Australian Islamist Monitor

Islam Under Scrutiny

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

November 2009 Dhimiwit

E-mail Print PDF

3 pigsWe have some formidable contenders for this month's title.

1. Tim Costello, for espousing Islamist causes, while disregarding the human rights of the victims of Islam.

Tim will happily spruik for Islamists.

He eagerly embraced Australians All, Mal Fraser’s pet project (see AIM:Australians All), replete with Islamists, unconcerned that he was mixing with those whose "religion" is racist, misogynist, endorses slavery and treats non-Muslims as subjugated inferiors.

 Australians All claims it is concerned about “serious and dangerous divisions between the West and Islam”, and wants to promote “an inclusive, open, diverse and multicultural society, where all people — no matter their religion, race, colour or background — have an equal opportunity”

However, warning bells should have rung with its statement:
“Acceptance that the right of free speech and a free press does not include the right to incite racial violence, to demonize or to denigrate a religion or a people” .

But surely these freedoms are the hallmarks of democracy: sounds a bit like "Don't you dare expose the truth about Islam!"

That many of the Muslim contingent are allied to CAIR, a Hamas front group, itself part of the Muslim Brotherhood, or The Muslim World League, named in regards to the financing of terrorism, bothers Tim not one whit.

As Chief Executive of World Vision Australia, he is described as having devoted his life to social justice, health and welfare issues. One wonders how his demonisation of Israel and promotion of Hamas, which wants to eliminate Israel and Jews everywhere, squares with his social justice principles. World Vision and Tim are vehemently anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian:

From NGO Monitor Digest (Vol. 2 No. 12), August 15, 2004:

    …ignoring the terrorism that was responsible for the deaths of Israeli civilians, World Vision promotes an amoral equivalence between perpetrators and victims of terror, offering no context to the loss of life. Instead, Israeli security measures are described as a "policy of sealing entries and exits to cities, villages, and towns as a form of collective punishment of the Palestinian population."
  
World Vision's response to Israel's security barrier displays almost no acknowledgement of its impact in preventing terror. For example, Tim Costello, Word Vision Australia's Chief Executive described the barrier as "part of the problem, not part of the solution", evoking the highly politicized and inappropriate claim that the barrier is reminiscent of the Cold War and Eastern Bloc oppression. (His comparison reflects the Palestinian propaganda effort to compare the Berlin Wall, designed to keep citizens from fleeing, with Israel's security barrier, which saves the lives of its citizens.)

This NGO is particularly active in promoting crude propaganda in the UN framework...in 2007, World Vision's Thomas Getman, continued this pattern in a speech in Geneva marking the 60th anniversary of UN Resolution 181, which called for the creation of two states, one Arab and one Jewish. His speech failed to mention ongoing Palestinian terrorist and missile attacks against Israel, and he used highly manipulative, emotionally charged rhetoric.
...World Vision’s statement in the inaugural session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in June 2006, exploited the suffering of Palestinian children in order to launch a political attack on Israel.
(source)


2. Joe Hockey, for drawing an immoral equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
Joe Hockey

Liberal frontbencher Joe Hockey will condemn the literalist interpretation of the Bible and compare Muslim women who voluntarily wear the hijab to nuns in a speech titled ''In Defence of God''.

.. he strongly embraces multiculturalism, urges tolerance and understanding of other faiths, and says that to judge Islam based on the actions of extremists and terrorists ''would be no different than judging Christianity on the actions of those who have over the centuries committed atrocities in the name of God and Christ''.

Mr Hockey says that a ''number of fast-growing evangelical Christian churches in Australia take a literalist approach to the scriptures. While most leaders of the older churches … have moved away from such a position … there is still an alienating literalism that pervades many faiths …
''And while debate rages about such matters, the true message of the scriptures - of compassion, justice, equality, dignity, forgiveness, charity and respect for other people - inevitably takes a back seat''.

Mr Hockey's father is a Christian who migrated from the Middle East, having grown up in Jerusalem and who speaks Hebrew and Arabic. ''He is very ecumenical for someone who lost his home to a war that was essentially based on faith. In Australia he found a home that tolerated diversity and shunned anti-secular behaviour.''

Hockey says that ''within our own borders we must accept the right of people to follow whatever religion they choose, to wear what they want and undertake their own rituals of observance. It always perplexes me that so many people worry about Muslim women wearing the hijab when for centuries, and even in some places today, Catholic nuns dress in similar attire.

''Yes, we should condemn those governments that force women to cover themselves from head to toe whether it is their choice or not. But we should not concern ourselves with people who make those choices themselves.'' 
(source)
 

Did Hockey not notice the covered tot (see AIM:Genocide Tots) or the picture heading the Islamic Council of Victoria's website , where young girls are completely covered? Did these girls, living in free Australia, "make the choice themselves?"
But then, who are we to judge, when we " committed atrocities in the name of God and Christ."


As Bill Muehlenberg observes:

Today in the West the number one religion is that of “tolerance”, where truth is jettisoned and fear of offending anyone becomes the primary concern. The speech given by Hockey is a classic example of the religion of tolerance.
... consider this contender for politically correct paragraph of the year:
“Australia has embraced religious diversity. It must always remain so, and as an MP I am a custodian of that principle of tolerance. That is why it is disturbing to hear people rail against Muslims and Jews, or Pentecostals and Catholics. Australia must continue, without fear, to embrace diversity of faith provided that those gods are loving, compassionate and just.”

J. Budziszewski calls this religion of tolerance the “illiberal liberal religion”. 
He nicely demonstrates the complete nonsense of Hockey’s statement: “If you really believe that the meaning of tolerance is tolerating, then you ought to tolerate even intolerance. If you really believe that the best foundation for toleration is to avoid having strong convictions about good and evil, then you should not try to harbor the strong conviction that intolerance is bad.”

Hockey may hope that his religious embrace of tolerance will put him in good standing with the electorate. It may well, if it no longer has any place for logic, truth, common sense, and hard thinking. But for those of us who value such goods, his speech simply demonstrates what a downward spiral modern public life is on... It really means the death of a culture, and the embrace of nihilism, anarchy and irrationality. 
(source)
 

Dhimwit Hockey feels we must embrace Islam's intolerance (including it's call to kill infidels) in the interests of diversity. And one wonders who he blames for his father losing his Jerusalem home in "a war based on faith."

3. Frank Brennan, for undermining our human rights by elevating Islam.

Many of us oppose a national charter of human rights, which could be used to curtail our freedoms and give unaccountable judges the power to shape laws. Interesting that the interfaith and Islam-supporting Uniting church is the only major church which does not oppose a charter, which should in itself raise a red flag.
And needless to say, for "human rights" lawyers it is an endless gravy train. 

The government's human rights committee led by Jesuit priest Frank Brennan recommended the government adopt a charter of human rights and give the High Court the power to declare laws incompatible.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis warned if rights were enshrined in a charter this could allow the courts to shape laws on issues such as gay marriage and adoption... such issues should be resolved directly by parliament and not via the "elliptical way" of expanding court powers.

"The agenda of the human rights lobby in Australia is a secular agenda and that fact has been somewhat masked by the fact the chairman of the government's human rights consultation committee is himself a priest," Senator Brandis said.

"It's a Trojan horse for the secular leftist human rights agenda."
(source)
(see AIM: No charter please!!)

Many consider the charter would be unworkable:

...critics claim the charter will erode government service delivery, engulf public servants in a wave of damages claims, bringing a culture of litigation to the heart of the public service and contribute to a blowout in government spending on legal services.

Frank has conceded that "enormous practical problems" will prevent the High Court from taking on expanded responsibilities under the proposed charter. He says it is impractical to give the High Court the power to declare whether laws enacted by parliament comply with the proposed charter and believed it was necessary to consider the panel's "fallback provision", making the Australian Human Rights Commission responsible for filling part of the gap in the charter mechanism.

In Victoria, the state charter of rights had added "tens of millions of dollars" to the cost of running the state government, according to  state opposition legal affairs spokesman Robert Clark, with statements of compatibility required by the state charter of rights "frequently longer than the second-reading speeches".

Brandis warned that vulnerable groups such as the disabled would be "the prey" of politically motivated lawyers looking for causes, and  if the Victorian experience were repeated federally, senior and middle-ranking public servants would need to attend "re-education courses" that would be run by the lawyers who had been recruited by the government to implement the state charter.
(source)

 Sounds like the lawyers would be happy about all this extra business. But scary to think that the unelected Human rights Commission could assume the role of the High Court. Still, this doesn't worry our Frank, because he is doing very nicely out of these junkets.

Frank denies a Rights charter would lead to a vilification law, but as Mandy Rice-Davis once famously remarked "He would say that wouldn't he?"

Frank admits there was a "credible argument" that religious vilification laws of the kind that already exist in Victoria "unduly interfere with the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief".

But he claims the existence of a national human rights charter would probably prevent religious vilification laws from ever being introduced. "It is very doubtful that the broad Victorian religious vilification law permitting Catch the Fire-type litigation would be passed by a Parliament constrained by a legislative human rights act." 
(source)

Frank is an ideologue, committed to dhimmi causes, as evidenced by his paper, Encountering the Other - Muslims and Christians: Where do we Stand?

We have always known that there is a problem for Christian minorities in many societies where the majority is Muslim. Since 11 September 2001, we have had to admit that there is also a problem for Muslim minorities in countries such as Australia where the majority is Christian. These minorities suffer discrimination. They evoke fear in the majority and they have grounds for being fearful of the majority. They have suffered demonisation by government and are hard-pressed to enjoy equal protection of the State's laws and policies.

What is the point of our dialogue? No doubt such gatherings provide the opportunity for Christians and Muslims to meet, putting a human face on the other, breaking down the barriers between 'us' and ' them'.

Those from different religious traditions and none might even find that they share deep convictions about ethics, as well as being able to identify the other as 'one of us'. The theologian Hans Küng, proposed a global ethic, distilling the golden rule of all religions: 'Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.' In Christianity, it is expressed: 'In everything do to others as you would have them do to you' (Mt 7.12, Lk 6.31). In Islam, it is expressed, 'No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself' (40 Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) of an-Nawawi 13). It is an elementary principle of humanity that 'every human being should be treated humanely, not in an inhuman, bestial way'.

Many Australian Christians are revolted by the thought that Shari'a law would permit the amputation of the hand of a thief, but they do not think twice in joining the chorus advocating the death penalty for the Bali bombers. .. Can our dialogue help us to better respect life?

Many Muslims are affronted by the sexually explicit advertising of the west. They see pornography on the internet as an unwelcome pollution of their religious world. Many Christian women are affronted by the way Turkish Muslim men treat their women. Many Christians in the west think the wearing of the hijab evidence of the oppression of women. Together we can learn better how to 'Respect and love one another. Do not abuse sexuality.'

Christians and Muslims should be able to share their commitment to human rights for all persons. But this is where I encounter some distinctive problems with Islam. What place is there for tolerance, individual conscience and protection of the human rights of the minority? ...there is no religious authority to give a binding interpretation to the Saudi Arabian Muslims who would prefer to ban Christians wearing even an ornamental cross around their necks, while they are free to build a huge mosque in Rome. There will continue to be Islamic states that punish apostasy even if their Constitutions give formal acknowledgement to freedom of religion.

Though Christian minorities will continue to suffer grievously in some Islamic societies, that is no excuse for us to discriminate against the Muslim minority here in Australia. Our contemporary treatment of asylum seekers ...has been possible because the majority of the boat people were swarthy Muslims rather than white Christians.

A final benefit of inter-religious dialogue is that the Christian ought become a better Christian by meeting the one who is other and Muslim... And dare I speculate that the Muslim could become a better Muslim by meeting those of us who are Christian when we put on our best face. At this time when Muslims live in fear in our midst, we have the opportunity to open the dialogue with Muslims of good will creating a social space where we can turn to each other, face to face. The stand-off cannot continue.It gives God a bad name, whatever name for God we might invoke, and whether we find God expressed in the Word made flesh or in the Qur'an.
(source)

Silly Frank, who thinks we worship the same God, and in his efforts to grovel to Islam, displays a breathtaking ignorance of  its ideology, which does not share our Golden Rule, but mandates that non-Muslims must be treated harshly, and can be enslaved or even killed.

Frank's hypocrisy in berating the Howard government for its treatment of asylum seeker, while protecting Islam from criticism, shows he has totally succumbed to Islam:

Those espousing multiculturalism and Aboriginal self-determination see the ideal non-discriminatory society as something much more. They claim that members of racial and cultural groups see the world differently, and that these different worldviews should be accommodated by the state as far as possible. According to M. Cathleen Kaveny:

"a society that has transcended discrimination will not only exhibit numerical diversity, but will honour and reflect a number of diverse cultural perspectives in shaping its common life. Moreover, a discrimination-free society would recognise and value the strengths and insights minority groups can offer in ameliorating broader social ills."

.. . The politics of fear has become a hallmark of Australian politics this last decade, and fear of the foreigner has always been part of the Australian story. The fear is compounded by the "other" religion - Islam.

If the (Howard) government has its way, Iraqis and Palestinians who have been rejected, who have no third country in which they have residence rights, and who cannot return home are to be held in open-ended, judicially unreviewable detention for years. In the case of the Iraqis, their detention at our hands will be extended interminably should the US (with some Australian assistance) decide to bomb their country.

Consider the Palestinian case of Akram Al Masri who was released from detention by order of the Federal Court granting habeas corpus. He arrived on Ashmore Reef in July 2001. In Woomera he was processed and rejected. He formally applied to be returned home. He packed his bags expecting to leave in February, but a public servant told him that he could not be moved anywhere. He went berserk understandably and smashed his right hand through a plate glass door, being hospitalised for weeks. He then wrote to Minister Ruddock in asking to be returned home or at least released from punitive detention.

...in relation to those three Palestinians who had been held at Woomera for an extra seven months, it is very misleading to continue telling the public that:
"Detainees who have failed to engage Australia's protection obligations can bring their detention to an end by choosing to leave Australia and by cooperating in removal arrangements."
The Palestinians had been very co-operative and were desperate to leave Australia given that the government was not prepared to permit them and their families residence rather than detention.

I ask my government, why don't we try to be just a little more decent rather than less decent than other countries when it comes to our treatment of those who arrive?
(source) 

Frank, it's one thing being decent and another to release jihadis into the community. Do we really want a Fort Hood incident in Australia? And if one happens as a result of your misguided advice,  are you happy to be held legally liable for damages should the family of the victims decide to sue you?
 

Last Updated on Saturday, 14 November 2009 03:34  

AIM Listed by NLA

pandora

Australian Islamist Monitor's web publications were selected for preservation by the National Library of Australia. Access to our materials stored in the NLA Archive is facilitated in two ways: via the Library’s online catalogue; and via subject and title lists maintained on the PANDORA home page.
Click HERE for direct access to the archive

Islam Kills

History - Articles

Lest We Forget the Battle of Tours

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Violent Jihad

Australians celebrate and revere Anzac Day on April 25th each year in remembrance of our brave soldiers who fought in two great world wars to secure our freedom. Every Australian identifies with the slogan “lest we forget” and in services held around the country people reflect on the battles and men who died to secure our freedom. Yet across the world in France, there is one remarkable battle which helped form the Europe we know today and allowed the development of civilization based on Judeo Christian principles. This one famous battle has become known as the battle of Tours and effectively stopped the Muslim advance into Europe. After the death of Mohammed in 632AD, Muslim armies exploded out of the Arabian peninsula to conquer much of the Middle East, expanding across north Africa. From there they crossed into Spain in 711AD and eventually controlled much of al-Andalus by 715AD. It was the victory at Tours by Charles Martel that stemmed the tide and eventually the Muslim marauders were expelled from Spain in 1492 when the last outpost at Granada fell to King Ferdinand of Spain. 

Read more

Shivaji’s Coronation Laudatory Landmark

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Infidels' Resistance

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was born, lived, fought and won battles against religious and social oppression in the 17th century Bharat or India. He was a shining star in the Indian firmament and is renowned as a champion of the downtrodden and depressed masses. He was and continues to be an icon for the classes and masses alike and is seen as a rallying point for peasants oppressed by foreign rulers, Pathans and Moghuls alike. Sexually exploited women found in Shivaji Raje a protector, a benefactor and flocked to his Hindavi Swaraj to find solace and feel liberated under his saffron flag. 

Read more


Ransomer of Captives from the Muslims

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Tolerance Myths

Perhaps some readers might be interested to know that January 28 is considered a feast day among Catholics – actually 2 feast days are celebrated on the same day – one is of ST Thomas Aquinas, the great medieval theologian and philosopher who adapted Aristotle to the western Judeo-Christian worldview. . It is also the feast day of a lesser known person – St Peter Nolasco, the great ransomer of captives from the Muslims.

Read more


Islamic Pirates

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Violent Jihad

Barbary Corsair
Somalian Islamic Pirates & Lessons from History
 
The dramatic rescue of the American cargo-ship captain Richard Phillips from the hands of Somalian Islamic pirates by the U.S. Navy—killing three pirates, holding him hostage at gun-point, through precision-targeting—warrants a review of the U.S. struggle with piracy and hostage-taking in North Africa, which ended two centuries ago.

Raiding trade-caravans and hostage-taking for extracting ransom in Islam was started by Prophet Muhammad. Having become powerful and secure after his relocation to Medina from Mecca in 622, Muhammad initiated Jihad or holy war in the form of raids of trade-caravans for earning livelihood for his community. In the first successful raid of a Meccan caravan at Nakhla in December 623, his brigands killed one of the attendants, took two of them captive, and acquired the caravan as “sacred” booty. The captives were ransomed to generate further revenue. Muhammad, later on, expanded this mode of Jihad to raiding non-Muslim communities around Arabia—for capturing their homes, properties and livestock, capturing their women and children as slaves often for ransoming and selling, and imposing extortional taxes—which sometimes involved mass-slaughter of the attacked victims.

Read more


The Battle of Broken Hill

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

Battle of Broken Hill Logo
 
The First Islamic Terrorist Attack on Australian Soil
 
On January 1, 1915 two Broken Hill men, both former camel drivers, armed themselves with rifles, an homemade flag bearing Islamic insignia and a large supply of ammunition and launched a surprise attack on the Picnic Train about 3 kilometres outside Broken Hill.

The train carried about 1200 Broken Hill residents to Silverton where a picnic to celebrate the new year was to take place.

The two Muslim men, Gool Mohamed originally a Pashtun tribesman from Afghanistan and Mullah Abdullah from what is known today as Pakistan, decided to wage jihad against Australian infidels after Australia and the Ottoman Empire officially joined the opposite sides in the WWI.

Read more


Jihad Galore

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Tolerance Myths

Jihad Galore and the Toledo Whore

Battle of Higueruela

Alhambra - GazelleHow often in conversation with a Muslim, do they quote Spain as the crowning achievement of Islam, where Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in harmony for about 800 years?

And when you mention the killings and massacres, you are told that the Spanish Inquisition was much worse.
This is a misconception, since the Inquisition in Spain was responsible for only between 4,000 and 5,000 lives. [1]

Yet in 1066AD, in a single day, muslims murdered over 4,000 Jews because Vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela had risen to a position greater than them, and of course, this upset the Muslim sensitivities. [2]

Read more


Arabs Hated The Quran

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Stolen Heritage

 
How the Arabs Hated The Quran
 
Old Quran

Wh y are you a Muslim?
Musli ms in general love to hear the above question because it has a simple and readymade answer in their minds besides it gives them the opp or t u nity to propagate their religion and talk proudly about Islam.

 

Read more


Lepanto Anniversary

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Imperialism

Decisive Victory for the West

At this time of year, it is timely to remember one of the greatest victories of the west against the Islamic world. On the 7th October in 1571, Don Juan and the Holy League, led by Admiral Doria, defeated the larger Ottoman fleet in the Battle of Lepanto, saving Europe from the Turks and militant Islam. The Holy League was a coalition of different armies - of the Republic of Venice, the Papacy (under Pope Pius V), Spain (including Naples, Sicily and Sardinia), the Republic of Genoa, the Duchy of Savoy, the Knights Hospitaller and some others.

Read more


Muslim Jerusalem

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Stolen Heritage

Jerusalem - Coat of ArmsWhy do Muslims insist that Jerusalem is their Holy City?
When Mohamed and his faithful followers moved from Mecca to Medina, they found themselves among three Jewish tribes/clans (BANU-L-NADIR, BANU KAINUKA and BANU KURAIZA)  which settled there some time after their expulsion from their homeland and also living there were  two Arab, pagan tribes.

Mohammed, who at this stage needed more followers, decided to win those tribes over and convert them to his newly invented religion.

Islam was yet not as fully developed as we know it today, and Mohammed was still having his sessions with Allah (the Medina period revelations).

Read more


Killing of Banu Quraiza

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Imperialism

Did Prophet Muhammad order Killing Surrendered Jews of Banu Quraiza and Khaybar?  A historical Analysis

In the post 9/11 era of this modern-world, Islamists around the globe are busy with ‘damage control utopia’ in order to correct the image of religion Islam. We all know that the nucleus of Islam are: Quran, Hadiths (Sunnah) supported by Islamic histories and biographies recorded by various famous Islamic scholars and historians.

What Mecca?

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

History - Early History

A great tragedy of the Islamic control of our universities and political correctness plus the fear of extreme violence if anyone dares question the roots and claims of Islam is ...that nobody dares question the roots and claims of Islam!!!  I want to stimulate interest and offer this summary of information on Mecca from (LINK) which discusses some problems with Muslim claims in a comparison of evidence supporting Islam/Christianity. 

Read more


Yahweh or Hubal

Attention: open in a new window. PDF | Print | E-mail

FlagThere is a very strongly entrenched view among majority of Westerners today that the three main monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam share one common God and therefore despite the obvious differences, the core foundation of these three religions is the same. 

Read more