1) It is staunchly Hindu
2)It is a magnet for foreign western tourists
3) it is more prosperous than the rest of Indonesia.

However Inodnesia is far more complex than the above article implies. Most so -called muslims in this 230 million nation would be condemnded as blasphemers and heretics in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

Ancient India continues to permeate Indonesia to its very core. It is very apparant, the languages are highly sanskritised to this very day. Bahasa Indonesia is a literal translation of Sanskrit for Language/common tongue. Garuda (Vishnu’s mount) is the countries national emblem. The Mahabharat and Ramayana are re-enacted everyday in story telling , court dancing, Wayunf Kullit (shadow puppetry).The muslims on Java are for the most part (~60%)Kejawan, they follow Javanese religion which is actually a blend of Hindu/buddhism and Animism with Sufi traditions. It is the santri (pure) minority of Muslims who have aggressivley been pushing to drive un-islamic ideas and practices from Indonesia’s people. This movement has gained ground , but has not won by any means.

I don’t understand why you think an analogy with one or other bombing is more relevant to the argument. My choice of analogy was trying to see things from the other side of a fence, as I think that such analogies are more apt to give me insights, but you can use the London bombings as an analogy if it makes the point clearer for you.

The point I was making with the analogy was how I felt that listing possible reasons for an action is unsatisfying for me as an analysis. From the reactions of other people I know that other people find your article very persuasive.

Getting into the mind of a suicide bomber is necessarily speculative, but I would personally be more persuaded by an argument which begins with what suicide bombers say (whether in their videos or in the statements of their collaborators when on trial), then discussion of the philosophy of their mentors and social analysis of the factors which motivate people to either align with the bombers more generally. I think your three reasons are heavy on the philosophy, and I have no reason to doubt that these philosophical factors are at play. I say that my doubts on these arise from assumptions, and the only basis I find for them are that in the previous Bali bombing these political philosophical ideals did not surface in the media and that my own experience of how Muslims learn to hate (and I’m not denying we do) is so different from the Naipaul thesis.

I think your knowledge of Indonesia is much bigger than mine, so if you can provide information, for example, on how the previous Bali bombers were actually (or claimed to be) motivated, for example, then I’m open to being persuaded by the next steps of your analysis.

Once again, sorry if my way of writing is insulting. It is not meant to be and I’m happy to take any stylistic tips you can offer so I don’t continue to do so.

http://www.guardianfx.com/information/australasia/indonesia.html

“My fundamental understanding of Indonesia isn’t wrong, but my level of knowledge is far lower than yours”
My only reason for citing having lived there was to provide more of a personal perspective as in having ‘observed’ as opposed to ‘read’.

“Borobodur – When I visited, yes there were plenty of people there but there were no guides and we only heard about it through word of mouth, not an official Indonesian Tourist Board promotion.”
Yeah, I am not sure why. I have been there a number of times and there have always been guides wanting to pounce on the tourists. Maybe you went there during Ramadan But really, Borobudur is the number 1 toursit spot in Java.

“Promotion of Balinese/Hindu culture within Indonesia”
The indonesian governement did a fantastic job of promoting Bali to the external world. So well that people sometimes do not realise that Bali is a part of Indonesia. This would not have been possible without Jakarta’ support. Promiting Bali within Indonesia is equally strong, if not just as any other top touris destination in the country. But the bottom line being that there were/are no general negative biases against bali, their people or culture.

“But why did you feel it necessary to emphasise that fundamentalists only make up a minority? At no point did I suggest otherwise. British Muslims are also a overwhelmingly peaceful group, yet there are a minority who are idiots”
When you dont suggest otherwise, generalisation carries forward. You dont need to make a disclaimer about Britain because Britain is not majority muslim. When I think of Britain, I think of the queen (well, not really). Indonesia is majority muslim (largest in the world). Coutries like Saudi, Iran, Pakistan are also muslim. And what is the first thing that comes to mind when they think Muslim? But Indonesia is very different, and therfeore warrants a disclaimer.

Above is an excerpt from Christopher Hitchen’s piece http://www.slate.com/id/2127343/
on the Bali bombings.

First of all, I am quite willing to accept that I may have made some errors – I wrote this very very quickly in the middle of the night. I was pretty angry about the whole situation.

OYBBB – If you’ve lived there for a long time then I’m sure you know more than me. But I too have spent a fair amount of time there and my dad used to work in Jakarta.

Muslim minority areas – I was only aware of Papua and Bali, I looked the rest up here.

Borobodur – When I visited, yes there were plenty of people there but there were no guides and we only heard about it through word of mouth, not an official Indonesian Tourist Board promotion. In fact my mum acted as tour guide for a large party of Americans who didn’t really know what they were looking at, explaining Buddha’s life. This is purely incidental and anecdotal evidence, but isn’t that what blogging is about?

Promotion of Balinese/Hindu culture within Indonesia – if that’s what you say, then I’ll believe you.

My fundamental understanding of Indonesia isn’t wrong, but my level of knowledge is far lower than yours. But why did you feel it necessary to emphasise that fundamentalists only make up a minority? At no point did I suggest otherwise. British Muslims are also a overwhelmingly peaceful group, yet there are a minority who are idiots. Same in Indonesia. Same round the world. I didn’t say that Indonesia is an Islamic state, I didn’t say the Indonesian government hate non-muslims, all I said is that Bali is under threat from the fundas inside their own borders.

Arif I’m touched you immediately assumed I’m some prejudiced Islamophobe, but this has been inferred where it wasn’t implied.

I don’t really understand your analogy to the bombing of Iraq at all. I think a far more apt analogy would be the London bombings. Iraq may have been a motive. Dissatisfaction with the British government for other reasons may have been a motive. Just being a murderous fascist may have been a motive. Your argument could be turned on its head. There is nothing more frustrating than hearing justifications and aportioning misplaced blame for murderous acts – when you and your loved ones are in the thick of the London bombs and people tell you “oh well it’s because of Iraq” it’s meaningless. I’m sure that innocent Iraqis who have lost their sons and daughters aren’t that moved by hearing “we are liberating you from your tyrannical dicatator”. I don’t buy any justification for the war in Iraq – that was equally illegal. Please don’t try to paint me as someone with an ulterior motive.

Any attempt to get inside the mind of a suicide bomber is speculation, isn’t it? So why are you criticising me for trying to think of motives? I hope you said the same thing to those who attempted to rationalise the London bombings.

I think my prejudice starts from remembering media reports of the 2002 Bali bombers which suggested they were very poorly informed and thought that as these were the nearest white foreigners, and that Americans are white foreigners, by bombing nightclubs they would be punishing America for its war in Afghanistan.

To say that the bombers this time had a more sophisticated three-point reasoning based on attitudes to Hindus, Indians, Zionism, the UK and Australia seems a bit speculative. All three reasons given have some credibility, and could become part of an ideology of justification, which could then be used to keep up a motivation to bomb…. but even then it is giving a set of rationalisations for hate more intellectual back-up than it needs.

It is a bit like arguing that the UK has managed a triple whammy through bombing Iraq: 1. maintaining its historical belief that it should rule over colonies, 2. fighting their religious enemy, 3. destroying an ancient civilisation which threatens the global takeover of western consumerism. There may be some unhinged people who might buy in to some of these arguments to justify bombing Iraq to themselves – but they are probably people who get caught up in fear or hatred and then find it easier to look for justifications to generalise their hostility rather than finding a way out. The arguments themselves are just symptoms.

The Naipaul argument of Islam being a front for Arab imperialism is another thing which most of my own experience contradicts. I am sure some people in some places actually do relate to Islam in that way, otherwise perhaps Naipaul’s thesis would not be so enduring. In general, though, the tendency seems to be the other way around – local traditions are more likely to be falsely ascribed to Islam to try to butress them. Even the Salafi movements pick and choose the traditions of the comapnions of the prophet in ways that seem to allow them to live 21st century lifestyles, speak local languages, pracice local traditions etc.

What is going on seems to me to be that we cultivate identities which make us feel good about ourselves, which are most likely to be defined against the enemies we most fear. This kind of identity gives us the warm glow of self-righteousness and makes it easier for us to forgive ourselves for our worst crimes.

Nationalist and religious identities, while not always bad, seem to lend themselves easily to such a mindset. I think that taking on the identity of another culture just wouldn’t be so effective. I don’t think those British people who identify themselves with the US “war on terror” are being colonised by the US, even though that’s how opponents of US/UK foreign policy like to see it. And in the same way, as sunny says, JI supporters might identify themselves with OBL’s war on the US, without wanting to be “Arabised”.

I think the link between the Indonesian bombers and Al-Qaeda is somewhere in the middle. IE – they’re neither two seperate entities, neither are they part of the same organisation.

Most certainly, the Indonesians are influenced by Al-Qaeda because they’re following a pattern that goes back a good few years, and the attacks are similar to the kind in places like Egypt.

I don’t believe the governments of Blair and Bush have the best solution to the problem, but they are broadly right in that its impossible to “negotiate” with Al-Qaeda and their ilk. These guys want nothing less than our subjugation and death, pretty much like all deranged terrorists.

Is that clear enough?

See you around, soul.

Are you advocating a Tora-Bora like carpet bombing of Bali, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, large swathes of India, China, Turkey, Iran, should I go on?

If so, Little Green Footballs and some contributors to Harry’s Place and Turds For War are the blogs you should be reading.

Ronin / Bongo

By that salutation, were you referring to Rohin and myself?
If so, LOL. Haven’t been addressed as a Bongo in years. But I liked your post, so I’ll let you off.

So allow me to rant on the way.

Above all, the “West” has not “decided” that Islam is the enemy, as you claim. Give me a break. Talk about stoking fantastic fires.

Nor is Hollywood our leader. Shall I judge India by Bollywood (admittedly, that might be both fun and fair)? Collectively, we do know rather more than Sean Penn by now, but thanks for your concern.

When it comes to terror, bin Ladenism, with or without Osama himself, is precisely what is going on, not local stories with an odd Islamic twist here and there. All infidels out, an Islamist state ruling the whole region, Arabization as the way forward – that is what these evil people want, in southeast Asia as in the southwest as in Araby and beyond.

As for the man on the Afghan mountain sending out orders, well, precisely, that mountain doesn’t belong to him anymore, and that liberation had precious little to do with the grassroots.

The grassroots are obviously important. I do think that is where the conflict will be won or lost, so more power to you.

But Arabization as a proposal goes way beyond the grassroots and needs to be taken seriously everywhere, given the state of the Arab world today, the prophet’s own condemnation of popular prejudices in Islam, and the disgusting perversion of everything holy that the bombers are giving us in Allah’s name. The whole world has to fight back, together.

However in a few areas, namely Bali, Papua, East Nusa Tenggara and some areas hit by the tsunami in northern Sumatra, Muslims form a minority.

Northern Sumatra (Aceh) is not muslim minority. Infact its hardcore fundamentalist muslim majority. The rebels there want an Islamic state, much against what the rest of Indonesia wants.

The largest Buddhist monument in the world and a contender for 8th wonder of the world, Borobodur, is left woefully under-maintained and under-advertised, as it is a Buddhist stupa in the heart of an Islamic Java.

I am going to second with Fabian on this. Borobodur is heavily promoted. Infact the top 3 tourist destinations promoted in Indonesia are (i) Bali, (ii) Borobodur / Yogyakarta, and (iii) Lake Toba in Medan.
The Indonesians take a lot of pride in Borobodur and the Prambanan temples.

The very culture that attracts tourists in droves is the culture that the rest of the country has rejected – such as traditional Balinese dancing, which is rooted in Hindu mythology

This is again incorrect. Balinese dancing is heavily promoted, just like the Wayang kulit performances – these are pupet shows depicitng the ramayana and go on for hours in the middle of the night. They are often even broadcast on TV. Kind of boring but again its Hindu mythology. And the people who perform and actually watch this are Muslims (by religion).

Your fundamental understanding of Indonesia is wrong. I cant get into too much detail here, but to put it bluntly – only a small percentage of Indonesians are fundamentalists. To narrow it down further, the Javanese who form the majority and eseentially control most aspectsof the country take great pride in their heritage. So although they are majority muslims by religion, culturally they are still javanese – which is strongly corelated to Hinduism. Take for instance their names. Suharto (the ex president ) is muslim . Megawati (ex president) is also Muslim. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (current president) is again Muslim.

But I will agree with you that fundamentalism has been rising, even though its in the very very minority. And for comaprison sake – Malaysia is much more fundamentalist Islamic.

Disclaimer: I have lived there for over 14 years, and still have affiliations to the country. Am also Indian and Hindu.

Indonesians (Javanese, Sundanese, and the other groups) are actually still very aware of their Indian influences, and although many practice a different religion now, they still enact the ramayana and mahabrata in shadow puppetry, they actively glorify their Hindu empire history, their dances are influenced by indian culture, etc. in fact, if look at indonesian muslims’ names they don’t even arabic/islamic names ! i have indonesian muslim friends whose names are Ananta (ananda), Sakti, etc.

Indonesia (except Acheh, for historical reasons) has not undergone a shift to arab/islamic culture seemingly like that of Malaysia. in fact in my travels there i have seen much animistic traditions still practised by indonesians, and it is more dependent on regional factors rather than religious factors.

I have been to Borobudur, and what you say is simply untrue.

In my opinion, blaming all muslims just for a single muslim’s trangression is THE problem of terrorism. Was the entire Hindu population of India responsble for Ayodhya 1992?

STOP DOING THIS.

The intelligence behind any direct linkage to these Islamist groups and ‘Al-Qaeda’ is as real and truthful as the intelligence of WMDs in Iraq, or that Iraqi Shias would welcome the US army with flowers and sweets etc. The Pro-War community is doing themselves a dis-service whenever they make this claim. Not only are they perpetuating a myth they are also shooting themselves in the foot. One would have thought they have run out of feet by now.

If you want to fight terrorism start with demystifying and de-glamourising it. Stop referring to every piss-poor bomb-maker as a member of Al-Qaeda. Start by decoupling the fanciful meme that there is a Organisational and structured link between the bombs detonated in Bali with those in Bangladesh or in Madrid.
 
If you really want to help us defeat Islamist fundamentalism in countries like Bangladesh and Bali etc, get involved with organisations like Drishtipat. There is a London chapter. Its very much grassroots level and is hard work but ultimately satisfying because we are winning ground, albeit slowly. Though I have to warn you that getting involved with organisations like this does not have the instant gratification of posting ‘witty’ one-liners and ‘pithy’ innuendo from the comments boxes of Harry’s Place, Trots for War etc.