This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

A legal attempt by the Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir to overturn a decision that saw it outlawed in the world’s largest Muslim-majority country has been rejected by an Indonesian court.

Reading the verdict at Jakarta state administrative court, the head judge, Tri Cahya Indra Permana, said the lawsuit was “rejected in full”.



Hizb ut-Tahrir was banned in Indonesia on the basis of a 2017 presidential decree that gives the government powers to disband groups deemed a threat to national unity.



The ruling on Monday upheld that decision, with the judicial panel stating that the government had acted according to procedure and Hizb ut-Tahrir runs counter to Indonesia’s state ideology.

'Extremist is the secular word for heretic': the Hizb ut-Tahrir leader who insists on his right to speak Read more

The Islamic group, a global organisation that had an estimated 10,000 members in Indonesia before it was dissolved, supports the establishment of a global caliphate.



Under heavy guard from police and military personnel, hundreds of hardline supporters dressed in white skullcaps gathered outside the courtroom, where they conducted a mass prayer before the verdict was announced.



Ismail Yusanto, a former Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia spokesman, said it would appeal.



“If we accept, that means accepting injustice, that we allow injustice and we accept that preaching our ideals is wrong. Are you willing to let the teachings of Islam be blamed?” Yusanto was quoted as saying by CNN Indonesia.

The ruling is a clear political victory for the administration of Joko Widodo, but there are doubts that it will help curb radicalism.



Todd Elliott, a political analyst at Concord Consulting, said: “There is no guarantee that former members of HTI [Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia] are simply going to give up their extremist beliefs now that their former group is outlawed. There is a plethora of other hardline Islamist groups.”



Hizb ut-Tahrir was one of several Islamic groups involved in mass rallies that led to the downfall and imprisonment of the former Jakarta governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, better known as Ahok, on charges of blasphemy last year.



Elliott said the group, which has been banned in several other countries, was an easier target than some Indonesian organisations that have a demonstrated pattern of violence.



The decision to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, he said, could backfire. “HTI was unique in that it strictly adhered to a policy of non-violence, so now there is a risk of these 10,000 former members saying, ‘OK, well we were a legal mass organisation, we played by the rules and that didn’t work.’ So some of them could gravitate towards violence,” Elliott said. </s> An Indonesian court will prosecute Jakarta’s Christian governor who has been accused of blasphemy against the Qur’an, a judge announced on Tuesday.

A panel of judges rejected a petition by the legal defense team of governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, known by his nickname “Ahok,” to throw out the case because it had violated the politician’s human rights and disregarded procedural protocol.

As a Christian and an ethnic Chinese, Mr. Purnama has two strikes against him in the world’s most Muslim country and hardline Islamic groups have protested his rule ever since he was elected in 2014.

Last month, Islamic conservatives rose up against Ahok accusing the governor of having manipulated a verse from the Qur’an to support his claim that it is permissible for Muslims to be governed by non-Muslims. On November 4, a mob of 150,000 Islamic protesters staged a massive march in the capital city of Jakarta, demanding a death sentence for Ahok. Similar demonstrations took place in other cities throughout Indonesia.

On Tuesday morning, hundreds more protesters dressed in white gathered outside the courthouse in north Jakarta chanting “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) and calling for the governor to be jailed.

The lead judge on the panel, Dwiyarso Budi Santiarto, said the defense could appeal to a higher court if they did not agree with the decision to move forward with the case. After consulting his lawyers, Ahok told the court he would “think about it.”

At a first hearing on December 13, Ahok denied that he had intended to insult the Qur’an by citing it in a public speech in September, and reiterated his respect for Islam.

Outrage against Jakarta’s Christian governor is emblematic of rising tensions against growing Christian influence in the world’s most Muslim nation.

Earlier this month, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) issued a religious decree (fatwa) prohibiting the use of Christmas-themed attire or accessories that recall a tradition foreign to Islam.

The fatwa 56/2016 harshly criticized the Christmas atmosphere invading public areas of the country, calling it “a foreign culture with which we must not mingle.”

According to International Christian Concern, an anti-persecution advocacy group, Indonesia is under assault from an “increasingly emboldened radical Islamic sub-group that is applying public pressure to adhere to conservative Islamic law.”

The group warned that fatwas like this may be used as a reason to attack or discriminate against non-Muslims during Christian holidays.

Ahok’s next court hearing has been set for January 3 and will be held in an auditorium in the agriculture ministry for security reasons, according to authorities.

If convicted of blasphemy, the Christian governor could suffer a jail term of up to five years. </s> SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court in San Francisco said Thursday it will release its ruling by the end of the business day in the legal fight over whether to reinstate President Donald Trump's ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

A panel of three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is deciding whether to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travelers to enter the U.S. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban last week after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation's refugee program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.

Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

The states said Trump's travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities. Citing Trump's campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.

Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday conducted by phone — an unusual step — and broadcast live on cable networks, newspaper websites and social media. It attracted a huge audience.

The judges hammered away at the administration's claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states' argument that it targeted Muslims.

"I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected," Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.

Only 15 percent of the world's Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.

"Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism?" Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.

The lower-court judge temporarily halted the ban after determining that the states were likely to win the case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base. Robart put the executive order on hold while the lawsuit works its way through the courts.

After that ruling, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports round the country.

The Supreme Court has a vacancy, and there's no chance Trump's nominee, Neil Gorsuch, will be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban.

The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the court would take up the issue. The administration also could change the order, including changing its scope or duration. </s> [AP] "A U.S. federal appeals court on Thursday unanimously upheld a temporary suspension of President Donald Trump's order that restricted travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling came in a challenge to Trump's order filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota. The U.S. Supreme Court will likely determine the case's final outcome.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban last week after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation's refugee program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.

Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

The states said Trump's travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities. Citing Trump's campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.

Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday conducted by phone — an unusual step — and broadcast live on cable networks, newspaper websites and social media. It attracted a huge audience.

The judges hammered away at the administration's claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states' argument that it targeted Muslims.

"I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected," Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.

Only 15 percent of the world's Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.

"Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism?" Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.

The lower-court judge temporarily halted the ban after determining that the states were likely to win the case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base. Robart put the executive order on hold while the lawsuit works its way through the courts.

After that ruling, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports round the country.

During his remarks at a law enforcement conference, Trump said the courts blocking his divisive immigration order "seem to be so political." ..." </s> A court in Indonesia has sentenced the capital's Christian governor to two years in prison for blasphemy against Islam, in a decision that has cheered Muslim conservatives and crushed the hopes of advocates of a more pluralistic and tolerant path for their nation.

Jakarta Gov. Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, nicknamed "Ahok", had not been expected to do time in jail, as prosecutors had sought only a suspended sentence.

But in Indonesia, few accused of blasphemy walk free. Reuters reports that Ahok was taken to a prison in east Jakarta where, according to his lawyer Tommy Sihotang, he would remain "despite his appeal process unless a higher court suspended it."

"This case is not about Ahok," says Andreas Harsono, a Jakarta-based researcher for Human Rights Watch. "This case is about the future of Indonesia. This is a sad day for equality among citizens in Indonesia."

The blasphemy charges relate to comments Ahok made last September. He told a group of fishermen that politicians who tell them that the Quran forbids voting for non-Muslims are lying to them.

"As governor, as a public officer," Judge Abdul Rosyad said Tuesday "the defendant should have known that religion is a sensitive issue so he should have avoided talking about religion."

Ahok was widely praised for his work in tackling Jakarta's snarled traffic and chronic urban flooding, since replacing his predecessor, now-President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo in 2014.

But the blasphemy case against hobbled Ahok's bid for re-election. He was defeated last month in a runoff vote against Muslim candidate and former academic Anies Baswedan.

Critics see Ahok's fate as tied to a prolonged decline in religious tolerance in Indonesia. With that decline, Harsono says, has come "a rise of conservative forces which use Islam to advocate their political interests."

The nation's main clerical group, the Indonesian Ulema Council, issued a fatwa, or religious edict, last October accusing Ahok of blasphemy. Prosecutors later cited the fatwa in their indictment of Ahok. Critics point out that religious edicts have no bearing on Indonesia's laws.

Islamist groups orchestrated several mass protests against Ahok that convulsed the capital's streets. On Monday, Jokowi named the pan-Islamic group Hizbut Tahrir as being behind the protests and ordered their local arm disbanded.

Ahok's sentence bodes ill for Jokowi, whose term as president will end in 2019. "Jokowi is very likely," Harsono predicts, to be "accused of being the ally of a blasphemer." </s> JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) - Prosecutors on Thursday recommended two years of probation for the minority Christian governor of the Indonesian capital who is on trial for blaspheming the Quran.

The relatively light sentencing demand comes a day after Gov. Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama was swept out of office by a landslide election victory for a Muslim rival backed by conservative clerics.

The maximum penalty for blasphemy in Muslim-majority Indonesia is five years in prison. Prosecutors recommended one year prison if Ahok violates his probation.

Jakarta Governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama takes his seat for his court hearing in Jakarta, Indonesia, Thursday, April 20, 2017. Ahok is currently on trial on accusation of blasphemy following his remark about a passage in the Quran that could be interpreted as prohibiting Muslims from accepting non-Muslims as leaders. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana, Pool)

Ahok was accused of blasphemy last year when a video surfaced of him telling voters they were being deceived if they believed a specific verse in the Quran prohibited Muslims from electing a non-Muslim as leader.

Hard-line Islamic groups attracted hundreds of thousands to anti-Ahok protests in Jakarta, shaking the government of President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo.

Jakarta Governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama arrives for his court hearing in Jakarta, Indonesia, Thursday, April 20, 2017. Ahok is currently on trial on accusation of blasphemy following his remark about a passage in the Quran that could be interpreted as prohibiting Muslims from accepting non-Muslims as leaders. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana, Pool)

Jakarta Governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama takes his seat for his court hearing in Jakarta, Indonesia, Thursday, April 20, 2017. Ahok is currently on trial on accusation of blasphemy following his remark about a passage in the Quran that could be interpreted as prohibiting Muslims from accepting non-Muslims as leaders. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana, Pool) </s> SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court refused Thursday to reinstate President Donald Trump’s ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

The panel of three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travelers to enter the U.S. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban last week after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation’s refugee program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.

Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

The states said Trump’s travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities. Citing Trump’s campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.

Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday conducted by phone — an unusual step — and broadcast live on cable networks, newspaper websites and social media. It attracted a huge audience.

The judges hammered away at the administration’s claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states’ argument that it targeted Muslims.

“I have trouble understanding why we’re supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected,” Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.

Only 15 percent of the world’s Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.

“Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism?” Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.

The lower-court judge temporarily halted the ban after determining that the states were likely to win the case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base. Robart put the executive order on hold while the lawsuit works its way through the courts.

After that ruling, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports round the country.

The Supreme Court has a vacancy, and there’s no chance Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, will be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban.

The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the court would take up the issue. The administration also could change the order, including changing its scope or duration. </s> His lawyer, Asludin Hatjani, said that he had met the cleric Friday morning before court began, and Abdurrahman had told him that he would "praise God" if he was sentenced to death. He has the right to appeal, and Hatjani says he will consult with his client to determine whether they will exercise that right.

As many as 500 officers were deployed the the South Jakarta District court for the reading of the verdict, according to South Jakarta Deputy Police Chief Budi Sartono.

Abdurrahman prostrated himself on the floor of the courtroom as the sentence was read out.

The US State Department designated JAD as a terrorist organization last year, describing it as an umbrella group formed in 2015 and composed of almost two dozen Indonesian extremist outfits that pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Abdurrahman is the highest ranked cleric associated with the group. Aman was scheduled to appear at a court hearing in May, but it was postponed after a deadly riot broke out at the jail where he was being held in Depok, West Java. The defendant had plead not guilty before the court's verdict. The date of his planned execution by firing squad has not been set, as the defense decides whether to appeal. Up to 700 Indonesians have traveled to Syria in recent years to fight with anti-regime forces, with the majority allying themselves with ISIS, according to the Indonesian government. Indonesia fighters have also appeared in ISIS propaganda. Indonesia has long struggled with domestic terrorist groups, particularly Jemaah Islamiyah, which claimed responsibility for 11 attacks between 2000 and 2010, including the deadly 2002 Bali bombings, which left more than 200 people dead and hundreds injured, many of them tourists. Three families were behind the ISIS-inspired bombings in Indonesia's Surabaya, police said Jemaah Islamiyah's capabilities have been steadily eroded by a concerted counter-terrorism effort since 2009. Indonesia has invested heavily in counter-terrorism, establishing the elite special forces unit Detachment 88, which has received support and training from the US and Australia, and has been credited with greatly reducing the number of attacks. , the UN Security Council said the group's losses in Iraq and the Syria may intensify the threat to South-East Asia. , the UN Security Council said the group's losses in Iraq and the Syria may intensify the threat to South-East Asia. However, in a report on ISIS published earlier this year , the UN Security Council said the group's losses in Iraq and the Syria may intensify the threat to South-East Asia. The report named JAD and Jamaah Ansarul Khilafah as key ISIS-linked groups in Indonesia, saying that the former has been responsible for more attacks, but that the latter is a "growing threat." </s> SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — Judges on a federal appeals court panel appeared skeptical Tuesday about whether they should reinstate President Donald Trump’s ban on entry to the United States by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries.

“Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?” Judge Michelle Friedland asked U.S. Justice Department attorney August Flentje.

The Trump administration is asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay of a temporary restraining order in which a federal trial judge in Seattle on Friday blocked implementation of the ban.

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based circuit court took the appeal under submission after hearing an hour of arguments by telephone.

Friedland said the panel will hand down its written ruling as quickly as possible. Court spokesman David Madden said the decision is expected this week.

The circuit court’s decision is likely to be appealed by whichever side loses to the U.S. Supreme Court, which currently has a 4-4 split of conservative and liberal justices.

The ban, issued by Trump in an executive order on Jan. 27, would bar visitors and refugees from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days.

It would stop refugees from all countries for 120 days and exclude Syrian refugees indefinitely.

Flentje told the panel that the ban was a “brief pause” to enable administration officials to review and if necessary improve security procedures.

He argued the measure was “well within the president’s power” to determine national security risks and set protections against them.

U.S. District Judge James Robart issued the temporary restraining order in a lawsuit filed by Washington state and Minnesota.

The two states, supported in “friend-of-the court” briefs by 18 other states including California, say the ban “unleashed chaos” and would hurt the states’ residents, universities, medical institutions and economies.

They contend it denies due process and equal treatment to the people affected and discriminates against Muslims.

 Flentje answered Friedland’s question about a terrorism connection by noting that Congress and President Obama in 2015 and 2016 said there should be extra scrutiny before visitors from the seven countries are given

 visas.

But Judges William Canby and Richard Clifton then asked whether that extra scrutiny provides the protection needed.

“Is there any reason for us to think there is a real risk if the existing procedures are allowed to stay in place while the procedures are revised?” Clifton asked.

All three judges asked questions about whether Trump’s order, which does not mention Islam by name, discriminated against Muslims and what proof should be needed.

Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell said the court could look at Trump’s campaign vow to ban all Muslims as evidence of discriminatory intent.

“We’ve alleged very plausibly with great detail that this was done with the intent to favor one religious group over another,” he told the panel.

Clifton noted that the seven countries contain only about 15 percent of the world’s Muslims and said, “The vast majority of Muslims are unaffected.”

Purcell contended, however, that the executive order could be found discriminatory if it targets some Muslims on the basis of religion, even if it doesn’t affect all Muslims.

If the temporary restraining order is left in place by the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court, the case would go back to the federal district court in Seattle for a hearing on whether Robart should grant a preliminary injunction.

Robart has ordered final briefs on the issue to be submitted by Feb. 17 and has indicated he would hold an injunction hearing soon.

© Copyright 2017 by CBS San Francisco and Bay City News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
An Indonesian court rejects a bid by Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir to overturn its ban in the country. The group was outlawed by presidential decree in 2017 on national security grounds.