| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Unsacked Uncovered Meat Sheikh once again reveals his true colors. "Mufti urges Muslims to back Iran," by Richard Kerbaj in The Australian, with thanks to all who sent this in:
AUSTRALIA'S most senior Islamic cleric, Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilali, called on the Muslim world to unite behind the radical Iranian regime and to serve in its "trenches" in comments published during a visit to Tehran last weekend.As Iran was involved in a standoff with Western powers over the detention of 15 British naval personnel seized after they were accused of trespassing in its waters last month, the Iranian media were using Sheik Hilali's quotes in a propaganda drive.
The controversial Australian mufti was quoted as saying that the global Islamic nation would never "kneel" to its enemies.
In reports published in Iran on Saturday, Sheik Hilali was quoted as saying that Muslims needed to overcome their sectarian divisions that have led to much "bloodletting" in Iraq.
Leaders in Australia's Muslim community have attacked the Egyptian-born cleric over his reported comments and said he had no authority to speak on their behalf.
The comments will increase the pressure on the mufti, who caused a national furore last year when he compared scantily clad women with uncovered meat.
He is under police investigation over allegations he passed money raised by members of the Muslim community in Australia to supporters of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah's terrorist arm during a visit to Lebanon last year.
The Australian revealed last week the Sydney-based Lebanese Muslim Association had raised $70,000 in conjunction with other Islamic bodies following the Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon. The money was earmarked for war victims.
The weekend reports of Sheik Hilali praising Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hardline Islamic regime follow his outburst on Egyptian television in January when he described Westerners as "the biggest liars".
"Anglo-Saxons came to Australia in chains, while we (Muslims) paid our way and come in freedom. We are more Australian than them," he told Egyptian television.
In Tehran, the mufti was billed as a celebrity by the Islamic Republic's newsagency.
"The mufti of Australia has called on the Islamic world to stand in the trenches with the Islamic Republic of Iran which possesses the might and power," Iran's al-Alam News reported on its website in Arabic on Saturday.
Posted by Robert at April 9, 2007 8:02 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
We should be thankful that the enemy is this vocal and honest. If they were smart, they would keep quiet until they have a sizable population before they try to take over. We have no excuse that we were not warned.
Posted by: Elric66![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 9, 2007 8:15 AM
Sounds like the ol mufti is using the same rules as the 15 British sailors. You know..when in Iran tell em what they want to hear. Right?
Posted by: TheOmegaMan at April 9, 2007 8:35 AM
"The Australian revealed last week the Sydney-based Lebanese Muslim Association had raised $70,000 in conjunction with other Islamic bodies following the Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon. The money was earmarked for war victims."
...definition of Muslim war victim....one who is running low on ammunition....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 9, 2007 8:38 AM
Andrew Bolt said it best (money quote at marker 4:28):
"When people like him [Australia's mufti - aka Hilaly] are allowed to speak for the muslim community - when people who criticize him are damned as racist and . ..whatever . .. then what you will get one day is a VERY UGLY reaction - Cronulla [actual video of attacks] times ten, which no-one should want.
What is the most critical thing to do now is for muslims themselves to look at Hilali and if they really think he speaks for them ... then I think the rest of Australia should think "What is the place of islam in Australia..."Posted by: justamomof4
at April 9, 2007 9:14 AM
Notice that muslim mullahs like to use tribal names and racial stuff like 'Anglo-Saxons'.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at April 9, 2007 9:40 AM
I think I have had a change of heart. I am willing to morally support the Iranians in their dignified struggle IF THEY STOP PREACHING THEIR SHIITE CREED TO OTHER MUSLIMS....
Differences aside, let the Jihad to defend Iran start...Anyway why are we getting so worked about Iran getting attacked? IRAN WILL NEVER GET ATTACKED BY THE COWARD COW BOYS OF TEXAS.
Posted by: Abdullah at April 9, 2007 9:52 AM
Australia and other countries should see if they have on their books laws that can punish such behavior as treason, or can at the very least prevent the many hilalis of this world from ever returning to the "Infidel" nation-state in which they may exist geographically, but to which they do not, and cannot possibly, owe any allegiance.
Are there already such laws, waiting to be implemented but the Australian authorities are too timid? Or is it that the Western world has not yet understood the necessity of dealing, in the legal system, with the new, unprecedented, and for many incomprehensible difficulties that Islam, and those who take Islam seriously, pose for the entire non-Muslim world, its legal and political institutions, its social arrangements, its very existence.
Julius Stone, the great Australian scholar of jurisprudence (see, for a start, "The Province and Function of the Law") would have known what to do. Australians have managed to continue to behave as Europeans might have behaved, intelligently, no-nonsensically, in the 1950s. The time-warp is doing Australia good.
Now for those drafters of legislation to step forth. It is they, and the historians of Islam, and those who know about Islam but are not part of the MESA-Nostra Family, and not part of the army of Saudi-financed Western hirelings (ex-diplomats, journalists, businessmen, and especailly former government officials) all over the capitals of trhe West), who are worth more, are much more valuable, than any number of brigades of "boots on the ground" in Tarbaby Iraq.
Posted by: Hugh at April 9, 2007 10:32 AM
To any Australians here: why, why, WHY hasn't he been deported?
To Abdullah: Speaking of cowards - who hides behind women and children?
at April 9, 2007 10:36 AM
Sedition should have some consequences.
Perhaps deportation to a shark-infested coral reef?
(Perhaps with pig's bladder waterwings if the Aussies want to give him a chance at his 'right of return'?)
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 9, 2007 10:36 AM
The money was earmarked for war victims.Only an idiot believes that, unless you count Lebanese Muslim terrorists as "victims". Posted by: aynrandgirl
at April 9, 2007 10:57 AM
aynrandgirl,
Suicide bomber = victim...
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at April 9, 2007 11:45 AM
AUSTRALIA: Strip of citizenship and deport your meathead Mufti. There are numerous Islamic nations for him to choose from. But he needs to be evicted from your civilized nation
Posted by: dennisw at April 9, 2007 11:45 AM
"AUSTRALIA: Strip of citizenship and deport your meathead Mufti."
dennisw, but we don't generally do anything about the 'meathead muftis'. This is what is so distressing. Our freedoms are being exploited by our enemy living amongst us, and no one does a bloody thing about it.
Shall we act surprised when the Islamists become more vocal, more bold, or more confrontational? Will we act when they start to kill us or will we just roll over, shrugging our shoulders? I cannot believe the general apathy of the west as it relates to these issues, outside of these forums.
Posted by: Muzzl'em
at April 9, 2007 12:13 PM
If he had the good fortune of being a British citizen, he would probably be in line for a knighthood and would have secured a top seat at the joint islamic and inter-governmental task force for the integration of muslims in the British society.
He would also have been a guest of honour at Mr Livingstone's mayorial office. No doubt also, that he would have been invited for a spot of tea and a little tête-à-tête at Clerance House with our very own Prince Charles, who fortuously also happens to be very knowledgable in all things islamic. All three of them would have got on like a house on fire.
Australia, what are you waiting for, send him to the old country, we'll look after him.
Posted by: Hermit at April 9, 2007 1:27 PM
To the honorable John Howard,
Announce today that you will appease Muslims in Oz by deporting all those who support Iran to Iran in giving them what they desire.
To Abdullah who has yet to make a comment on this site with any intelligence, but resorts to foul language and name calling.
Run for office boy in the UK and stop hiding behind the fake names on Jihad Watch. Put yourself out there in the public and be brave with all your ideas son.
Oh and perhaps you could go back to your native land with all it's freedoms where a punk like you would be beat silly by real Muslims.
God bless and have a nice day Abdullah.
at April 9, 2007 1:53 PM
Halt immigration from Muslim countries NOW! Otherwise Islam will spread like cancer... This should have been done after 9-11-2001.
Posted by: The Resistance at April 9, 2007 2:09 PM
"Now for those drafters of legislation to step forth."--with respect to the legal prosecution of acts of violence and treason
Who are those drafters of legislation to be, legislation clearly delimiting the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion of all citizens? And how are the drafters of legislation to be encouraged? In the following sentences of the very same paragraph above, the use of former government officials as influence peddlars is noted. How did these former officials, some of them assuredly elected, come to be such peddlars? Through, perhaps, the greasing of palms?
The point I'm trying to make is this: every concerned citizen has got to make it their business to speak up and to hold their officials to account. Democracy is pro-active, not reactive.
Posted by: Chatillon at April 9, 2007 3:32 PM
Why in the name of good sense does Australia let this seditionist back into their country after he goes off on one if his walkabouts? Declare the fool persona non grata and keep him out!!!!
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at April 9, 2007 3:58 PM
"Anglo-Saxons came to Australia in chains, while we (Muslims) paid our way and come in freedom. We are more Australian than them," he told Egyptian television.
What about the Germans and the Greeks.. did they also arrive in chains?
Furthermore.. the Anglo-Saxons and the rest of peaceful Australia ARE paying your way.. They are paying the taxes which support your mosk behinds!
Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 9, 2007 4:04 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if he was refused re-entry into Australia? Let him stay in Iran!
Posted by: markalta at April 9, 2007 4:16 PM
Hilaly can't be deported, as a citizen. Howard's government is getting pretty annoyed with Hilaly, and there may be moves afoot to revoke his citizenship. Rudd's Labor Opposition can't say too much about Hilaly's citizenship- it was their manoeuvres which gained this idiot citizenship in the first place (when there was talk in the late 80s to deport him).
Personally, I think he should be left in place. Hilaly has done more to discredit the Muslim ideology in the eyes of Australians than boatloads of journalists (many of whom are useful idiots anyway) could do.
Posted by: Risky_Comment at April 9, 2007 5:21 PM
AHA! Here it is. We have a new law on the books - the Australian Citizenship Act of 2007. It can be found here.
The relevant bit for us JWers?
Australian Citizenship Act 2007
No. 20, 2007
34 Revocation by Minister
Citizenship by descent or for persons adopted in accordance with the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption
(1) The Minister may, by writing, revoke a person’s Australian citizenship if:
(a) the person is an Australian citizen under Subdivision A or AA of Division 2 (including because of the operation of section 32); and
(b) either of the following apply:
(i) the person has been convicted of an offence against section 50 of this Act, or section 137.1 or 137.2 of the Criminal Code, in relation to the person’s application to become an Australian citizen;
(ii) the person obtained the Minister’s approval to become an Australian citizen as a result of third-party fraud within the meaning of subsection (8); and
(c) the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen.
Citizenship by conferral
(2) The Minister may, by writing, revoke a person’s Australian citizenship if:
(a) the person is an Australian citizen under Subdivision B of Division 2 (including because of the operation of section 32); and
(b) any of the following apply:
(i) the person has been convicted of an offence against section 50 of this Act, or section 137.1 or 137.2 of the Criminal Code, in relation to the person’s application to become an Australian citizen;
(ii) the person has, at any time after making the application to become an Australian citizen, been convicted of a serious offence within the meaning of subsection (5);
(iii) the person obtained the Minister’s approval to become an Australian citizen as a result of migration-related fraud within the meaning of subsection (6);
(iv) the person obtained the Minister’s approval to become an Australian citizen as a result of third-party fraud within the meaning of subsection (8); and
(c) the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen.
This law apparently received the Royal Assent on March 15th, 2007, which would be why I've not heard about it so far.
Google is my friend.
L.Drummond.
Posted by: L.Drummond at April 9, 2007 5:56 PM
Further to above, until this Act, there were no provisions in the Citizenship Acts to revoke citizenship.
It will be interesting to see what happens now.
L.Drummond.
Posted by: L.Drummond at April 9, 2007 5:58 PM
In response to Hugh's question regarding citizenship, there is no provision for cancelling a person's citizenship unless it is proven that a person lied on their application form, or they are a nazi.
What provisions are in the US constitution that enables citizenship to be cancelled?
Posted by: The Contrarian at April 9, 2007 6:37 PM
Hugh, if you were the Chair of the legislative committee from the Howard Cabinet, what would your drafting instructions to Parlimanetary Counsel (actual drafters of the legislation) be? At least in Australia, there are no domestic human rights instruments that would stand in your way. How far would you go?
Posted by: Haidon at April 10, 2007 7:34 AM
Sub section (c) which states "the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen", is a great provision.
The next, logical step would be for the creation of a legislative provision which pre-empts judicial review, or an appeal mechanism or only allows an appeal mechanism through the Inspector General of Intelligence. There should ne no further appeals to the Courts. Courts have no business in making judgments on matters of national security, which are inherently political, executive decisions.
Posted by: Haidon at April 10, 2007 7:41 AM
As an Australian of European descent, all I can say is that I prefer to keep the likes of Hilaly around. There can be no better way to expose Islam for what it actually is, than to let its (unelected) leaders speak on its behalf. Only then can we common folk understand the true motives behind pack-rapes (sluts begging to be chewed up like cats chew up exposed meat) aka a less-than-sublime sense of "moral" superiority aka supremacism (insert any one of innumerable claims about Mohammed swt's,). Trouble is, those true Moslem boys what followed Hilaly's admonitions are now serving VERY long prison sentences for being truly on a level with the worst that society can breed. Alahu Akbar. (Insert Texan accent as appropriate, y'all).
Abdullah, I am aware that you are what is known as a troll in the ciba-wold, but even trolls can learn simple lessons. Just use a sharp implement, decisively. Your references to swords, Sharia, or brave Moslems and true, actually defy history ie the actual happening of events. Simple fact is, Islam needs to fear one thing above all others: the Day when the people Israel have had enough of Iran's thug-in-chief and decide to DO something about him. Heaven help the Shia then (and it won't). IDF? Be afraid... be very afraid. Saudi Arabia is (Sunni). Nasrallah is (Shia). Assad is (F*#k knows). Egypt is. In fact, the entire Moslem Middle East is. Wonder why? Could it have something to do with Islam wishing to wipe the "Zionist Entity" off the face of the map?
And why has Iran not displayed equal supremacist tendencies towards the good ol' USA (oops, sorry, Texas). Islam has never taken on a superior force and won. Mohammed won NO battles against a superior enemy. Actually, Mohammed never once defeated an enemy that was armed and willing to defend itself, to the death. Bravo, Islam (swt).
Posted by: maranatha50 at April 11, 2007 4:46 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)