burning in the morning light.

The attacks on temples in Tanjung Balai certainly appear to show worrying echoes of the race riots that traumatised the Chinese-Indonesian community in 1998.

Sirojuddin Abbas, a researcher at Saiful Mujani Research and Consulting (SMRC), says that Meiliana’s case shows how the blasphemy law is being deployed to punish members from minority groups. “The target is always a member of the minority groups,” he says. “That still is the thing that has not healed from our majority groups: their distrust. In a pluralistic town, for example, even if there’s only a person who is not a Muslim, not having to hear excessive noise from a mosque speaker is still a human right.”

Atu dismisses the idea that the people who attacked the temple were hired thugs, brought in to stir up racial unrest. In 1998, it was thought that members of the Indonesian military deliberately did just that to spark widespread riots and deflect attention away from the failings of the government, which led to the fall of President Suharto after 32 years in power. But, despite the fact that these attacks in Tanjung Balai seem to have been less tightly organised and politically motivated, it doesn’t reassure Atu.

“I heard the rioters were mixed,” he says. “Some outsiders. But they must have had someone on the inside. Someone from Tanjung Balai.”

After news of the fire at the temple spread, Atu says local residents started visiting in droves to check out the damage. Buddhist festivals are held at the temple every January and October, and are popular events with the local community. Muslims also come to watch the colourful festivities.

Atu says he hopes for a bigger crowd than usual this coming October, due to the publicity that the blasphemy case has sparked, which has actually raised the temple’s profile. He feels that a large, mixed crowd of spectators will be a good thing, and that local Muslims getting a taste of Buddhist culture which will help bolster relations between the different communities once more.

“But this year, the police will be guarding us,” he adds.

The politics of blasphemy

Rising religious intolerance is one way of looking at Meiliana’s case. But there are other lenses through which to examine this issue. One of them has to do with the question of whether religious intolerance is a mere manifestation of political expediency.

In April 2019, Indonesian voters will go to the polls to elect a president. As both candidates, current President Joko Widodo and former Major General Prabowo Subianto, look to curry favour with Muslim voters in a country where 87% of the population is Muslim, changing the blasphemy law could be a risky move that could cause a backlash from more conservative sections of the Islamic community.

As Savic Ali, an activist with the Jaringan Gusdurian network of progressive Muslims, says, “I think [Prabowo and Jokowi] won’t make concessions with regards to the blasphemy law. Jokowi wants a safe position, as to not anger his Muslim voting base, and I think Prabowo does, too.”

And it goes beyond just individual voters.

Ali continues to say that two of Indonesia’s largest Muslim organisations, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah, won’t allow for the possibility of the blasphemy law being completely revoked anytime soon, as both believe it to be an important tenet of Islamic law. Fast forward to the presidential elections in 2019, and it’s likely that both Jokowi and Prabowo will be wary of alienating voters affiliated with either organisation—or indeed the organisations themselves, who hold significant political power in Indonesia.

Another warning sign that the blasphemy law is unlikely to be overturned or discarded anytime soon is the appointment Ma’ruf Amin as Jokowi’s running mate in the race for the presidency. Amin, who is the chairman of the MUI and known for his conservative views on Islamic law, initially said that he deplored the violent riots in Tanjung Balai following Meiliana’s comment. But, this did not stop the North Sumatra chapter of the organisation issuing a fatwa against her in early 2017.

Amin has also thrown his support behind other high-profile blasphemy cases in the past, and wields significant political and judicial influence. “He plays the most important role in sending people to jail, like Ahok,” says Harsono, in a reference to Amin’s statement against the former governor of Jakarta, widely thought to have been one of the driving forces behind his conviction.

Another example of the way politics and the blasphemy law are entwined is evident in Meiliana’s case when you consider the collateral damage: her family. Sibarani tells New Naratif that Meiliana’s son is still “afraid of the sight of a crowd” after the riots outside his home. Jokowi has said that he can’t intervene in legal cases or in Meiliana’s appeal, but there are those who think that he could show goodwill in other ways.

“He needs to say something about the need for Meiliana’s family to be, say, socially and psychologically rehabilitated,” says Abbas.

A few words from the president could perhaps go a long way in helping Meiliana’s four children to heal—still, he has remained silent, presumably so as not to offend any members of his conservative fanbase.

Yet again it seems, politics has turned the blasphemy law into a matter of convenience for those jostling for power. This refusal of politicians in Indonesia to engage in discussions about the blasphemy law has serious implications, and muddies the waters about its essential premise.

While outright revocation may not be on the cards, in its current form the law is porous and easily abused. Not everything can or should fall under the umbrella term “blasphemy”, and one of the main criticisms of the current version of the law is that it’s overly broad, encompassing a range of other issues like hate speech.

Ali says that, for serious situations that could be construed as blasphemous in nature, like urinating on a Bible, for example, there needs to be a revision to the law instead of an outright repeal. But for other cases, such as a complaint about the volume of a mosque speaker, the law needs to be clear about what the term “blasphemy” actually means. “Several points of the law need to be amended so that it can’t be a catch-all law,” he says.

As it currently stands, the only thing that’s clear is that the core meaning of “blasphemy”—and what it should encompass—is something that’s confused and confusing in Indonesia. And the lack of political will to even discuss potential changes to the law means that the absurdity of the very concept of blasphemy still remains in the shadows.

After all, were there people rightly convicted according to the blasphemy law in Indonesia?

For people like Harsono, this question goes right to the heart of the issue. “Of course there weren’t. How do you interview God?”, he says.

Hope for a change to the law?

Politicians might not want to rock the boat, but there might be a glimmer of hope on the horizon.

Since her sentencing, Meiliana has had some support from surprising allies.

As well as a Change.org petition with over 202,000 signatures, members of both Muhammadiyah and NU have criticised Meiliana’s sentencing—although not the blasphemy law itself, other than to say that it was incorrectly implemented in this case. Still, “both of these statements are unprecedented,” says Harsono. On Twitter, Indonesia’s religious affairs minister, Lukman Hakim Saifuddin, offered(link in Bahasa Indonesia) his services as Meiliana’s key witness if needed.

Though conceding that the situation is “bleak” and that electoral prospects are likely to get in the way of either presidential hopeful wanting to fully embrace reform, Abbas says that public support for Meiliana gives him cause for optimism.

Sibarani tells New Naratif that Meiliana’s counsel plan to file an appeal. This will add yet another chapter to her story, and could have repercussions across Indonesia if it’s successful. “If it goes through, we hope that it can be a legal breakthrough,” he says.

Until then, Meiliana’s former home remains shuttered.

A neighbour tells New Naratif that Meiliana’s husband was forced to move. Several members of the Chinese community from Jalan Karya asked him to relocate, as they were scared that they too would be the victims of reprisals and violence—tarred with the same brush of being “anti-Islam”. The neighbour also says that the couple had to give up their salted fish business on Jalan Asahan as they lost their permit to operate in the building as a result of the outcry surrounding the case. It’s unclear who gave the order for this to happen.

Atui has now moved to the city of Medan to be closer to Meiliana in prison, and is trying to build a new life.

When asked how she feels about this, Kasini looks pained. She wasn’t the one who made the original comment about the mosque speakers, but if she hadn’t passed on Meiliana’s request to her father, then perhaps none of this would ever have happened.

Does she think that Meiliana truly committed blasphemy and got the punishment she deserved?

Kasini looks lost for words. “Well… why did she buy a house so close to a mosque?” she says. “And why did she live here for eight years without any problems? Even if we had turned down the volume, she would still have heard the sound of the azan.”

Pressed again, and asked if this was fair and if she feels responsible for Meiliana’s fate, Kasini’s chin starts to tremble and her eyes fill with tears. She looks completely overwhelmed by the firestorm this case has caused—and which has consumed her life for over two years.

She insists she was just the messenger, when she passed on the words that ended with a woman in jail and a family torn apart.

Finally she looks up from the floor.

“If I’d known this was going to happen…” she says, her voice breaking, “then maybe I wouldn’t have said anything at all.”

#Southeast Asia #Indonesia #Religion #Islam #Blasphemy

31 notes · View notes

thephilosopheroftheboudoir · 5 years

Photo

Grim History

The Fatwa Against Salman Rushdie: Blasphemy, Freedom of Speech and The Satanic Verses

In 1988, Indian-born British author Salman Rushdie publishing his bombshell novel The Satanic Verses. The response to the allegedly blasphemous book was swift, loud, and hostile. People in western countries, while defending Rushdie’s right to freedom of speech, were mostly quite confused by the extreme reaction it provoked overseas. While the protests and debates have largely died down, the conflict over the right to free speech vs. condemnation for heresy remains unresolved.

The Satanic Verses is a satirical novel written in the magical realism style, a method that places ordinary people in surrealistic events and settings. The plot revolved around an Indian Bollywood movie star, Gibreel Farishta, who makes it big in London and insists on becoming British. The conflict between his Western and Eastern identities is symbolized by his mental breakdown and descent into schizophrenic delusion in which he, often humorously, believes himself to literally be the archangel Gibreel. In several sequences in the book, the man Gibreel Farishta has vivid dreams, while sleeping, about being sent by Allah to communicate his wishes to Mahound, an umistakable representation of Mohammad, the prophet of Islam.

Some details of the story were deemed offensive to Muslims. There are several characters who speak out against Mahound, declaring him to be a fraud and a charlatan. It has often been pointed out that these characters were not portrayed as heroes in Rushdie’s depiction; they were parts of subplots that exemplified the opponents of Islam during Mohammad’s life and they did not represent Rushdie’s personal views on Islam. Another problematic subplot involves an Indian cult leader who takes her followers on a suicide mission to drown themselves in the sea in order to reach paradise; the cult leader’s name was Ayeesha, the name of Mohammad’s wife who he married when she was at the age of four. The most controversial detail involves twelve prostitutes in Arabia, each one taking a name of one of the prophet’s wives. It must be noted that these prostitutes were not actually portrayed as Mohammad’s wives but merely as whores who tried to capitalize off his popularity during his lifetime.

Before the novel was released to the public, its publisher, Viking – Penguin, began receiving requests from Muslim leaders to halt its publication. The publishers went through with their plans and The Satanic Verses was first released in the United Kingdom in 1988. It was an instantaneous controversy and several countries around the world passed laws banning it on grounds of blasphemy. The first protest against the book took place in London, early in 1989. The demonstration was peaceful and was limited to a small group of Muslims who burned one copy of the novel. In 1989, the first American edition was released to wild critical acclaim.

At that time, street protests in England began to grow bigger and angrier. Mobs gathered to burn piles of Rushdie’s books and the protests spread to several other Islamic countries around the world. Book stores and publisher’s offices started getting threatened, ransacked and bombed. Approximately a third of all bookstores in the US refused to even carry the book while some stores stocked it hidden away under the counter with their selections of pornography. Despite all the uproar, it was obvious that very few Muslims had ever read the book. At that time it was only available in English and in translation to a few other languages like French, German, and Japanese; it was mostly unavailable outside Western countries. The subject matter was also dense and complicated and required a vast amount of background knowledge to be fully comprehended. It seemed that Muslims around the world had been infected with the false notion that the book was a Satanist’s polemic against the Islamic religion, being published and propagated by Western conspirators who wished to destabilize the Muslim world to make invasion and conquest easy.

The situation got worse when the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, leader of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and then president of the country, went on the radio and, in Farsi, issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie. The fatwa declared it a religious duty for all Muslims to hunt down and kill Rushdie for the crime of blasphemy and apostasy, for speaking out against the prophet Mohammad. Rushdie immediately went into hiding with armed bodyguards. He soon issued a public apology and begged for forgiveness. Khomeini was not impressed; he doubled down on his attack against Rushdie and the Western countries who supposedly sought to degrade the religion of Islam. Khomeini claimed there could never be forgiveness for apostasy. The six million dollar price tag on Rushdie’s corpse remained in place.

The UK immediately ended all diplomatic relations with Iran, citing human rights and international goodwill as its reasons. Other countries did as well, saying that no member of one country had the right to declare a death sentence on a citizen of another country, especially without due process of law. Muslims throughout the world not only voiced support for the fatwa but many also tried to hunt down and assassinate the unfortunate author. Western intellectuals continued to defend the work of fiction on the ground of free speech. A small number of Islamic scholars also cited the fiqh, the Muslim doctrine of jurisprudence, to condemn the fatwa on the ground that the death penalty could not be administered in the absence of a fair trial. Other conservative religious leaders in the West regrettably took sides with Khomeini, saying that freedom of speech did not extend to the freedom to criticize religion.

With hindsight it appears that the Ayatollah Khomeini had some ulterior political motives to issuing the fatwa. One is that he saw himself as being the world’s leading Muslim cleric and he wanted to gain an upper hand over Saudi Arabia in taking charge of the Islamic world. He wanted Muslims to rally to the anti-imperialist cause of his Iranian Revolution. He also wanted to drive a wedge between the West and the Muslim world, claiming that too many Muslims were embracing Western ideas of democracy, freedom and secularism. There was also the issue of The Satanic Verses’s depiction of Khomeini himself. One passage of the novel clearly depicted the Iranian leader as a demagogue using the cause of Islam to enslave his followers for his own egotistical gains.

Khomeini soon died and the Revolutionary Guard of Iran contacted Rushdie to tell him they were no longer encouraging his execution. They did, however, refuse to end the fatwa by stating that only the man who issues the fatwa can cancel it. Salman Rushdie stayed in hiding for nine years. His wife, unable to stand the strain of living under cover, divorced him. He was forced to live with an assumed name and had to change locations every three days. Now no longer in hiding, Rushdie still receives death threats from Muslims about once a year. He is said to have made over $2 million dollars from the sale of his book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy

https://grimhistory.blogspot.com/

#salman rushdie #satanic verses #grim history #iranian revolution #blasphemy #freedom of speech

3 notes · View notes

nuadox · 2 years

Text

Twitter: Not even Elon Musk is wealthy enough to bring absolute free speech to the platform – here’s why

- By Eric Heinze , Queen Mary University of London , The Conversation -

Elon Musk is the planet’s number one billionaire. If anyone can turn cyberspace into a heaven – or hell – of free speech “absolutism” via a US$44 billion (£35 billion) Twitter takeover, then surely he’s the man. Right?

When free-market elephants like Musk or Jeff Bezos (who bought the Washington Post in 2013) take charge of major mass-media outlets, concerns are raised about the direction of free speech, which remains the essential ingredient of democratic participation.

This feeds into wider concerns around the ever-increasing privatisation of public spaces. In the online age, the fact that we spend so much of our time in private spaces earning advertising revenues for billionaires is seen by many as an affront to human dignity. The Twitter deal may only move ownership from one set of private hands to another, but the fact that the world’s richest (and controversial) billionaire is involved seems to make it worse.

But the reality is more complex. The nostalgic idyll of free speech is that once upon a time there was a “town hall” or “public square”, where citizens would come together as equals to debate the issues of the day. Every idea could be freely aired because an enlightened citizenry would sift truth from falsehood, good from evil.

The people’s elected representatives would then proceed to reach conclusions faithful to the “will of the people” and would frame wise laws accordingly. Those images of a town hall or public square are assumed to be public in the full sense – they are freely open to all, and no private citizens own them.

In fact, no such arenas have ever existed, at least not in modern democracies. In years gone by, blasphemy laws in many western nations placed restrictions on people’s abilities to speak with candour about what was, at the time, far greater church influence over public policy. More importantly, women, ethnic minorities, colonised people and others often enjoyed nothing like the prerogatives to speak out without fear in the public forum, let alone as equal citizens.

Yet myths often contain a grain of truth. There can be no question that protest and dissent which used to take place in public spaces has now largely shifted to online media platforms that are owned and operated by private companies. (We do still have street demonstrations, yet even they rely upon online publicity to swell their numbers.)

Public power

Yet if we should not underestimate the power of private media interests, neither should we overestimate it. Almost the same day as Musk’s Twitter deal broke, the European Union announced it would adopt a Digital Services Act.

This will vastly increase the bloc’s powers to restrict content that promotes terrorism, child sex abuse, hate speech (which the EU has tended to define in broad terms), disinformation, commercial fraud, and other speech that poses problems for individual safety or democratic society.

I should say, as I have written elsewhere, that I disagree with several elements of the EU law, and of similar UK rules, but that is not the point here. The point is that even Musk’s billions will not shield him.

He can go ahead and fire all Twitter’s speech monitors if he wants to, but it will not be long before he needs to rehire them. For each of the categories of content that are covered in the EU law, hefty fines can be levied for breaches, so the only way to avoid the fines would be to continue doing monitoring.

In fact, why were these monitors ever hired in the first place? It was not because Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other online platforms started out with a profound social conscience.

Quite the contrary: they started out very much as the supposed free speech absolutists that Musk now fancies himself to be. As American companies, they assumed they would follow free speech law as set down under the first amendment to the US constitution.

Since the 1960s, the US supreme court has construed the first amendment to allow more provocative speech than other nations have allowed. Nonetheless, and contrary to popular belief, even US law is by no means absolutist about free speech and never has been. Loads of speech is regulated, such as restricted military data, professional confidentiality agreements and details of jury proceedings, to cite only a few among many examples.

As I explained in my 2016 book, Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship, no society has ever permitted absolute free speech, and nor is that something that any legal system would ever have the means to sustain. Our arguments about regulation are always about degree, and never all or nothing.

Unsurprisingly, the first-amendment bubble of the big US online media platforms quickly burst. Given their global reach, they are subject to the laws of all nations in which they operate.

Once the EU started cracking down, these companies were suddenly hiring legions of online monitors. And the new EU laws – completed before Musk’s takeover was even in the works – show that countries hosting key markets can bear down even harder.

The coming showdowns will therefore not be between dictatorial censorship in the one corner and free speech absolutism in the other. They will be between business and governments. And as Elon Musk will soon be aware if he is not already, plenty of governments seem up for the fight.

Eric Heinze, Professor of Law, Queen Mary University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read Also

Data generated on the internet per minute in 2021 (infographic)

#twitter #elon musk #social media #freedom of speech #social networks

0 notes

dfroza · 3 years

Text

we are all imperfect beings living in an imperfect world.

only grace cures this to truly heal the heart by giving it a new True nature of Light

(inside, Anew)

and this begins by knowing truth.

A set of lines from Today’s reading:

Pilate: So You are a king?

Jesus: You say that I am king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the cosmos: to demonstrate the power of truth. Everyone who seeks truth hears My voice.

Pilate (to Jesus): What is truth?

Today’s reading of the Scriptures from the New Testament is the 18th chapter of the book of John:

When Jesus finished praying, He began a brief journey with His disciples to the other side of the Kidron Valley, a deep ravine that floods in the winter rains, then farther on to a garden where He gathered His disciples.

Judas Iscariot (who had already set his betrayal in motion and knew that Jesus often met with the disciples in this olive grove) entered the garden with an entourage of Roman soldiers and officials sent by the chief priests and Pharisees. They brandished their weapons under the light of torches and lamps. Jesus stepped forward. It was clear He was not surprised because He knew all things.

Jesus: Whom are you looking for?

Judas’s Entourage: Jesus the Nazarene.

Jesus: I am the One.

Judas, the betrayer, stood with the military force. As Jesus spoke “I am the One,” the forces fell back on the ground. Jesus asked them a second time:

Jesus: Whom are you searching for?

Judas’s Entourage: Jesus the Nazarene.

Jesus: I have already said that I am the One. If you are looking for Me, then let these men go free.

This happened to fulfill the promise He made that none of those entrusted to Him will be lost. Suddenly Peter lunged toward Malchus, one of the high priest’s servants; and with his sword, Peter severed the man’s right ear.

Jesus (to Peter): Put down your sword, and return it to the sheath. Am I to turn away from the cup the Father has given Me to drink?

So the Roman commander, soldiers, and Jewish officials arrested Jesus, cuffed His hands and feet, and brought Him to Annas (the father-in-law of Caiaphas the high priest). You may remember that Caiaphas counseled the Jews that one should die for all people. Simon Peter and another disciple followed behind Jesus. When they arrived, Peter waited in the doorway while the other disciple was granted access because of his relationship with the high priest. That disciple spoke to the woman at the door, and Peter was allowed inside.

Servant Girl (to Peter): You are one of this man’s disciples, aren’t you?

Peter: I am not.

All the servants and officers gathered around a charcoal fire to keep warm. It was a cold day, and Peter made his way into the circle to warm himself.

Annas (to Jesus): Who are Your disciples, and what do You teach?

Jesus: I have spoken in public where the world can hear, always teaching in the synagogue and in the temple where the Jewish people gather. I have never spoken in secret. So why would you need to interrogate Me? Many have heard Me teach. Why don’t you question them? They know what I have taught.

While Jesus offered His response, an officer standing nearby struck Jesus with his hand.

Officer: Is that how You speak to the high priest?

Jesus: If I have spoken incorrectly, why don’t you point out the untruths that I speak? Why do you hit Me if what I have said is correct?

Annas sent Jesus to Caiaphas bound as a prisoner. As this was happening, Peter was still warming himself by the fire.

Servants and Officers: You, too, are one of His disciples, aren’t you?

Peter: No, I am not.

One of the high priest’s servants who was related to Malchus—the person Peter attacked and cut off his ear—recognized Peter.

High Priest’s Servant: Didn’t I see you in the garden with Him?

Peter denied it again, and instantly a rooster crowed.

Before the sun had risen, Jesus was taken from Caiaphas to the governor’s palace. The Jewish leaders would not enter the palace because their presence in a Roman office would defile them and cause them to miss the Passover feast. Pilate, the governor, met them outside.

Pilate: What charges do you bring against this man?

Priests and Officials: If He weren’t a lawbreaker, we wouldn’t have brought Him to you.

Pilate: Then judge Him yourselves, by your own law.

Jews: Our authority does not allow us to give Him the death penalty.

All these things were a fulfillment of the words Jesus had spoken indicating the way that He would die. So Pilate reentered the governor’s palace and called for Jesus to follow him.

Pilate: Are You the King of the Jews?

Jesus: Are you asking Me because you believe this is true, or have others said this about Me?

Pilate: I’m not a Jew, am I? Your people, including the chief priests, have arrested You and placed You in my custody. What have You done?

Jesus: My kingdom is not recognized in this world. If this were My kingdom, My servants would be fighting for My freedom. But My kingdom is not in this physical realm.

Pilate: So You are a king?

Jesus: You say that I am king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the cosmos: to demonstrate the power of truth. Everyone who seeks truth hears My voice.

Pilate (to Jesus): What is truth?

Pilate left Jesus to go and speak to the Jewish people.

Pilate (to the Jews): I have not found any cause for charges to be brought against this man. Your custom is that I should release a prisoner to you each year in honor of the Passover celebration; shall I release the King of the Jews to you?

Jews: No, not this man! Give us Barabbas!

You should know that Barabbas was a terrorist.

The Book of John, Chapter 18 (The Voice)

Today’s paired chapter of the Testaments is the 8th chapter of the book of Ecclesiastes that ponders wisdom and the meaning of life:

Teacher: How rare to find one who is truly wise,

one who knows how to interpret this or solve that!

Wisdom brightens the countenance of the face,

and softens hard lines etched in the face.

Here’s my advice: keep what comes from the king’s mouth; after all, this matter is really an oath from God. Don’t be in a hurry to leave the king’s presence or throw your support behind a bad cause, because the king can do whatever he wishes. Since the king has the power to enforce his word, who dares ask him, “What are you doing?” Whoever does what the king commands will stay out of trouble, and the wise heart will figure out the proper time and proper way to proceed. Yes, there is a time and a way to deal with every situation, even when a person’s troubles are on the rise. For no one knows what is going to happen, so who can warn him before it does? No one can master the wind and contain it—it blows as it will. No one has power over the day of death—it comes as it will. No soldier is discharged in the heat of battle, and certainly wickedness will not release those entangled in it. I have witnessed all of this as I have focused my attention on all that is done under the sun: whenever one person oppresses another to lift himself up, it only hurts him in the end.

I have witnessed the wicked buried with honor because during their lifetimes they would go in and out of the temple, and soon their crimes were forgotten in the very city where they committed them. This, too, is fleeting. When the penalty for a crime is not carried out quickly, then people start scheming to commit their own crimes. Although a wicked person commits a hundred sins and still lives a long life, I am confident it will go better for those who worship the one True God and stand in awe before Him, and it will not go well for the wicked nor will their days grow long like evening shadows because they do not stand in awe of God.

Here is another example of the fleeting nature of our world: there are just people who get what the wicked deserve; there are wicked people who get what the just deserve. I say this, too, is fleeting. And so I heartily recommended that you pursue joy, for the best a person can do under the sun is to enjoy life. Eat, drink, and be happy. If this is your attitude, joy will carry you through the toil every day that God gives you under the sun.

When I applied myself to the study of wisdom and reflected on the kinds of tasks that occupy people’s attention on earth, I noticed how little sleep they generally get, whether day or night. I saw all the works and ways of God, and it became clear to me that no one is able to grasp fully this mystery called life. Try as we might, we cannot discover what has been done under the sun. Even if the wise claim to know, they really haven’t discovered it.

The Book of Ecclesiastes, Chapter 8 (The Voice)

my personal reading of the Scriptures for Thursday, may 27 of 2021 with a paired chapter from each Testament of the Bible along with Today’s Proverbs and Psalms

A post by John Parsons that looks at the condition of the heart:

Some of the sages have called this week's Torah portion (i.e., Beha'alotekha) "Sefer Kvetch," the Book of Complaint, since the first stage of the journey back to the Promised Land was marked with murmuring, ingratitude, and fantasies about the "good old days" when the people ate "free fish" in Egypt, and so on. The repeated episodes of complaining really were a form of rebellion against God's leadership, as the people blasphemously charged the LORD with folly, incompetence, or even malice ("Why did God take us out of Egypt - to kill us all in the desert?"). Indeed, the spiritual condition of the people was so bad that they were all doomed to die in the desert. The New Testament later identifies the unbelief of the people as a picture of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 3:7-4:6).

Often the Israelites appeared to behave like spoiled children, demanding “real food” and fussing over the miraculous supply of bread that literally came from heaven... It would be funny were it not so tragic: Despite all the miracles the people had directly experienced during the great Exodus - including the tremendous revelation at Sinai - in a little over a year the memory of Egypt had become positively euphoric, and the people “forgot” how degrading their lives were as slaves... They romanticized the way things were, rationalizing that it wasn’t “that bad,” and so on. They savored the taste of their “free fish...”

Therefore a central commandment of this Torah portion is: “Thou Shalt Not Kvetch” (or, put positively, “Thou Shalt be Grateful”). "The deeds of the fathers are signs for the children," and therefore we are sternly warned not to follow the example of those who were redeemed by God’s outstretched hand but who later drew back in fear and unbelief: "I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.' Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Messiah if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. As it is written, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion" (Heb. 3:11-16).

The price for Israel's unbelief was great.... The narrative of Torah was supposed to have ended after the Exodus generation left Sinai to enter the Promised Land with the completed Tabernacle... Unfortunately, things did not work out that way, and "sefer kvetch" begins with Numbers chapter 11. According to the Talmud, the scribes marked this "unhappy ending" by putting an "inverted Nun" before and after Numbers 10:35-36 to mark a break in the (ideal) narrative. What should have been written (beginning with chapter 11) was the "happy ending," namely, that the redeemed Israelites successfully entered the land because they kept faith in the LORD's promises. In other words, the account of the sin of the spies, the apostasy at Kadesh Barnea, the exile of the Exodus generation, etc., should never have happened. The sages said that marking the text this way affirms that what should have been written (as the happy ending) will one day be so written, after the Messiah comes to finally deliver the Jewish people. For more on this subject, see the article, “The Seven Books of Moses” on the H4C site. [Hebrew for Christians]

5.26.21 • Facebook

Today’s message (Days of Praise) from the Institute for Creation Research

May 27, 2021

Never Too Late

“And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:42-43)

One of the two thieves on the cross continued in unbelief right up until the time he died (Luke 23:39), but the second repented and believed unto salvation. The one assures us that no one need despair, since it is always possible to accept Christ at any time before death. The other warns us, on the other hand, that no one should presume. Long-continued rebellion against God is likely to become so fixed in one’s character that sincere repentance may become impossible.

The repentant thief, beholding Christ and hearing the first of the seven so-called “words from the cross” (Luke 23:34), came to believe that Jesus truly was Lord and that He could, indeed, grant forgiveness and salvation.

The penitent thief had no opportunity to be baptized, to change his lifestyle, or to do anything whatever except repent, believe on Christ, and confess his faith (Romans 10:9-10). And that was sufficient!

Both thieves would die that day, and the soul of the unrepentant thief would soon descend into Hades, there to await condemnation at the future judgment day. The other, because of his trust in Christ, would go with Him to paradise.

The tragedy is that far too many people, assuring themselves that it is never too late, keep waiting until it becomes forever too late! “Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth” (Proverbs 27:1). The overwhelming majority of people who come to trust in Christ for salvation do so when they are young. Very few come to the Lord when they are old or about to die. “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2). HMM

A set of email messages from Glenn Jackson:

May 27th

IDENTIFICATION

[part 4 of 15]

We Died With Him

* Jesus died twice on the cross. I knew this for many years, but I had no scriptural evidence of it. One day I discovered Isaiah 53:9, the answer to my long search. "And they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his deaths." The word "death" is plural in the Hebrew.

Many of you who have Bibles with marginal renderings will notice it. That is, Jesus died two deaths on the cross: He died spiritually before He died physically. In John 10:18 He said that no one could take His life from Him. He could not be killed; He could not die. Why? Because His body was not mortal.

Jesus had a body like Adam's before he sinned. It was a perfect, human body, not Mortal, nor Immortal. It was a body that could not die until sin had taken possession of His spirit.

In other words, Jesus had to die spiritually before He could die physically.

If Jesus' body had been like yours and mine, then He was not Deity, He was not a Substitute, and He did not die for our sins; He merely died as a martyr. But, if He had a body like the first man Adam's body, that was not Mortal, not subject to death, (that would mean subject to Satan) then He was Deity.

In our last chapter we saw man nailed to the cross with Christ. In this we see the human race died with the Crucified One. Paul says, "If we died with Christ, we believe we shall also live with Him." Romans 6:8 and 2 Timothy 2:11. In these scriptures we notice we died with Christ when He died.

He was our Substitute. We were one with Him on the cross. We were one with Him in His death. He died under our judgment, in our stead. He died because He was made sin.

If we accept Him, there can be no judgment for us.

Isaiah 53:10-12

"Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he bath made him sick: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

That sounds just like the Pauline Revelation, doesn't it?

May 24th

IDENTIFICATION

[part 1 of 15]

He Was Made Sin

In the great drama of our Redemption, as soon as Christ was nailed to the cross, with His crown of thorns, and with the howling mob that surrounded Him, justice began to do its awful work behind the scenes. Sense-Knowledge men and women who surrounded the cross could only see the physical man, Jesus, hanging there.

God could see His spirit. Angels could see His spirit. Demons could see the real man, hidden in that body. Then came the dreadful hour when 2 Corinthians 5:21 was fulfilled.

"Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him."

Isaiah 53:5 "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

On that awful cross, He not only became sin, but He became a curse, for in Galatians 3:13 it tells us, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." (The word "us" there refers to the Jews).

He came as a Jew under the First Covenant to redeem all those who were under that Covenant from the curse of the Law. When He was hanging on the cross, He was not only sin, but He was a curse. Is it any wonder that God turned His back upon Him? Is it any wonder He cried in His agony, "My God, my God, why halt thou forsaken me?"

He had taken the sinner's place in judgment. All the forces of darkness had overwhelmed Him. He was our sin Substitute. Sin was not reckoned to Him. Sin was not set to His account. He became sin. Our Senses reel under the staggering thought of it. We cannot grasp it. Only our spirits can fathom the depths of His agony. You can hear Paul cry, (Philippians 3:10) "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death."

Paul's prayer amazes one. He wanted to share in the death-agonies of Christ. He wanted to fellowship His sufferings. But Paul could not do that. No one could do it. No angel could do it. It was God's own work that must be wrought. When He surrendered His Son to death, He unveiled a love that beggars description.

0 notes

expatimes · 3 years

Photo

Wadi-e-Hussain: A graveyard for Pakistan’s Shia victims | Civil Rights News

Karachi, Pakistan – Miles from the hustle and bustle of the metropolis of Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi, lies the Wadi-e-Hussain graveyard with its hundreds of graves. Each is a window into a life that ended all too abruptly.

Protected from the city by large iron gates and tall walls, there is an uneasy calm within its walls where many of the city’s Shia Muslims have been laid to rest.

Pakistan is home to 220 million people, almost all of whom are Muslim. It is also home to one of the largest Shia populations in the world, as an estimated 20 percent of Muslims there are Shia.

At Wadi-e-Hussain red flags are planted by the graves of observant Shia Muslims who have died in targeted killings, gun or bomb attacks.

Since 2001, more than 2,600 Shia Muslims have been killed in violent attacks in the South Asian country, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal research organisation. This year has seen an uptick in targeted killings against Shia accused of blasphemy.

In September, tens of thousands attended a demonstration in Karachi organised by the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ), a Sunni hardline group that is banned under Pakistani law for its ties to the armed Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) group, which has carried out many of the largest bombings and attacks on the community since 1996.

At Wadi-e-Hussain, people paying their respects come and go, as the caretaker customarily sprinkles water on the graves.

“Some bring flowers, some light candles on every Thursday, sometimes a brother or a mother comes with the book of prayer, spends time on the grave,” says the caretaker Laal Mohammad.

As the scent of rose petals and incense wafts across the graves this history of violence is writ large across the tombstones. A group of five graves marks a family killed in the Abbas town blast of 2013. A mother’s grave sits by her four-year-old’s son’s, killed in the same blast; the inscription says the woman dropped dead when she saw her young child’s lifeless body.

There are more than 300 graves belonging to the those dubbed as “martyrs” in Wadi-e-Hussain. These are their stories.

‘My brother did not come back’

A woman sits near a grave, reading verses from a prayer book, crying as she does so.

Tehseen Abidi’s younger brother was also killed in the 2013 bombing in Abbas Town, a popular majority-Shia Muslim neighbourhood in Karachi. Kashif Abbas Abidi was at the site of the blast when it went off. Police never found his body.

For 40-year-old Tehseen, Kashif was her whole world. Sitting by his grave, she tells the story of the day she lost her brother in the attack, a sequence of bomb blasts which killed at least 45 people.

There are more than 300 graves belonging to the those dubbed as “martyrs” in Wadi-e-Hussain

“He died in the first blast, he was present at the site of the blast, he promised me that he would come to see me in the evening, my brother did not come back” she says.

Abidi owned a general store in the neighbourhood and was at work when the bombs went off.

“It was March 3 and a Sunday,” said Tehseen. She only got a few sentences in before she broke down in tears, remembering her “little one”.

The government offered financial compensation to the families whose relatives had died that day and in other attacks. But the relatives say the money is of little comfort.

“The government gave 1.5 million rupees to his wife, but our loss is so big that nothing can compensate for this loss,” said Tehseen.

“Even if our whole life we cry it’s not enough. Maybe if we all die crying in this anguish, maybe only then it will be compensated.”

‘Something died inside me that day’

On June 6, 1963 while preparing for a local ceremony, Ishtiaq Hussain and his fellow mourners heard the news of an attack on the procession in Thehri town, 14 kilometres (8.6 miles) out of Khairpur city in Sindh province. Hussain, now aged 80, is still haunted by his memories of that day.

It was a few days after Ashura, the 10th day of Muharram, the first month in the Islamic calendar. Ashura marks the anniversary of the Karbala mass killing and is commemorated by Shia Muslims in sombre rituals and processions.

“We were around 200 people who ran to save the congregation of Thehri that day,” he says. “We didn’t know that the news was a trap, and there were thousands of waiting for us with axes and swords in their hands, to chop us all into pieces.”

Hussain made it out alive but he has no idea how.

“I was among the survivors, but I can’t recall how I survived. There were around 10 people who attacked me with the axes, they injured me badly, my neck and shoulder were bleeding, they kicked me in my stomach to the point that I started spitting blood,” he says.

“I still survived, but something died inside me that day.”

The attack at Thehri was one of the first significant sectarian attacks since Pakistan gained independence from the British in 1947.

More than 118 people were killed on that day. They were to be the first of thousands killed for being Shia.

Silencing the outcry

In August 2020, in the month of Muharram, a fresh wave of sectarian tension rippled across Karachi and the rest of the country. Shia scholars were accused of blasphemy after they gave sermons critical of Islam’s early caliphs. Thousands rallied in Karachi under the banner of the ASWJ, calling Pakistan’s Shia leaders infidels.

After the protests ended, many Pakistanis denounced the ASWJ supporters’ hate speech and said the government had not taken the demonstrators to task.

Journalist Bilal Farooqi was one of the few who spoke out publicly.

A Sunni, Farooqi was arrested in October 2020 on charges of having spread “religious hatred” and “anti-state sentiment”. He had tweeted criticisms of the ASWJ march and questioned the authorities over their allowing an organisation that had been designated as “terrorist” to organise the march.

“Most of my posts, on the basis of which was filed against me, were about the ASWJ’s involvement in anti-Shia activities,” said Farooqi. Later released from police custody, he is still facing the same court charges.

He has called on Sunni Muslim activists to speak up against police inaction towards groups involved in Shia Muslim attacks.

Running parallel with the ASWJ’s continuing anti-Shia campaign has been the rise of a new far-right religious group in Pakistan, the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), which has made the so-called issue of blasphemy a rallying point.

Since 2017, the TLP and its leading scholars have seen a sharp rise in support for the issue and have pressured the government to penalise those accused of blasphemy.

The movement and its leader Khadim Hussain Rizvi were behind days of protests in 2018 over one of Pakistan’s most high-profile blasphemy cases. It involved the acquittal of a Christian woman, Asia Bibi on blasphemy charges. The TLP also blocked the main highway leading to the capital Islamabad for weeks in 2017 over a change in an electoral oath. It was deemed by them as blasphemous because it eased some restrictions on members of the Ahmadi sect, an offshoot of Sunni Islam that believes in a subordinate prophet and has been declared non-Muslim under Pakistani law.

Farooqi says the TLP has also recently hit out at Shia Muslims for what they say is blasphemy against some of Prophet Muhammad’s companions.

Regional politics, local violence

Following the Islamic revolution in 1979 in Shia-majority Iran, which shares a border with Pakistan, there was an influx of Iranian and Shia Muslim influence into Pakistan, says Hasan Zafar Naqvi, a popular Pakistani Shia leader.

The real problem, he argues, emerged after the United States and Saudi Arabia – which is Sunni-majority and has long viewed Iran as its regional rival – began to look at Iran’s perceived influence in Pakistan as a threat to the region.

Pakistan’s ruler at the time, General Zia ul-Haq, had seized power in a military coup in 1977 and was in the process of establishing a more theocratic state. During Haq’s time in power until 1988, the role of religion in government affairs grew. It also became the basis for US-backed armed action by the ‘mujahideen’ in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Backed by Saudi Arabia, Sunni hardline groups began to counter the perceived threat of Shia in the region. To that purpose, a group called Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP, later to become the ASWJ) was formed in 1985 in central Pakistan.

Founded by Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, the party was against the mainly Shia Muslim landlords of the area and sought to exploit sectarian differences. It called for Shia Muslims to be declared non-Muslim under Pakistani law and organised frequent protests to highlight the issue. The rise of the SSP, and its allied LeJ in the 1990s, saw a sharp rise in incidents of violence against Shia Muslims across the country in the decades to follow, says Naqvi, the scholar.

Repeated attacks

In 2009, Syed Liaquat Hussain Zaidi, an influential Shia activist and leader in Karachi was gunned down by LeJ.

Zaidi’s murderer was arrested two years later and confessed to police that he was working for the LeJ and had been given a hit-list of influential Shia Muslims in the city to kill, according to Zaidi’s family.

Zaidi was actively involved in charity and welfare work and was the president of Pasban-e-Aza, a Shia welfare organisation, said his sister Rehana Zaidi.

On a winter morning in November, Zaidi took his young son to school but never returned, says Rehana.

Two motorcyclists shot him three times in the head as he stopped at a traffic signal in the city. His niece first reached the scene and found her uncle in a pool of blood, the car surrounded by onlookers. No one attempted to help him, she says.

A year after the murder, Zaidi’s killers returned – this time shooting Zaidi’s nephew, Rameez Hussain, mere blocks away from the family home.

Miraculously, the nephew survived. The murderer, in his confession, told police he had fled the scene having assumed Hussain had been killed. “God saved him,” says Rehana.

#humanrights Read full article: https://expatimes.com/?p=16462&feed_id=27009 #asia #civilrights #conflict #features #humanrights #pakistan #religion

#Asia #CivilRights #Conflict #Features #HumanRights #Pakistan #Religion

0 notes

thisdaynews · 3 years

Text

No Evidence Of Widespread Voter Fraud Yet--William Barr

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/no-evidence-of-widespread-voter-fraud-yet-william-barr/

No Evidence Of Widespread Voter Fraud Yet--William Barr

CNN)Attorney General William Barr just managed the most solid hit to Donald Trump’s lies about a taken political decision, exactly in light of the fact that he beforehand frequently ran over more as the President’s own legal advisor than an unbiased authority of equity.