It’s equal parts amusing and exasperating to witness, time and again: Western chattering classes being exposed to the reality of Islam. To the horror of virtue-signalling ‘coexist’ types, Atlantic writer Graeme Wood pointed out that, far from Nothing To Do With Islam™, Islamic State is “Islamic. Very Islamic.”
Despite the frantic denials of Western Islamophiles, Islamic State preach “coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam”. Just because deluded Western elites can’t reconcile the reality of Islamic State with the deceitful ‘Religion of Peace’ bullshit they’ve fooled themselves with, doesn’t change the reality of Islamic Scripture. Not least its fundamental incompatibility with Western liberal democracy.
Once again, the chattering elite are shocked – shocked, I tell you – when Muslims have the temerity to say exactly what their scripture teaches.
Once again, the chattering elite are shocked – shocked, I tell you – when Muslims have the temerity to say exactly what their scripture teaches.
Radical preachers and extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir have attacked Australia’s democracy and The Muslim Vote campaign, calling it a “shirk” and an insult to Allah, at sermons in southwest Sydney, the geographical heart of a community-led Muslim political movement.
Abu Ousayd, also known as Wissam Haddad, and Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Australian branch took to pulpits in Sydney’s Canterbury-Bankstown area on Friday to call Muslims in parliament “apostates” and order their followers to boycott elections.
Just because they’re radical and extremists doesn’t mean their wrong, by the tenets of Islam.
Sayyid Qutb, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, flatly rejected Western democracy as blasphemy, where “the sovereignty of man … where man has usurped the divine attribute”. He had Islamic scripture on his side. As the online Islamic Encyclopedia also points out, the Western concept of sovereignty, belonging to citizens, “is not validated in an Islamic society”.
Allah the sovereign is the primary law-giver. He delegates his authority for administering justice and peace to His agents such as the Islamic state and the khalifa. They only enjoy marginal autonomy necessary to implement and enforce the laws of their sovereign… derived from the Quran and Sunnah [i.e., Sharia].
But isn’t the Islamic Republic of Pakistan a democracy, you may ask? The Constitution of Pakistan is quite clear that is not like Western democracy: Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs Almighty Allah, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust.
Islam, says the Islamic Encyclopedia, teaches that the sovereignty belongs to Allah alone and no human being can be the lord of other human beings.
Islamic State, whom Hizb ut-Tahrir celebrate, are simply the most fundamental exponent of orthodox Islamic concepts of government. Its goal of establishing an Islamic caliphate is not an aberration: it is very Islamic.
Prominent Hizb ut-Tahrir member Wassim Doureihi told his own audience on Friday that it was “not conspiratorial” to suggest that mainstream leaders who led counter-extremist efforts during the height of ISIS – an effort he criticised – were democracy’s biggest supporters.
At Hizb ut-Tahrir’s headquarters in the electorate of Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke, Mr Doureihi slammed politicians as “criminals in suits” and called Muslim senator Fatima Payman the “white man’s Orientalist fantasy”.
“(The senator’s) experience has shown us that engaging in the political process is not an option for (the community),” he said, claiming Muslims would be at an “inevitable loss” if they took part.
Interestingly, a full transcript of Doureihi’s lecture does not seem to be available. It would be informative to see what Doureihi actually said, where the Australian has substituted “(the community)”. It was “the ummah”, wasn’t it?
That such stuff is being openly preached in Australia exposes both the incompatibility of Islam with Western democracy, and the absolute spinelessness of the Albanese government.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is recognised as a terrorist organisation in Britain and Germany, although the Albanese government has resisted calls to do the same in Australia.
Because they’re too terrified of losing votes in Western Sydney.
It comes amid – and stands in contrast to – The Muslim Vote, a community campaign spearheaded by respected Sheik Wesam Charkawi to oust Labor ministers across southwest Sydney and elect pro-Palestine independent candidates.
So much for ‘coexist’, then.
Mr Burke said Mr Ousayd’s al-Madina Dawah and Hizb ut-Tahrir were “fringe” and most of the electorate wouldn’t know of, hear or respond to their words.
Most of the non-Arabic-speaking, non-Muslim electorate, he means. In fact, Ousayd and Hizb ut-Tahrir regularly speak to large crowds of Western Sydney Muslims and have even larger online followings.
For how long will Australia’s deluded chatterers bury their heads in the sand?
Lushington describes himself as Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard. This article was first published HERE
7 comments:
People should read the Quran for themselves. If you do that the nature of this religion becomes very clear.
I spent 17 years at a university in Lebanon where most students were Muslim (and female) and met many well-educated, westernised Muslims whose reaction to some of the yucky bits of the Quran and Hadith is comparable to that of intellectually refined Christians being alerted to the gorier bits of the Old Testament. Their general sentiment is, "Well, that was valid THEN, but not now."
Ironically, such Muslims tended to be far more open to me once I told them that I was not a Christian; I was accordingly not in competition with Islam in their view.
The winds of change are blowing in Islam. It is foolish to alienate those people spearheading that change as that plays into the hands of the extremists.
Let me finish with an anecdote. The seamstress I took my damaged clothes to ran a tiny shop in Hamra together with her mother, who was in her 90s. One day after a few years she asked me whether I was a Christian. I said 'no'. Muslim, then? Again, no. I went on, "I am a nothing. I am a free man." At this stage the old lady (whose English was passable, being a product of the old French education system) perked up and uttered a loud "GOOD!" with a look of strong approval and nodding her head vigorously. It's as well her Imam wasn't around with the mosque just around the corner........
Islamic attitudes to women are entirely incompatible with Western liberal democracy’s core principle of equal rights for both sexes.
The requirement for Muslim females to cover came about after it was brought to Muhammad's attention that Muslim women who'd been going out at night to a field outside Medina to do their business were being perved on, accosted, any d molested by Muslim men who couldn't tell in the dark that it was ‘believing women’ they were harassing.
The commandment duly arrived from Allah that Muslim women were to veil, to flag to Muslim men who was ‘off-limits' for sexual harassment.
Muhammad's companion, Umar bin Al-Khattab, evidently had problems with sexual self-restraint and was probably a bit of a coprophile too, and asked the Islamic prophet to reveal verses from Allah requiring Muslim women to wear a head-covering.
When Muhammad did not oblige, Umar knew he had to make it personal to Muhammad himself in order to bring the revelation down.
He followed Muhammad's wives when they went out at night to go to the toilet and made his presence known. When Muhammad heard of this, the revelation that Umar had sought earlier from the prophet was swiftly sent down from Allah.
Umar knew where these revelations were really coming from, which is why he went to Muhammad and harassed his wives instead of himself asking
The requirement for the hijab makes women responsible for male sexual self-control, rendering women the culprits for what Muslim men might do if they see an unveiled woman.
In the light of this history, we can better understand the mindset behind remarks made by Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric, the Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali. in a 2006 Ramadan sermon.
Al-Hilali blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by rapists and likened them to abandoned meat that attracts voracious animals.
Suggesting that the Muslim perpetrators of the infamous Sydney gang rapes of non-Muslim Australian women were not to blame for what they did, Sheik Al-Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and “wore make-up and immodest dress ... and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years."
"But the problem, but the problem all began with whom?" he asked.
Sheik Al-Hilali told an audience of around 500 mosque-goers: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem."
The sheik suggested: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
According to Sheik Al-Hilali, women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men. On adultery, he said: "It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."
So in Islam, tomcat control is the sole responsibility of women.
Nice religion.
ENDS
To Anonymous at 8.28, well said. To Barend, all I can say is bully for you. Know-all.
No, I don't, Hugh, but you and Anon 8:28 obviously do.
Unfortunately, the informed not knowing everything makes no case for the uninformed knowing anything.
Perhaps a 17-year spell in the Middle East would do you both good.
Douglas Murray succinctly sums up the merits of Islamic culture in his book "The Strange Death of Europe" when he says on page 57 "... it is not such a bad deal: if there is a bit more beheading and sexual assault than there used to be in Europe, then at least we also benefit from a much wider range of cuisines".
The abandoned meat - voracious animals analogy of course ignores an important difference between humans and other animals, that of the human cortical brain that affords most of us the ability to reason, to learn complex social rules, to exercise a much greater degree of choice over our behaviour, and to reduce the influence (both through conscious choice and hard-wired neurology) of our instinctual and emotional forces.
Sheik al-Hilali is using the abandoned-meat analogy as a justification for male social dominance, oppressing and blaming women and stoning them to death. The sheik conveniently ignores the many ways that Islam recognises human-brain responsibility for decisions other than those of men to sexually harass or force women, for example by cutting off the hand of a thief. His 'abandoned-meat' analogy would otherwise require Muslims to hide from sight all food lest that might entice hungry people to steal it, and to cover all vehicles lest walkers feel enticed to steal them.
However, there is a case for women to manage their biological advantage in the sexual sphere with a bit more care and compassion for men's biological drives. In the 'west' women have widely abandoned all modesty and believe it's ok to exploit their sexual advantage as fully as possible. Female mammals including humans are the limited resource in the reproductive stakes (being able to produce about one child per year for a few decades while a young man could inseminate multiple women each day and continue to bring about frequent offspring over even more decades). This underlies courtship processes in which women have greater value and largely choose their mate from multiple suitors while men generally have to take the initiative and have to prove themselves. Males have several times more testosterone than women do and testosterone is primarily responsible for libido and sexual drive. Men are expected to manage with restraint their biological drives and physical power over women and rightfully so, but little (and in 'western' countries, reducing) restraint is expected from women regarding their sexual power. From promoting the right to parade scant, sexually provocative clothing (even 'slut walks') to encouraging hypergamy and wrecking families through no-fault divorce and no-fault 'relationship property' entitlement, the lack of constraints on women's selfish biological instincts and the lack of consideration and caring for men's reality is fast eroding western civilization.
Before the shrieks of feminist indignation, I'm not for one second suggesting that women be seen as responsible for men's behaviour or that men should not be punished for breaking the law (and indeed, sexual offending is punished more severely than most other types of offending). Just advocating for a little more realistic understanding and caring between the sexes.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.