A very rosy picture of Indonesia is painted here, and as far as I understand Indonesia was the region taken over by the Muslims with the least bloodshed, so perhaps there is the most hope here.
Yet there are almost daily bombings throughout these islands, and friends of mine who live there say they never go into the larger shopping malls, and do not use public transport in Jakarta, because of the frequency of these attacks.
It's really only under pressure from the West that any progress has been made in Islamic countries in the last 200 years or so. Yet many in these countries resent and reject those changes, seeing them as un-Islamic, and calling for another return to true Islam (the FIS in Algeria is only one example). Democracy is one such Western inovation, and is alien to Islam. The wrong result would be rejected by an Islamic government as much as wrong results are rejected by the US - could you imagine the response if voters in an Islamic republic elected to reject Islam as the source of governmental authority, and throw out Sharia? One would not need the TV to see the blood flowing.

Indonesia, like Turkey, MAY turn out to be a Muslim democratic success story. I think, however, it is a little early to declare victory.

There are unfortunately many counter-examples. Iran and Sudan both come to mind.

Malaysia seems to be drifting towards the implementation of sharia much to the discomfort of Malaysian kafirs.

The Muslim insurgency is Southern Thailand is a painful example of how things can go badly wrong. It is hard to see how the insurgency could continue without support from Malaysian Muslim sympathisers across the border.

In Iraq, we should remind ourselves that most deaths have resulted from internecine conflict between Muslim sects.

Finally you may want to ask an Egyptian Copt what it's like being a Christian in Muslim Egypt. I don't mean the "official line" sprouted by the Coptic leadership in Egypt. I mean talk one on one to Copts.

You may also want to ask a few West Papuans how they like being part of the Muslim Javanese Empire which is what Indonesia should be called.

I wonder if the author has actually been to Indonesia.. or.. if he has visited certain 'hotspots' where the opposites of what he describes as the reasons for peace are in fact realites?

1/ 1900 Central/Nothern Sulawisi is Christian majority, Mainly tribal people of the interior. Some Muslims in Coastal areas.

2/ 19TRANSMIGRATION of Muslims is declared for Sulawisi, and thousands of Muslim Indonesians move to the Christian area and are given land for high value cash crops.

3/ The population balance shifts over time, as does the political balance and opportunities for the Christian community to decide its own destiny as in the past.

4/ Communities are polarized, and finally a single incident of a street fight over a bus fare is enough to trigger communal violence.

5/ Muslims terrorize Christians, hunt them out of their homes, burning.. this happens a number of times and the 'other cheek' is turned... finally, the pressure cooker lid explodes and there are no more cheeks to turn.. Catholic Christians, having barely escaped death at a school burnt down by Muslim mobs, now with nowhere to turn, respond in kind, and massacre some Muslims they corner at a school...
Men, women and children are slaughtered. (Think Ruanda for the visual)

6/ Jihadis from all over Indonesia descend on Sulawisi and try to ethnically cleanse, kill all Christians and vestiges of Christianity.

7/ The most fascinating aspect of this horrific drama, is how the attacks by the Christians (very few compared to those of the Muslims/Jihadists) are portrayed on youtube as some kind of "World/USA/Western/Jewish Conspiracy against poor hapless Muslims, and how the Indonesian government used 'Christian and Buddhist' troops to 'slaughter' innocent Muslims"

Here is an example. (must log-on to view)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THQpg7oTck0 <-- very biased Islamist propoganda
(Read the HRW report after this)

FULL HUMAN_RIGHTS_WATCH REPORT here.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/indo1204.htm <-- more objective/balanced
Links to this background report:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/indonesia/indonesia1102-03.htm#P141_20225

A recent report from my native friend in West Papua stated that about 2,000 of his countrymen have been missing presumed slaughtered by the Indonesian army. Removed without fair trial or justice. The object of the army is to kill without question.

Indonesia is not a peace loving democracy administered by peace advocates for all people, it is rather a democracy administered only by influence of the political power brokers. They incite hatred of each other, they still hold to their tribal hostilities.

Personally, I think Indonesia is one of the great unsung success stories of the world and that it deserves huge credit for the reasonably peaceful and careful, steady progress over the past few years away from an autocracy towards a modern, plural and democratic state. Although it is overpopulated and faces major economic threates, not the least from China, I think it faces even better times ahead.

On the much more difficult subject of creating freedom and pluralism for Middle Eastern muslims (not to mention other citizens of the region), I found this recent discussion interesting at http://www.opendemocracy.net/audio/5050/16_days/hibaaq_osman

Compare Idonesians with Afghanis in Central Asia who have no freedom to speak of (yet), trampled as they constantly are by the very antithesis of moderate or peaceful islam. Indonesians have hope and progress on their side.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/10/news/kabul.php?WT.mc_id=newsalert

The outrageous and disgusting behaviour by groups like the Taliban and their Al Qaeda salafist, wahhabist brethren in pakistan etc. is precisely why we need to keep/boost our troops there and kick heads til they grow up or bugger off, penggertak mugil yang membawa rasa malu dan akan kehilangan perjuangan bebal mereka.

Jihadists of violent political Islam bring the death knell for this faith the world over so moderate members must rise up and challenge them. Fanatics bring bad news and a bad name to all of them.

At Christmas time, I personally wish Indonesians and muslims the world over good tidings and a growing appreciation of pluralism, not supremacy. Democracy, not xenophobia. Science, not ignorance. Innovation, not fear or guilt. Freedom, not division. Food, not war. Peace, not impulse. Hard work, not militancy. Medicine, not revenge. Live children, not a dead Caliphate. Liberty under law, not retribution. Faith, not anger. The Future, not the past.

Ro wrote,

"Personally, I think Indonesia is one of the great unsung success stories of the world..."

If you're sufficiently selective you can find good things to say about Nazi Germany. They had great environmental protection laws for example. They were "green" before "green" was fashionable.

Indonesia is not a country. It is the Javanese Empire.

The Aborigines should be thankful that Europeans got here before the Javanese.

It is true of early Islamic history concerning the virtual capture of the whole of the Middle East that it had previously come under the beneficial influence of Golden Greek reasoning from the campaigns of Alexander the Great.

Thus in what is now Iraq and in what is now Iran, as well as in Egypt, the Muslim invaders took great interest in the accumulated scientific knowledge for over three hundred years, even passing it on to the barbarian West through the French monk Peter Abelard, and later St Thomas Aquinas.

Further it is said that scientific reasoning by making Christian faith more worldly magically changed the former barbarian West into what it is today.

Some philosophers say it has been the Germanic arrogance of the West so primed up by the gifting of scientific reasoning through the Muslims that has caused the Muslims to throw out scientific reasoning and sink into their own Dark Age believing that the after life is superior to earthly life.

It is so interesting that an Iranian judge has talked about an Islamic future with democratic features superior to the Western Way, or what she calls the American Way.

bushbred.
Your understanding of the development of Western thought and its influence upon early Christianity is totally wrong. Early Christianity was formulated during the period of a strong Greek culture in Israel from its strong Hebrew experience and heritage.

Western intellectual thinking had nothing to do with Islam. The establishment of Iranian intellectual thinking had developed long before Islam. Their science was established with polytheistic intellectual thinking. The influence of Islam (meaning the religion of the Iranian God Allah under their 600AD prophet Mohamet) had no effect upon the Biblical teachings of Christianity. It did have an effect upon some thinking in the territories controlled by the Roman Church.

Because in the rise of Roman Empire Church it had incorporated pagan practises into its thinking caused, what was is commonly called a Christian Empire, into a period of intellectual decline called the dark ages.

The incorporation of pagan practises into the Roman Church from the Middle Eastern Empires is what took it into the intellectual dark ages. The great intellectuals of the period from 300 BC to 300 AD were predominatly Greek who influenced Western logic and culture

To add to Philo's comments:

More than a thousand years before the birth of Christ Babylonians astronomers had made some astonishing discoveries. For example they had correctly worked out that 235 lunar months equalled 19 solar years. To bring the lunar and solar calendars into synchrony the Babylonian calendar had seven leap months every 19 years.

The Babylonian calendar lives on as the Hebrew calendar. Even the names are derivative. The Hebrew month of Tishri derives from the Babylonian month, Tashritu.

Remember, the Babylonians did all this with naked eye astronomy and water clocks!

So accurate were the Babylonian observations that centuries later Hipparchus was able to use them to deduce the precession of the equinoxes.

This millennia long tradition of astronomy was extinguished in about 1580 when the great observatory of Taqi al-Din was destroyed on orders of the Mufti of Istanbul. To quote Bernard Lewis "What went wrong?"

"This observatory had many predecessors in the lands of Islam; it had no successors until the age of modernisation."

I could provide many more examples. Far from fostering scientific enquiry, Islam destroyed it.

The truth is that by the time the ancient texts were recovered from Muslims European science had already begun to surpass them thanks to the work of people such as the Venerable Bede and Roger Burridan. Scientific progress is not about the reverence for ancient writings; it is about free spirits undertaking new lines of enquiry.

I think it about time we retired the politically correct myth of Muslim "scholars" rescuing Western Civilisation.

It's a load of codswallop

stevenlmeyer,
Thanks steven!

"think it about time we retired the politically correct myth of Muslim "scholars" rescuing Western Civilisation. It's a load of codswallop."

Unfortunately we have this missreprersentation of history taught in our NSW universities as fact. The current faculty of teachers are mostly Muslim

Philo wrote:

"The current faculty of teachers are mostly Muslim"

Well for their own good remind them to wash their noses out thrice if they are awakened from sleep. (See Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 516)

On a more serious note, Philo, why not set up a blog. Let the whole world see what you're being taught. Name names. Expose the equine fertiliser.

BUT

Make quite sure YOU are being accurate

stevenlmeyer,
My former Pastor who was born in India and immigrated to Australia with his parents when he was four. has now gained several degrees after his name including Master of Theology. He decided five years ago to study ancient History as a subject at Sydney University.

He discovered the teachers in that faculty were mostly Muslim. After six months he decided to leave the course because of the amount of distortion they placed on ancient history. I will contact him to get the facts.

Muslims make the claim their monotheistic heritage dates bach to Abraham. Mainly because they believe the Koran is the most accurate book of God, and its historical innaccurateies therefore are believed to be true.

Philo,

Leaving aside Muslim mythology, the provenance of the koran is quite murky. The earliest extant printed version of the koran in its current form dates to some decades after Muhammad's death. Internal evidence – most notably the verses on human embryos that seem to be plagiarised from the writings of Galen, a second century physician – suggest that the koran underwent considerable editing before its contents were settled.

Whatever the koran is, it is probably not what a seventh century Arabian warlord imagined he heard.

To be credible you have to:

--Name your university

--Name the faculty members there

--Explain what they are teaching

--Demonstrate how their teaching is false

In doing this you should not rely solely on your pastor. Never report anything until it has been corroborated from multiple sources.

However,

That applies equally to your lecturers.

(1) Are your lecturers treating Muslim mythology – eg the provenance of the koran – as fact?

(2) If they teach the Muslim version of events do they teach other points of view as well?

If the answer to (1) is "yes" and the answer to (2) is "no" you should expose them.

Good luck

Can the same not be said of the Bible, stevenlmeyer?

>>the provenance of the koran is quite murky<<

The Bible, as I understand it, is not a coherent document, but a gathering of early writings brought together in order to underpin a particular religious view. Is this not the case?

Of some interest to scholars, I believe, are various documents that were omitted from the "authorised" version, because they didn't represent a sufficiently supportive position to the main theme. Am I incorrect in thinking this?

What has always intrigued me, as I have mentioned a few times on this forum, is the fact that there is no contemporary account of the events involving Jesus, that were seen as somehow "different" by his followers. No corroborative mention of meetings (sermon on the mount), miracles (surely the tabloids of the day would have picked up a few of those?) or the resurrection.

The resurrection should at least have rated a small mention, somewhere?

The lack of contemporary corroboration, as opposed to the later manufacture of a myth, surely lends itself well to the definition of its provenance as "murky"?

Particularly when you use as evidence of "murky" the following, related to the Qur'an:

>>The earliest extant printed version of the koran in its current form dates to some decades after Muhammad's death<<

Errr... when was the Bible written? And what is the date of "the earliest extant printed version?"

Pot, meet kettle. Note, please, its fine ebony sheen.

Pericles,

I am if not an actual atheist an extremely sceptical agnostic. I'll believe in a deity when shown some evidence.

Even if there exists an entity that could be called a deity I would not expect him / her / it / they to resemble the deity described in the bible, the koran, or any other human "holy" book.

I certainly would not regard the provenance of the bible as anything but murky.

So what is your point Pericles?

Just to drive home the point Pericles:

Let us suppose a university professor were to teach creationism instead of evolution to biology students. I would want that fact publicised.

In the same way, if professors are teaching Muslim myth as fact I want that out in the open.

Whenever I make statements like that I am asked whether I believe in "academic freedom."

My answer is: Absolutely.

I respect the right of anyone to teach whatever they want. If someone truly believes a seventh century Arabian warlord was God's last and greatest messenger and that an angel dictated the koran to him word for word that's fine. They are welcome to teach that as historical fact.

Similarly, if someone really believes evolution is all a load of codswallop and that God created the world over a six day period 6,000 years ago that's also OK.

For all I care a physics professor can teach the phlogiston theory of heat.

However, the right to teach what you want is not the right to avoid scrutiny. I want what is being taught out in the open.

-That way students can make an informed choice of university.

-That way employers can make an informed decision about the value of the degrees granted by the university.

My understanding is that Philo believes Muslim faculty are teaching Muslim mythology as fact in classes that are not specifically religious in nature. I have no way of knowing whether he is correct. I suspect not. Undergraduates often get things wrong. Oft times when I've been marking exam papers I've said to myself "You anal cavity, to you really think I taught you that?"

But, if Philo is correct, if Muslim faculty are teaching mythology as fact, that information should be made public.

Now what point were you trying to make again Pericles?

This knee-jerk defence of Muslims is getting tiresome.

I take your point, stevenlmeier.

However, you and I both know that Philo is simply inventing mozzies-under-the-bed stories to get his cohorts all pumped up with vitriol.

I was simply pointing out that the teaching of any religion, using selected historical documents, while at the same time protecting those documents from scrutiny by insisting they are somehow sacred, is dishonest.

>>For all I care a physics professor can teach the phlogiston theory of heat.<<

And so they should.

I recall being told about phlogiston as part of the lead-in to understanding oxidation. I certainly would have no problem if religion were taught in the same way. As a lead-in, perhaps, to a philosophy course, or to a study into the human need for "completion".

>>This knee-jerk defence of Muslims is getting tiresome<<

Strange if it came across this way, but I'll bear it in mind. It may be that there are simply so many christians on this thread who denigrate Islam at the drop of a hat that my reaction inevitably seems to be a pro-Islam knee-jerk, when it is simply intended to be anti-bigotry.

Pericles wrote:

"…you and I both know that Philo is simply inventing mozzies-under-the-bed stories"

Perhaps he is and perhaps he isn't. I have no way of knowing. We shall have to see whether he is able to come up with specifics.

For what it's worth here is some personal history.

I grew up in Apartheid era South Africa. The South African "history" I learned in high school was heavily laced with Afrikaner mythology. Even as schoolchildren my contemporaries and I understood this.

Imagine my surprise when, on leaving school, I encountered university academics who actually believed the mythology! They taught Afrikaner mythology as fact.

Since then I've discovered that this sort of thing is not uncommon. People who have an ideological agenda are often INCAPABLE of separating out myth from established fact. Unfortunately such ideologues infest university Arts faculties so it would not surprise me to learn that Muslim academics were teaching Muslim mythology as fact.

And, yes, I am sure Muslims are not the only ideologues to teach their mythology as fact.