As for his account of Muslims in Indonesia, what seems clear is that he is slowing coming grips with the fact that Muslims are complex, complicated and not easily pigeonholed people … in short, they are normal human beings. I agree with what I think was the sentiment in your first comment, however: residual stereotypical mindset about Islam is still evident in Antony’s writing.

E.g. he seems to think it is notable that “I found no outright hatred of Judaism” as if this were somehow suprising in Indonesia. A little historical research - and an experience of Indonesia that extends beyond a couple of weeks - would reveal that Indonesians (including the Acehese) have been about as obsessed with Judiaism as they have with Zoroastrianism - that is, not one jot.

Another e.g., he calls Fozan’s expression of Islam “contradictory and personal”. It is only “contradictory” if one’s understanding of lived Islamic experience is an elementary stereotype, and that it is “personal” is not somehow strange, unorthodox or idiosyncratic, but in reality, a necessary feature of the religion.

My problem with Lowenstein is the way he sees the Jewish / Israel issue everywhere when there’s so much more to describe and define these cultures.

His views of Jews and Muslims seems to date from the formation of Israel when in fact these two cultures have co-existed in various forms since the inception of Islam. Why did Mohammed go to Jersusalem after all? The link is much deeper and more subtle than his narrative suggests.

Antony, honey, It’s not all about Jew.

Comparing Iran to Indonesia is like comparing Brazil to the Philippines. Sure, they’re both Catholic nations. But they’re chalk and cheese.

The problem isn’t the cosmopolitan people in cafes, it’s the powerful scholars in the Mosques. It’s the same lesson in Iran: the people are liberal but the balance of power is against them.

They may be enjoying freedom to an extent now, but they have no guarantee of it into the future and that’s the problem.