Jesus

BORN IDENTITY:
Was Jesus a real person?

Did Jesus Christ really exist, or is Christianity built upon a legend? Few scholars question Jesus' existence, but some enemies of Christianity are attempting to prove otherwise. In a lawsuit against the Vatican, the Church was accused of inventing the story of Jesus' existence. Although the case was thrown out of court in February, 2006, the plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, appealed, but ultimately his case was closed.

The argument against Jesus' existence was made public on CNN TV, when Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, declared, “the reality is, there is not one shred of secular evidence there ever was a Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ and Christianity is a modern religion. And Jesus Christ is a compilation from other gods: Horas [sic], Mithras, who had the same origins, the same death as the mythological Jesus Christ.”

Johnson and a blue-ribbon panel of religious leaders were discussing the question, “What happens after we die?” on a Larry King Live CNN broadcast. The usually unflappable King paused reflectively and then replied, “So you don’t believe there was a Jesus Christ?”

With an air of certainty, Johnson responded, “There was not. It is not what I believe; there is no secular evidence that JC, Jesus Christ, ever existed.”

King had no follow-up and went to a commercial break. No discussion of any evidence for or against Jesus’ existence was forthcoming. The international television audience was left wondering.

Fifty years earlier, in his book Why I Am Not a Christian, atheist Bertrand Russell shocked his generation by questioning Jesus’ existence. He wrote: “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one.”2

Is it possible that the Jesus so many believe to be real never existed? In The Story of Civilization, secular historian Will Durant posed this question: “Did Christ exist? Is the life story of the founder of Christianity the product of human sorrow, imagination, and hope—a myth comparable to the legends of Krishna, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, and Mithras?”3 Durant pointed out how the story of Christianity has “many suspicious resemblances to the legends of pagan gods.”4 Later in this article we will see how this great historian answered his own question about the existence of Jesus.

So, how can we know for sure that this man, whom many worship and others curse, was real? Is Johnson right when she asserts that Jesus Christ is a “compilation from other gods”? And is Russell right when he says that Jesus’ existence is “quite doubtful”?

Myth vs. Reality
Let’s begin with a more foundational question: What distinguishes myth from reality? How do we know, for example, that Alexander the Great really existed? Supposedly, in 336 b.c., Alexander the Great became king of Macedonia at 20 years of age. A military genius, this handsome, arrogant leader butchered his way through villages, towns, and kingdoms of the Greco-Persian world until he ruled it all. In a short eight years Alexander’s armies had traversed a total of 22,000 miles in his conquests.

It has been said of Alexander that he cried when he ran out of worlds to conquer. (I’m thinking, this is not the person I want to play Monopoly with.)

Before he died at age 32, Alexander reportedly accomplished greater military deeds than anyone in history, not only of the kings who had lived before him, but also of those who were to come later, down to our own time. But today, other than a bunch of cities named Alexandria, a boring film by Oliver Stone, and a few books, his legacy is all but forgotten. In fact, the name Colin Farrell had more drawing power at the box office than Alexander’s.

In spite of the box office flop, historians believe Alexander existed because of three primary reasons:

written documentation from early historians
historical impact
other historical and archaeological evidence


Historical Documents About Jesus
The historicity of Alexander the Great and his military conquests is drawn from five ancient sources, none of whom were eyewitnesses. Although written 400 years after Alexander, Plutarch’s Life of Alexander is the primary account of his life.

Since Plutarch and the other writers were several hundred years removed from the events of Alexander’s life, they based their information on prior accounts. Of the twenty contemporary historical accounts on Alexander, not one survives. Later accounts exist, but each presents a different “Alexander,” with much left to our imagination. But regardless of the time gap of several hundred years, historians are convinced that Alexander was a real man and that the essential details of what we read about his life are true.

Keeping Alexander as a reference point, we’ll note that for Jesus there are both religious and secular historical accounts. But we must ask the question, were they written by reliable and objective historians? Let’s take a brief look.



----------
The continued discussion on Jesus can be accessed through this link.

Travel, gems favoured by Asia's rising millionaires: study

Agence France-Presse - 6/25/2008 7:48 AM GMT

India and China have the world's fastest-growing populations of millionaires, with a penchant for luxury travel, gems and designer clothes, a study released in Asia on Wednesday said.

The number of Indian millionaires jumped 22.7 percent last year to 123,000, followed by China where the number of high rollers rose 20.3 percent to 415,000, said the 12th annual World Wealth Report, prepared by US investment bank Merrill Lynch and information technology group Capgemini.

"In the Asia Pacific region, wealth is being created at an unprecedented rate," said Kong Eng Huat, South Asia market managing director at Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management.

"Notwithstanding the recent dislocation in global markets, the robust economies in Asia are increasingly being driven by the domestic consumption story and continue to spur wealth creation in the region."

The report said China surpassed France as the world's fifth-largest population of High Net Worth Individuals (HNWIs), people with net assets of at least one million US dollars excluding their primary residence.

Also among the fastest-growing were South Korea, where the millionaire population rose by 18.9 percent to 118,000, and Indonesia, which saw a 16.8 percent rise to 23,000, the report said.

Singapore saw a 15.3 percent rise to 77,000 millionaires, it added.

Despite financial turmoil and significant increases in the price of luxury goods, the report said the world's millionaires have an "unquenchable appetite" for luxury items.

Jewelry, gems and watches attracted the largest share of these "passion investment allocations" in Asia and the Middle East, the report said.

Globally, these high-priced toys tend to be art collections, yachts, personal jets and similar items, Merrill Lynch and Capgemini said.

But there are regional differences. Asia's millionaires allocate the most to luxury and "experiential" travel, visits to high-end spas, and designer clothes, they said.

With millionaires holding a significant portion of their wealth in stock markets, market capitalisation performance is an important determinant of millionaire wealth generation, the report said.

Growth in traditional stock exchanges slowed last year but rose in several emerging market exchanges, particularly those in China and India, it said.

India's millionaire growth was boosted by market capitalisation expansion of 118 percent and real GDP growth of 7.9 percent, it said.

"Once recognised as a manufacturing superpower, characteristic of a more nascent market, much of India's recent growth has been driven by the technology, financial services, property, construction and infrastructure sectors," the Wealth Report said.

In China, GDP grew 11.4 percent last year and market capitalisation rose by 291 percent but the country's economy is still built on manufacturing, it said.

"This helps explain why its HNWI population growth is slower than that of India -- and why the gap continues to widen between China's richest citizens, a group with a particularly high concentration of wealth, and the middle-class."

In third place behind India and China, Brazil had the third-fastest growth in millionaires, Merrill Lynch and Capgemini said, adding that half of the 10 nations with the fastest-growing millionaire populations were in Asia.

It said assets held overall by the world's millionaires soared 9.4 percent to 40.7 trillion US dollars last year, with the average exceeding 4.0 million dollars for the first time.

3 in 10 Americans Admit to Race Bias

Racial prejudice and stereotyping is a kind of social desease. It is a reflection of lack of self-confidence among particular groups of people when they have to compete with others. US as the most wel-known democratic country in the world, however, is still shrouded by race bias and discrimination. Just read an article below:

Survey Shows Age, Too, May Affect Election Views

By Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 22, 2008; Page A01

As Sen. Barack Obama opens his campaign as the first African American on a major party presidential ticket, nearly half of all Americans say race relations in the country are in bad shape and three in 10 acknowledge feelings of racial prejudice, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Lingering racial bias affects the public's assessments of the Democrat from Illinois, but offsetting advantages and Sen. John McCain's age could be bigger factors in determining the next occupant of the White House.

Overall, 51 percent call the current state of race relations "excellent" or "good," about the same as said so five years ago. That is a relative thaw from more negative ratings in the 1990s, but the gap between whites and blacks on the issue is now the widest it has been in polls dating to early 1992.

More than six in 10 African Americans now rate race relations as "not so good" or "poor," while 53 percent of whites hold more positive views. Opinions are also divided along racial lines, though less so, on whether blacks face discrimination. There is more similarity on feelings of personal racial prejudice: Thirty percent of whites and 34 percent of blacks admit such sentiments.

At the same time, there is an overwhelming public openness to the idea of electing an African American to the presidency. In a Post-ABC News poll last month, nearly nine in 10 whites said they would be comfortable with a black president. While fewer whites, about two-thirds, said they would be "entirely comfortable" with it, that was more than double the percentage of all adults who said they would be so at ease with someone entering office for the first time at age 72, which McCain (R-Ariz.) would do should he prevail in November.

Even so, just over half of whites in the new poll called Obama a "risky" choice for the White House, while two-thirds said McCain is a "safe" pick. Forty-three percent of whites said Obama has sufficient experience to serve effectively as president, and about two in 10 worry he would overrepresent the interests of African Americans.

Obama will be forced to confront these views as he seeks to broaden his appeal. He leads in the Post-ABC poll by six percentage points among all adults, but among those who are most likely to vote, the contest is a tossup, with McCain at 48 percent and Obama at 47 percent.

His campaign advisers hope race may prove a benefit, that heightened enthusiasm among African Americans will make Obama competitive in GOP-leaning states with large black populations. But to win in November, Obama most likely will have to close what is now a 12-point deficit among whites. (Whites made up 77 percent of all voters in 2004; blacks were 11 percent, according to network exit polls.)

This is hardly the first time a Democratic candidate has faced such a challenge -- Al Gore lost white voters by 12 points in 2000, and John F. Kerry lost them by 17 points in 2004 -- but it is a significantly larger shortfall than Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton encountered in their winning campaigns.

Many think Obama has the potential to transform current racial politics. Nearly six in 10 believe his candidacy will shake up the racial status quo, for better or worse. And by nearly 3 to 1, those who think Obama's candidacy will affect race relations said it will have a positive impact. (Four in 10 said it probably will not make much of a difference.)

African Americans are much more optimistic than whites on this score: Sixty percent said Obama's candidacy will do more to help race relations, compared with 38 percent of whites. Two-thirds of those supporting him for president think it will improve the situation.

But sorting out the impact of these and other racial attitudes on the presidential election is not straightforward.

About a fifth of whites said a candidate's race is important in determining their vote, but Obama does no worse among those who said so than among those who called it a small factor or no factor.

Nor are whites who said they have at least some feelings of racial prejudice more or less apt to support Obama than those who profess no such feelings.

Putting several measures together into a "racial sensitivity index" reveals that these attitudes have a significant impact on vote preferences, independent of partisan identification. Combining answers to questions about racist feelings, perceptions of discrimination and whether the respondent has a close personal friend of another race into a three-part scale shows the importance of underlying racial attitudes.

Whites in the top sensitivity group broke for Obama by nearly 20 percentage points, while those in the lowest of the three categories went for McCain by almost 2 to 1.

A similar pattern holds among Democrats. Obama scores more than 20 points better among nonblack Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in the "high" group than he does among those in the "low" group.

Obama has some convincing to do among the 29 percent of whites who fall into the scale's lowest category. (Twenty-one percent were in the top grouping, 50 percent in the middle.) Almost six in 10 whites in the low-sensitivity group see him as a risky choice, and a similar percentage said they know little or nothing about where he stands on specific issues. Nearly half do not think his candidacy will alter race relations in the country; 20 percent think it will probably make race relations worse.

But McCain's challenges are also an important part of the equation.

Numerous polls, for example, have indicated that McCain's age may be a bigger detractor than Obama's race. And more are now concerned that McCain will heed too closely the interests of large corporations than said so about Obama and the interests of blacks.

The poll was conducted by telephone June 12 through June 15 among a national random sample of 1,125 adults. The results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The error margin is larger for subgroups; it is four points among whites and seven points among African Americans.

Assistant polling analyst Kyle Dropp contributed to this report.

The Genocide Continues

The New York Time Editorial on 17 June 2008 wrote about the genocide in Darfur. I reckon such a barbaric attrocity is occuring due to the animal soul which is embedded in the human body. It is a culture of wild and beast animal kingdom in which the strongest and the most powerful clans are the king of the kings. We reluctantly value the dignity of humanity due to the fetish of capitalism and materialism.

==================


Despite the dispatch of United Nations peacekeepers to Darfur and the issuing of international arrest warrants for leaders of the genocide, the killing goes on. So does the burning of villages, the bombing of schools and the systematic rape of women and girls. And it will continue until the Security Council shows the will to stop it.

The Council needs to get more peacekeepers, helicopters and reconnaissance planes in the field, enforce the arrest warrants and increase diplomatic and financial pressure to get Sudan to stop obstructing the work of the peacekeepers. But the Council has shown little urgency in doing any of that.

Thwarted by Sudan and the United Nations’ own bureaucratic rules, far less than half of an anticipated force of 26,000 international soldiers and police officers is now in Darfur. That is too small to protect the population, or even the peacekeepers themselves. An additional 100,000 people have been forced from their homes since the peacekeepers began arriving in January.

The Council (and separately the European Union) must ensure that Khartoum’s leaders pay a price for their cruelty — through expanded visa and financial sanctions against those coordinating the genocide as well as an expanded arms embargo. The International Criminal Court should get strong backing from the Council when it presents further charges next month.

Responsibility for the Darfur horrors lies squarely with the government of Sudan. Its army, air force and intelligence agencies have directly participated in the attacks. Ministers have coordinated the genocidal campaign. Ahmad Harun, sought by the International Criminal Court for planning atrocities while the deputy interior minister, has been promoted to minister of humanitarian affairs. He used that position to block the delivery of aid to Darfur refugee camps and to thwart the effective deployment of United Nations peacekeepers.

But a minority of Council members, led by China, have let their economic interests — in Beijing’s case substantial investments in Sudan’s abundant oil supplies — trump their moral and legal responsibility to thwart genocide. Last week, China’s president, Hu Jintao, used stronger-than-usual language to urge Khartoum to cooperate with United Nations peacekeepers and enforce a cease-fire in Darfur. If China is prepared to back up those words with a tougher line in the Security Council, it could make a huge difference.

The Bush administration has its heart in the right place on Darfur. Its special envoy, Richard Williamson, has been a strong advocate for action, and Washington has imposed stiff sanctions of its own. But what’s needed is stronger action by the Council as a whole.

Darfur’s plight is not yet hopeless, but without greater international commitment it may become so. As the criminal court’s prosecutor told the Security Council on June 5, it takes a lot of planning and organization to commit massive crimes.

“But mostly,” he said, “it requires that the rest of the world look away and do nothing.”

Source

Issue in mind

Eventually, the government issued a Joint Ministrial Decree on last Monday 9 June 2008 that disbands Ahmadiyya sect following an outbreak of violence in Monas. Amid many dissent opinions from various groups, the issuance of the Decree seems inevitable. It has invited debates over the government omnipotence in interfering the faith of the people. Many believe that Islam is a religion with thousands of interpretations. There is no such a compulsory faith following a particular school of thought in matter of religious observance, since Indonesia is not a theocratic country nor an Islamic state. A ban of this group has become a headline in all public topics. The issue of oil price increases has gone with the wind. Our collective memory is forced to turn its new page and suddenly forget the previous one. The history leaves its misterious dots on the road.

The government seemed to be under pressure due to a more escalating demand among Islamic groups to outlaw Ahmadiyya. The Council of Indonesian Ulama reiterates that Ahmadiyya is deviant and so do some Muslim groups including Muhammadiyah, HTI, and of course FPI. They demand Ahmadiyya to not use Islam as their label of identity. Protest against the existence of this group would not emerge provided that Ahmadiyya is willing to relinquish its "Islamicness". There would not have so much dismay among the mainstream Muslims if Ahmadiyya had ceased its ritual activities and religious interpretations which are deviant to the mainstream Islam. It is believed that Ahmadiyya has about 500,000 followers in Indonesia with 330 branches across the archipelago.

Be that as it may, personally, I very much disagree with all colors of violence let alone violence in the banner of any religion. Every religion must teach respect and love. Every religion must bring peace and welfare for all. I am afraid that if some hardline groups use violence as their method of religious promulgation, they vandalize their own religious teachings. God teaches us to touch the hearts of people with love and respect in order to lead them to the path of God. Those who so called "deviants of Islam" will find that their faith is a true one due to some Muslims' negative attitudes toward them. We do not so much as show the truth of Islam which spreads peace as its core tenets. We do not hit the nail into our head! Can we, from the mainstream camp, investigate as to why our brothers and sisters prefer Ahmadiyyan to mainstream Islam? Can we find their instrumental reasons? what's wrong with the mainstream Islam? These critical questions can possibly find their answers through symphatic dialogues.

Ciputat, 13 June 2008

Ciputat

Turkey’s High Court Overturns Headscarf Rule

Turkey, a country with Muslim majority, has long been gripped by the dominion of secularism since the establishment of modern Turkey. The roles of Islam are demolished although Islam is the religion of the majority. It seems odd when this nation attempts to direct their destiny to Europe as the main kibla. As a result, the spirit of secularism overlooks the wisdom of the very local, Islam and Muslims, itself.

The issue of religious symbols, such as headscarf or veil, has become sensitive one in this very region. Secularism is seemingly the religion of this country. Eveyrthing that is at odd with the pillars of secularism is a sin and a big heresy. Secular proponents fight for the disposal of Islamic tenets and beliefs, one of which is the banning of headscarf as a symbol of purity and chastity for Muslim women. The government should understand that religion is a private matter. It is a set of belief about the sacred which must not be regulated by the government. If Turkey is trully secular state, why is it that it should be bothered by a headscarf? Let women in veil go to the universities and take benefit from educational privileges. Let women be educated and contribute to the betterment for the country.

In a modern and open-minded era, we should accept diversity of world communities and heterogenous colors of global village as long as they respect others' rights to live together. Exclusivism in the name of secularism undermines the dignity of human beings. A democratic country is country in which its citizens enjoy self actualizations parallel to the ultimate dream of the country. Observing religious tenets will not erode the foundation of the country.


By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: June 6, 2008

ISTANBUL — Turkey’s highest court dealt a stinging slap to the governing party of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Thursday, ruling that a legal change allowing women attending universities to wear head scarves was unconstitutional.


The Constitutional Court said in a brief statement that the change, proposed by Mr. Erdogan’s party and passed by Parliament in February, violated principles of secularism set in Turkey’s Constitution.

The ruling sets the stage for a showdown between Turkey’s secular elite — its military, judiciary and secular political party — and Mr. Erdogan, an observant Muslim with an Islamist past.

The court is one of Turkey’s most important secular institutions, and liberals see the ruling as largely political. It bodes ominously for Mr. Erdogan: The same court is considering a case that would ban him and 70 members of his party from politics. A decision is expected in the summer.

Turkey’s political system has been controlled for generations by a powerful secular elite that has stepped in with coups and judicial decisions against elected governments. Mr. Erdogan and his party, Justice and Development, or AKP, have come the closest of any political party in Turkey’s history to breaking its hold on power.

In the head-scarf case, the elite establishment contended that allowing veiled women onto campuses threatened Turkish secularism, one of the founding principles of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s secular revolution in the 1920s. Head scarves were banned from campuses in the 1990s.

Kemal Anadol, a deputy chairman of the secular opposition Republican People’s Party, called the verdict a triumph of justice and said it showed that secularism and democracy were “constitutional principles that can’t be separated from one another.”

Mr. Erdogan calls the case a matter of individual rights, contending that all Turks should be able to attend universities no matter what they wear or believe.

But the way his party proposed it — abruptly, with little public discussion — angered the secular old guard and disappointed liberals, who support the changes, but want them to be accompanied by changes that strengthen other rights, like free speech. Some said AKP seemed to be pursuing only those changes that would please its constituency, and not the broader range that was needed to join the European Union.

“AKP is lost in the spell of their own power,” said Mithat Sancar, a law professor in Ankara, Turkey’s capital. “When they want to listen to liberals, they do, but when they don’t, they comfortably ignore them.”

Despite Mr. Erdogan’s broad popularity — his party won 47 percent of the vote in an election last July — the threat of a ban is serious. The authorities have closed more than 20 parties in the past, and Thursday’s ruling seemed as if it could be a sign of things to come.

The head-scarf amendment is considered to be the single most important irritant that set off the case to ban Mr. Erdogan and 70 other AKP members, and it is central to the prosecution’s argument that he and his allies are trying to dismantle secularism in Turkey, an accusation they strongly dispute.

Many secular Turks are skeptical that Mr. Erdogan will defend secularism, even though he frequently reassures them that he will. “There is still a group within the AKP that is remembered for their Islamic past,” said Ersin Kalaycioglu, a political science professor at Sabanci University. “Fears don’t need to be rational.”

Dengir Firat, a senior member of Mr. Erdogan’s party, said that that was no reason for the head-scarf ban. “You can’t limit someone’s liberties on the basis of people’s fears,” he said.

The military expressed muted approval of the court’s decision. “A different ruling would have been surprising,” said Gen. Aydogan Babaoglu, chief of Turkey’s Air Force, according to NTV television.

All but lost in the debate have been the voices of the women whose futures are caught in the political cross hairs. Neslihan Akbulut, 26, a sociology graduate student, said she cried when she heard the verdict.

“There is no way for me in Turkey now,” she said. She was waiting to see if the changes would take effect so she could start work on a doctorate degree in Turkey. “When I see this result, I feel that I don’t need to wait. I would need to wait for a long time.”

Sebnem Arsu contributed reporting.

FPI leader named suspect

A long murmur has yet to dissapear from the Indonesian public. Agree and disagree are two different ways of expression. People are still talking and discussing about a shameful incident which occured in the National Monument precinct on 1 June 2008 which was coincident with the birthday of Pancasila.

It was a group of people from the National Alliance for the Freedom of Religion and Belief who spoke up about pluralism and the importance of religiously multicultural Indonesian communities. Suddenly, they were attacked by the proponents of FPI (Islamic Defender Front). This incident brings about a much longer story when the FPI leader Habib Rizik humiliated the most prominent ulama, Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur). Habib believes that Gus Dur and other scholars are of the blasphemy against Islam through their invidual worldviews and organizations. Moreover, Habib criticizes a lame-duck attitude shown by the government that is seemingly reluctant to ban Ahmadiya.

Habib's impious utterance about Gus Dur has ignited spontaneous sentiment among the NU's supporters. They need to revenge and give lesson to FPI for their radical and pompous attitude. Banser (NU's paramilitary) demand the banning of FPI throughout the country otherwise they will use their force to deplete this hardliner organization. It seems to become the outbreak of horizontal violence.

I am anxious if this incident turns to be a horizontal conflict between two Muslim brothers. Indonesian Muslims must take seriously the impacts of such a conflict. Not only do they stake the reputation of Indonesian Islam which has long been known as a peaceful and moderate Islam, but also show immature behaviours of their Islamicness. If you think Islam is a peaceful religion, so hold yourself and steadfast.



Desy Nurhayati , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Thu, 06/05/2008 1:14 AM | Headlines

SWEET SURRENDER: Police round up 59 members of the FPI at the group's headquarters in Petamburan, Central Jakarta, on Wednesday. The detained put up no resistance after saying on Monday they would "fight to the last drop of blood". (JP/R. Berto Wedhatama).


Police on Wednesday questioned Islam Defenders Front (FPI) leader Habib Rizieq Shihab, declaring him a suspect in Sunday's attack on a peaceful rally for religious tolerance.

Rizieq was among 59 members of the radical group who were rounded up by an 800-strong police force at its headquarters in Petamburan, Central Jakarta, earlier in the day.

The police said they released four of the 59 people later in the day because they were not involved in the incident.

However, Rizieq was still questioned at the Jakarta Police office at around 10:30 p.m, according his lawyer Ahmad Michdan.

"We have named Habib Rizieq Shihab a suspect in protecting and hiding the attackers," National Police spokesman Insp. Gen. Abubakar Nataprawira said.

He said Rizieq would not be detained because he was only threatened with a prison term of nine months.

"We would detain a suspect whose potential punishment term is five years or more," he said.

The FPI was blamed for a violent attack on activists of the National Alliance for the Freedom of Faith and Religion (AKKBB), who were rallying Sunday at the Monument National (Monas) to mark the 63rd year of Pancasila state ideology.

The peaceful rally was also in support of Jamaah Ahmadiyah, a minority Islamic sect dubbed "heretical" by a government panel that also recommended a ban on it.

The police had earlier said they had identified 20 suspects for playing significant roles in the incident, including Rizieq and Islam Troop Command leader Munarman.

National Police chief Gen. Sutanto said Munarman, a former human rights activist, was a "fugitive" and currently the target of a police manhunt.

"We ask him to immediately surrender himself to the police, the sooner the better," he told the press at the State Palace.

"He publicly said he was responsible for the attack. The police are currently processing this case, so we urge him to give up," Sutanto added.

Michdan said he had been contacting Munarman's family members since Tuesday evening but still could not find him.

Wahid Institute executive director Ahmad Suaedy, who was among some 70 activists injured in the Sunday attack, voiced disappointment with the police for their decision not to detain Rizieq.

"The police should not only charge him with protecting and hiding the perpetrators. They should also hold him as a suspect who must take the responsibility for the incident," he told The Jakarta Post on Wednesday.

"He is the top leader of a group that often commits violence in the country. It doesn't make any sense that the police would release such a person."

Legal Aid Center for the Press expert Hendrayana said Article 221 of the Criminal Code allows police not to detain a suspect threatened with less than five years' imprisonment.

"But they have the authority to detain the suspect if deemed necessary. It depends on the case. If the suspect is believed to protect criminals, police could detain him or her," he added.

Police raided the FPI headquarters early in the morning and detained 59 alleged extremists without significant resistance.

Only three days ago, Rizieq said his followers would resist arrest "to our last drop of blood" but as police moved in Wednesday he called for calm.

"Please, there should be no one obstructing the duties of the police," he told supporters at the scene.

On Monday night, several police officers had met Rizieq in his house and left after a one-hour talk without making any arrests.

The police said they would announce the number of official suspects in the incident on Thursday.

Abubakar said three of the four released detainees, aged under 17 years, admitted they were FPI members, while one did not belong to the hard-line group. (ind/trw)

-------
A related article written by Anand Khrisna

Get well soon, FPI and other parties
Anand Krishna , Jakarta | Thu, 06/05/2008 1:14 AM | Opinion

June 1, 2008, will be remembered as a black day in the history of Indonesian democracy. A group of people from different walks of life -- Balinese Hindus, Javanese Catholics, Sumatran Protestants, Buddhists and Confucianists from Celebes and Muslims from all over Indonesia were beaten up by radicals.

What was their mistake?

They were not Ahmadis, as suggested by Munarman, published on Kompas online service. Indeed, one of them was a Muslim girl belonging to a family aligned with the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI). She was hysterical, she threw away her veil screaming, "I am ashamed to be a Muslim."

I wonder, if Munarman in the Kompas online article was the same Munarman of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia. To my knowledge, and from what I have been reading about this organization -- they claim to be non-violent.

I hope he is not the same Munarman. For, if he is the same Munarman, that would put him on the spot, for defending the radicals who beat up our Indonesian brothers and sisters when they were demonstrating peacefully, defending and upholding Pancasila as our state ideology. If this is so then he may have to change the image of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, which he has so far portrayed as a peace-loving and non-violent organization.

The rally at Monas organized by the National Alliance for the Freedom of Religion and Belief was supported by dozens of organizations and many, many prominent citizens of the country. And, it was not to defend Ahmadiyah, or any other sect -- but to defend our state ideology.

My dear members of the Islam Defenders Front (FPI); my dear Munarman, the defender of FPI and what they did; my dear members of Indonesian Ulema Council -- do please take time to talk to the victims of what happened last Sunday. I did, and my finding was astonishing. They represent our country in its entirety. They belong to different religions. They have different professions. Yet, they stood united to defend our country, its ideology and its Constitution.

What happened last Sunday is an insult to Islamic values, as I understand them, as also understood by all my Muslim friends, without a single exception.

The language used by Munarman, as published by Kompas in its online edition, does not at all reflect the law of the land. This is why I wonder if it is the same Munarman quoted, or misquoted. For, Munarman of Hizbut Tahrir, to my knowledge, is a man well versed in law. He is a man of law. Les us hope, it was not the same Munarman.

Violence is a sickness.

We all inherit it from our long evolution from amoeba. As humans, we must polish ourselves and overcome this inherent violence. All religions, all religious teachers and teachings are but tools and medication to that end.

FPI, and all the radicals, their supporters and their advocates -- are today in dire need of this tool to polish their souls. They need this medication to heal their beings. So, my dears, please get well soon!

His Excellency, our President, has been saying that violence is not the answer. To that I add, "Love is the only solution." Try love, my dear friends at FPI, MUI, HTI and other groups which are directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly defending or supporting violence and violent acts. Friends, if you feel you have not been doing that, have not been defending or supporting violence, then good for you. You are healed!

The police have been sluggish in their move against the FPI mob, quoting religious sensitivities, while religion was used as the justification of the FPI, while beating us, our people, the Indonesians... Reason: It could trigger more riots.

Not understandable, not acceptable.

If it was your wife, your child, your sibling or your parent being beaten up, what would you, my brother policeman, do? Wouldn't you arrest them on the spot?

One of my friends was beaten by an elderly person, in his fifties. One of the youngsters smashed a child against a wall. Several pictures, even videos have been given to the authorities, and now are on YouTube for everone to see and evaluate.

The political opponents of the present government see this incident as a "set up". The people who attacked the alliance members were prepared with nailed bamboo poles and stones. How could the police let them carry these weapons of violence?

"FPI is supported by some ...", if the allegations are true then those supporters better begin to count their days before they are exposed. Soon, very soon. The arrogance, with which these radicals, their supporters, defenders and sympathizers have been making statements, prove that they indeed enjoy support of certain people "up" there.

Many like to believe that all these incidents are set to divert our attention from the core issues faced by the country, such as the oil price increases, et cetera, and et cetera. If the blood of our masses are shed for that purpose -- then shame on all of us.

Know the truth, and it shall set you free -- the truth is, our country, our nation, our state, is presently very, very weak. We are unable to hospitalize these radical elements in our society suffering from the contagious sickness of violence. The truth is that if they are not immediately hospitalized, then this entire nation can suffer from the same sickness. There are bound to be reactions, as we have already seen happening in Cirebon.

Mr. President, please, please, please... Take up arms, save our nation! To my radical and violent brothers and sisters, one more time: "Get well soon! For violence is not the answer, as mentioned by our President. It is a sickness."

The writer is a spiritual activist (www.anandkrishna.org, www.californiabali.org, www.aumkar.org).

Young back sharia-based bylaws: Survey

Young people in Jakarta seem to argue that Islam will become the most effective vehicle to bring justice and prosperity into reality. Among 800 respondents, 56 percent of them support the implementation of sharia bylaws in the Greater Jakarta. Unfortunately, the news below does not showcase the religious background of the youths surveyed. However, Pancasila is still seen as an ideal state ideology. This opinion is supported by almost 80 percent of the respondents. Hence, it is government's commitment to revitalize the state philosophy into practice which was creatively used as the only sacred tool to banish opponent ways of thoughts during the New Order regime. There is a possible obstacle among Muslim groups which oppose the state philophical foundation. For them, only Islam that can be the state ideology upon which justice, welfare, and propserity are germinated.

The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Thu, 06/05/2008 1:14 AM | Headlines

More than 56 percent of youths in the Greater Jakarta area support sharia-based bylaws, but almost 80 percent believe in the Pancasila state ideology that protects Indonesia's diversity, a new survey shows.

The survey, designed to capture youths' views of nationalism and pluralism, was conducted between May 6 and May 30 by the Setara Institute for Democracy and Peace in Jakarta, Bekasi, Depok and Tangerang.

The 800 respondents were aged between 17 and 22 years and will be first-time voters in the 2009 legislative and presidential elections.

But Musdah Mulia from Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University questioned the accuracy of the survey results, claiming it used weak methodology.

She told a seminar discussing the survey results Wednesday that the questionnaire did not give respondents enough information about sharia-based bylaws.

"If a person who comes from a Muslim-dominated community is asked whether he/she would support sharia-based bylaws, I think the answer is likely to be 'yes'.

"But if we explain further that sharia-based bylaws would mean the hand of a person found guilty of stealing must be cut off, or persons who have committed adultery must face the death penalty, or every woman must wear a headscarf, the answer might be very different," she said.

However, Musdah said the survey was very important because it showed that radicalism had become a real threat for Indonesia.

Bonar Tigor Naipospos from the Setara Institute said the formalization of a specific religious belief into a government law would be incompatible with the values of Pancasila, which aim to protect Indonesia's diversity, including of religion.

"The survey results imply the teaching of the values of Pancasila in Indonesian schools is ineffective. I think it is because the teaching has never been followed up with further discussion to develop critical and transformative thought about Indonesian nationality, especially its diversity," he said.

"The reinvention of Pancasila is very important to help Indonesia in facing its contemporary challenges. Otherwise, just wait for this country to sink."

The survey also found only 50.4 percent of respondents were proud to be Indonesian.

Bima Arya Sugiarto from Paramadina University said this finding showed Indonesia had failed in its nation-building process.

"It clearly shows signs youths are feeling inferior and pessimistic. The result is quite disgraceful for a country that recently celebrated 100 years of national awakening and 10 years of reform," he said. (uwi

For Obama, The Right Way to Win

By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, June 4, 2008; Page A19

For Barack Obama in June 2008, Ulysses Grant in April 1865 offers a useful role model.

After a long and brutal civil war, Grant sought Robert E. Lee's surrender, reminding him of the "hopelessness of further resistance" and urging him to prevent "any further effusion of blood."

When Lee finally accepted that reality, Grant was "magnanimous in victory," as Jay Winik writes in "April 1865," his account of that fateful month. The Union general let Lee choose the time and place of his surrender and agreed to terms designed to avoid, Grant later explained, "an unnecessary humiliation."

Lee's officers were allowed to keep their horses and personal weapons; Grant provided food for Lee's hungry troops. "This will have a very happy effect upon my army," a grateful Lee declared.

Obama's battle with Hillary Clinton is, of course, far less consequential. For all the round-the-clock coverage, the world will little note nor long remember a party primary fight. Yet Grant's behavior at Appomattox is nonetheless instructive about the task facing Obama. Certainly, how Clinton conducts herself in the months ahead has important implications both for Obama's prospects in November and Clinton's future beyond that.

But how deftly Obama handles the endgame can shape the reaction of Clinton, and Clinton's army, to what feels at the moment like a crushing defeat. Winning gracefully can be as hard as -- and more important than -- losing gracefully.

To talk to the partisans in both campaigns is to understand the degree of healing that is required. Any primary fight ends with bruised feelings and nursed grievances. This one, having lasted longer, has more than its share.

Saturday's epic battle at the meeting of the party's ordinarily obscure Rules and Bylaws Committee offers a case in point.

From the Obama camp's view, its side had the raw power to impose far harsher terms than what was ultimately agreed on, and it deserves credit for pulling back. The Clinton forces, despite their good deal, stubbornly refused to compromise, even in defeat.

From the perspective of the Clinton campaign, its candidate was arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of delegates she had won, as the party summarily swept aside its rules to resolve the mess.

Both sides are correct, actually. But Obama, on the verge of victory, would have been well advised to give just a little bit more -- four more delegates, to be precise, that the Clinton campaign claims were "hijacked," to use Harold Ickes's powerful description, from its Michigan vote.

Don Fowler, the former party chairman who supported Clinton but ultimately accepted the compromise, describes his conversations on this point with the Obama negotiator. "I said . . . this is nuts. Why don't you give them this and make you look magnanimous and everybody would be content. . . . They had the votes so they won the day on that, but it certainly engendered a lot of ill will."
This is not a judgment about who was right and who was wrong in this arcane fight. It's a strategic point about what kind of attitude and effort it will take to reunite a party whose voters have been split down the middle.

Obama does not need to, should not and almost surely will not offer the vice presidency to Clinton. The chemistry between them is too frosty and the level of trust nonexistent -- not to mention that the White House is not big enough to accommodate three people who believe they should be president.

Still, there are numerous ways Obama can help smooth things over, and there are signs, in his recent public statements and private conversations, that he is taking such steps. The Clinton campaign has fumed that it has not been given enough credit for the outpouring of new Democratic voters. It was annoyed that the Obama campaign kept pounding on Clinton's ill-advised remark about Robert F. Kennedy -- even after she apologized. It was even more steamed that Obama did not apologize to Clinton herself after she had been ridiculed by the Rev. Michael Pfleger in an appearance May 25 at Obama's (now former) church.

Finally, in recent days the tone has started to change. In a conversation this week with an uncommitted superdelegate, Obama was effusive in his praise of his opponent and what her campaign achieved. The other day, Obama said he had spoken with Clinton and offered to meet "at a time and place of her choosing."

He could have been channeling Grant.

marcusr@washpost.com
---