Young Indonesians – ‘We’re Muslim First, Indonesian Second!’ Music to Ba’asyir’s Ear?


While debate rages about the sentence on Ba’asyir the Beast, we should pause to look at what he said in South Jakarta Court yesterday morning. Bisnis Indonesia reported his denunciation of his own country.
 
 
“Australia and the United States have had an immense voice and role in determining the legal decision to remove and eliminate me from Indonesia, to see that I’m no longer in the community.”
He added this was an attempt to kill Muslims. ‘Currently Islamic fighters who struggle are killed, arrested, slain for no reason. Indonesia also promotes lethal actions at Islam.’ The life sentence demand, said Ba’asyir, is inconsequential. Implementation of training in Aceh is a manifestation of the implementation of the law of Allah, Islamic war, and not acts of terrorism.

Well, after that admission, it’s no surprise he was convicted, but there’s more to it than just his specific case, isn’t there? It’s the mind-set of displaced allegiance, and it relates to another item in the media this week.

Indonesia, for all its problems, is regarded as a US ally against terror. But the Islamonazi element regards THAT as ‘treason,’ not against Indonesia, which is in their eyes almost an irrelevance, but against the ‘ummat,’ their notion of a world wide community based on creed which takes precedence over nation-states.

A story in the Jakarta Globe, yesterday coincidentally, revealed the appalling but certainly related fact that most young Indonesians regard themselves as Muslim first, Indonesian second.           Opinion polls cannot always be depended on for an accurate reflection of a nation’s soul, true – that’s why referenda are required.

But they are useful indicators.
While there are also commendable attitudes reported, like the huge majority disapproving of  homosexuality -amost 100%! – and those against polygamy, at 86.5%, there are disturbing signs of irrational intolerance too.
 
For example, it’s fair enough for 88% to disapprove of drinking alcohol, but almost 69% want anybody who does drink alcohol to be caned! Best beware, lads!
 
But seriously, that first figure is really most dire.
How come so many Indonesians between 15 and 25 years of age have decided to put sectarian allegiance before loyalty to their homeland? It’s a bit odd, surely.
Or at least to those of us who remember those framed admonitions in the hall-ways of our ancestral farm-houses.
 
Imagine if in Britain in 1939 or America in 1941, a majority of men of conscript age had turned around and said ‘we won’t fight Germany or Italy because they are populated by people of our own ( even if only nominal) Christian faith!?’
 
Render unto Caesar has always made sense to me.
One’s country’s religion may be Protestant or Catholic but when it comes to the national interest, risk of foreign conquest or some similar threat, you leave your denominatonal hang-ups behind as you load your gun.
If the guy next to you in the trenches is a Baptist or a Buddhist or a Jew, he’s on your side, while the enemy is the guy over there behind the smoke who wants to do your country down, regardless of to whom he prays.
 
Yet in the UK and USA and other Western lands, we have this monstrous phenomenon of some immigrants and their off-spring, who appear to think that atavistic confessionalism trumps fidelity to their supposedly adopted country.
 
That’s the biggest menace embedded in the migration issue.
And of course I’m talking about immigrants, not guest-workers.  I am a guest-worker, no intention of ever giving up my fealty to the Crown.   I find myself in strong disagreement with a writer in yesterday’s Jakarta Post, who evidently thinks that an ‘immigrant’ is merely somebody who ‘lives in another country.’ Nonsense. An immigrant takes out citizenship, or aspires to do so. Quite different from a foreigner who is spending a number of months or years in residence)
 
It’s that distinction that dictates how each category must be treated.
 
In any civilised country drawn into conflict, foreigners who find themselves in enemy territory when war breaks out should not be molested but allowed to leave for home.
 
On the other hand, if foreign-born individuals have taken out citizenship, their clear duty is to the country they have sworn themselves to serve.
If they seek to serve its enemies, they should be punished mercilessly.
 
Does anybody disagree?