Pauline Hanson, the Australian politician and leader of the One Nation Party, two days ago called for a referendum to change her country’s Constitution, so that section 116 of that document, which prohibits banning a religion, might be scrapped, in order that Islam might then be prohibited.
For Hanson claimed, as she has so many times before, that Islam is a political ideology and not a religion. She singled out the Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir as a pro-Sharia law group that was of particular concern. This was, for Hanson, a lost opportunity to win over those who are made uneasy by Islam, but who are also disturbed by what they regard as Hanson’s either/or remarks about the faith. She might have said, more accurately and more convincingly, that “yes, of course Islam is a ‘religion’ insofar as it concerns itself with the belief in, and worship of, a superhuman power. I don’t deny that aspect of it. But, ladies and gentlemen, I’m afraid, that Islam is also, at the same time, and much more significantly, a ‘political ideology’ which has to do with extending the power and reach of the faith and its Believers, and with what the ideal Muslim state ought to look like.”
And she might then have added, in a more-in-sorrow tone, that “unfortunately, Islam as a ‘political ideology’ is far more important than Islam as a ‘religion,’ and we should not be shy about recognizing that. Both the Qur’an and the Hadith are concerned with the duty to defeat the Unbelievers, and the requirement that Muslims fight those Unbelievers, using whatever instruments – violence, either in regular combat (qitaal) or through terrorism, propaganda, wealth, or the weapon now mentioned by more and more Muslims, that of demographic conquest – are both available and effective, until the entire world is dominated by Islam, and Muslims rule, everywhere.”
Then she might have adduced Qur’anic passages, confidently citing, by sura and ayat, those that most strikingly support that claim of the duty of Muslims to engage in Jihad. She might have invited her listeners to read the Qur’an, as she did, especially (here should follow a very slow reading of a very short list of a half-dozen of the so-called Jihad verses, such as 3:151, 8:12, 2:191-193, 9:5, 9:29) and then another half-dozen verses denouncing the Unbelievers, such as 98:6, and recommended that they read, too, parts of the Hadith, ideally in the collection of Bukhari (Hanson could have taken care to explain how the different collections of Hadith are ranked by Muslims according to their assumed trustworthiness), to find out more about Muhammad, the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct.
And then she could have invited her listeners to simply look around the world, at just what has happened in those countries where Muslims have been allowed to settle in recent years in large numbers, and: “Ladies and gentlemen, please draw your own conclusions. What has the large-scale Muslim presence meant for the tranquility and physical security of Infidels everywhere? What has that large scale presence meant for the taxpayers who pay for their country’s welfare-state benefits? Am I wrong,” Pauline Hanson ought to ask aloud, “to worry”?
Last week, Ms. Hanson provided another example of an opportunity lost. She was walking through a shopping center in Cannington, a south-eastern suburb of Perth, greeting voters ahead of the Western Australian election. She was confronted by two hijabbed women and challenged as to her knowledge of Islam. Her encounter with them lasted for one minute and 33 seconds.
That election has now taken place, and the One Nation Party received less than 5% of the vote. But that’s not the point of this post. That party is now best known for its anti-Islam stance, and for Pauline Hanson’s own declaration, after her election to the parliament in 2016, that she would support a ban on all Muslim immigration into Australia. One reason for the poor showing of her party may be seen in this video, where Hanson becomes disappointingly discombobulated, and cannot respond adequately to the questions the Muslimahs ask her about Islam. She is unable to summon up the most obvious Qur’anic quotations about violence and terror, and allows herself to raise irrelevantly the matter of the mistreatment of women in Islam, and even manages to name the wrong verse — 9:36, instead of 4:34 — as dealing with that matter.
The hijabbed inquirers begin, with all parties well aware that the encounter is being filmed:
“According to if you were to win the elections, what would be your reaction to people like us?”
Hanson’s aide replies first: “Look we’re for integration. It’s all about making sure that we don’t get that fundamental group of people that are wanting to enforce their laws upon Australia. That’s the main thing.” Much too accommodating. He needn’t have said “we’re for integration” at all. He might have said instead that “admission to Australia, the granting of Australian citizenship is, we believe, a precious privilege, and ought to be available only for those whose views do not flatly contradict our essential Western values, such as freedom of religion and of speech. That means Muslims must be allowed to leave Islam, if they so wish, and that all of us should be allowed to criticize or mock any religion, including Islam and Muhammad, without any fear of reprisal. So far Muslims, in threatening or inflicting real punishment, including death, on those Muslims who have dared to become apostates, have shown they do not believe in freedom of religion. And the list of non-Muslims murdered by Muslims for their criticism or mockery of Islam and Muhammad, grows ever longer, from Pim Fortuyn to Theo van Gogh to the staff of Charlie Hebdo, and then there are those, from Molly Norris to Robert Redeker, who have not been killed, and have not only been silenced, but forced to change their identities or gone into hiding, because they angered Muslims with their exercise of free speech. All of this is overwhelming evidence that Muslims do not believe in freedom of speech. Rather, they follow the example of Muhammad, who was delighted when those who mocked him, such as Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak, were murdered. Can you assure us, ladies, that Muslims will be able without fear to change or drop their religion without any consequences? Can you assure us that non-Muslim Australians will be allowed without fear to mock Muhammad and Islam if they so wish, that, in short, the foundational principles of our society, freedom of religion and freedom of speech, will be observed by Muslims? If you cannot do so, then we think that’s enough to justify our party’s policy on Muslim migrants.” He might have said this, or something very like it. It might have taken an extra minute or two, but well worth it, and one would hope the camera would still be rolling.
Then Pauline Hanson herself was addressed by the same Muslim woman. She asked Hanson what she knew about Islam:. “Did you read up about our religion? Have you read the Qur’an?” Hanson replied: “I have read parts of the Quran, yes I have.” This sounded lame. At this point in the political career of Pauline Hanson, whose main issue for several years has been the menace of Islam and of Muslims to Australia, she ought to have read, and re-read several times, the entire Qur’an. She ought as well to have read a commentary on it in order to understand the obscure passages in the Qur’an that require elucidation. One such exhaustive commentary, that first appeared at this website, is Robert Spencer’s “Blogging the Qur’an.” To present oneself as a severe and knowledgeable critic of Islam, and then to open oneself to the charge of insufficient knowledge – familiar only with “parts of the Qur’an” – is not acceptable.
Then the same hijabbed lady asks: “”Did it not come to you as a peaceful religion? Does it tell you anywhere in there [the Qur’an] to be a terrorist..or a fundamentalist?” Hanson ought at that point to have immediately had at the ready – even, if need be, written on a notecard — some of the Jihad verses, by way of responding to this constant claim that Islam is a “peaceful religion.” She should have said, sweetly, “Well, let me just start with 9:5: ‘So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them,’” and then perhaps read out 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued,” and then offered “to give a few dozen more, but I don’t think there’s time, and I wanted to answer your second question about whether there’s anything in the Qur’an that has to do with being a terrorist.” Well, there is 8:12 – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them,” and then there’s 3:151, which begins, “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers.”
Hanson then should press her advantage: “And I think it’s not just in the Qur’an, but in the Hadith, in the Sahih Bukhari that we should look – of course you know what I am referring to [distinct unease and silence on the part of the Muslim ladies] – the one where Muhammad says, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’ But really, there are so many more Qur’anic passages, both about warfare, and about striking terror into the hearts of Unbelievers, so I really have to say – and I’m sorry to say – that no, the Qur’an did not ‘come to me as a peaceful religion’ and yes, it has a lot to say about the use of terror. And I think any fair-minded person would have to come to the same conclusion.”
If the hijabbed lady manages to sputter that “you don’t understand” or “it’s all a matter of context” or tu-quoquettishly alludes to violence in the Bible, Hanson ought to be ready to explain that violent Qur’anic verses are prescriptive, and valid for all time, while Biblical verses are descriptive, valid only for their time and place.
Of course, what I’ve written above is in the I-Have-A-Dream mode. Pauline Hanson said none of the things I’ve attributed to her above. Instead, in attempting to answer the question about whether terrorism was in the Qur’an, she confusedly referred to the treatment of women. Here’s how the exchange actually went: The more aggressive of the two Muslimahs asked Hanson about her reading of [parts of] the Qur’an: “Did it not come to you as a peaceful religion? Does it tell you anywhere in there to be a terrorist or a fundamentalist?” Instead, say, of quoting any of the verses about killing and striking terror among the Infidels, the very ones given above, Hanson replied by talking, irrelevantly, about the mistreatment of women. Here’s what she said, in her confusion worse confounded: “well it [the Qur’an] does [speak about terrorism] because if you look at I think it’s about sura[s] 9.36 or so where it cites to actually these women and how you treat women and I think…” What has any of this to do with terrorism? And at this point it is the Muslim lady who finishes Hanson’s sentence with “beat women”? knowing perfectly well what is in the Qur’an, and if that was the case, the Muslimah was no doubt prepared to offer the conventional defense that the verse meant only to “beat lightly.” But Hanson doesn’t even take the hint, and never says, so discombobulated is she, that the Qur’an sanctions wife-beating. And in any case, the Qur’anic passage about the treatment of women is not 9:36 but 4:34, a verse that, like 8:12 and 3:151 and 9:5 and 9:29, Hanson ought to know by now.
At this point in the political career of Pauline Hanson, her knowledge of, and comprehension of, and quick recall of, what is in the Qur’an about violence and terror and the Unbelievers,, ought to be much better than it apparently is. If she isn’t up to the task, surely there are those in Australia, such as Mark Durie, who are.
The brief encounter — so unsatisfactory in so many ways – comes to an end with the Muslimah who did the talking, telling Pauline Hanson and thereby getting the last word, that “I think you need to get a little more knowledge of Islam…What it’s about. That’s what I think.”
And that’s what we who want Pauline Hanson to succeed, should – though in an entirely different sense – also think.
Mac-101 says
Great. This woman is a patriot and a realist. She does NOT want to tolerate a religion that says she can killed or made a sex slave. And if she does become a Muslim women will never be worth more than halve a Muslim man. Also I assume she does NOT want to wear a black bag or have her granddaughter become a FGM victim. Ralley around her u Yobos!
Angry Aussie says
I agree. Pauline all the way! She does know her facts. Disgraceful that she is being bagged for speaking out.
Ted says
All of these barbaric practises that Islamists believe must be tolerated and conversion is to be accepted or death upon the dis-believer is why they in their native countries have such violence. We will eventually be forced to strap an A-K 45 on your back if you ever want to go to your Church, Temple, Gay-parade, Beach (In a Bikini) because of this non-sense. They will be saying I have a Phobia with my views but because of the actions not only world-wide of Islamists and the drowning of the girls in the Kingston canal by their own family I have rational fear that causes me to say BE PREPARED, or size your women up for Burkas, get them circumcised , get stoning pits and amputation sites at in front of our War Memorials, Pull any Crosses or Stars of David down this includes cemeteries, No-more Pork sandwiches. Our government thinks I have committed a crime by thinking this way, The Gestapo could be coming to my door. I don’t know when this will start happening in our country, but I hope my fathers service in the 2cnd world war was not a waste.
Jeanette says
She actually said that she doesn’t believe that Islam IS a religion, and that is the ONLY way the west is going to win this war.
We aren’t going to kill 1.7 billion people, which would be the only other way we could win the war.
But if we ever get smart enough to deprive Islam of its protections as a religion (why did the entity that motivated Mohammed insist that the new Sex & Death Club be called a religion?), western civilization should be able to defeat a group of inbred gonads-on-the-hoof without too much trouble. These aren’t the Nazis, after all, and we beat them.
Mac-101 says
But our Elites are supporting them for some Satanic reason!
jim hane says
Pauline Hanson is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about reclassifying Islam as an economic and political cult and just banning it!
However, she should learn more about this cult and the dangers it poses.
jayell says
Wouldn’t it be simple just to accept that islam isn’t a religion, and just deny it ‘religion’ status? It has been a political system from the word ‘go’ and this farcical religious facade is just a con-trick concocted by the so-called ‘Prophet’ Mohammed, who was no more than a megalomaniac criminal con-artist. So ban it as the world’s longest-running scam.
Voytek Gagalka says
Still better, view Islam as it is viewed by Muslims. No Muslim ever considers Islam as a religion. It is a WAY OF LIFE for them, thus whole lot more than simply “religion” or even “political system.” WAY OF LIFE. As far as I can see no western world constitution says anything about “protection of way of life.” If way of life of a cannibal is not accepted, take that definition of Muslims on Islam and blow it against their faces. Problem solved.
JMB says
Under NSW zoning and planing laws existing churches are zoned as a place of worship. Because of this, many underused or even closed down former church building sites in Sydney’s Islamic heartland (SW Suburbs)are eagerly sought after by the Islamic community to convert into mosques, Islamic community centres and prayer halls.Because the land is already zoned as a place of worship no special re-zoning is required for an Islamic building such as a mosque. The implication being that Islam is regarded as a religion under existing State laws.
Note also, the Muslims are prepared to pay BIG money for these sites. Some of these former churches even have car parks, makes it oh so easy for yet another Islamic centre to be built.
Angry Aussie says
Same applies in Queensland.
gravenimage says
JMB, Muslims have always taken over Churches and other Infidel places of worship and turned them into Mosques. This is a core part of Islamic conquest.
Your belief that it has to do with modern Western zoning laws is mistaken.
Terry Gain says
I agree, and with all due respect to Hugh Fitzgerald , what kind of God would choose a mass murderering psychopath as his Messenger and command him to kill all who do not submit.
One of the few things Obama said which is unquestionably true is that “no religion condones killing”. Since Islam not only condones but commands the killing of unbelievers it is not a legitimate religion. There is no reason to concede this issue to Muslims and quite frankly in view of the Establishment Clause it might prove fatal.
gravenimage says
Terry Gain wrote:
I agree, and with all due respect to Hugh Fitzgerald , what kind of God would choose a mass murderering psychopath as his Messenger and command him to kill all who do not submit.
…………………….
Terry, where did Hugh Fitzgerald ever say that he believes that Muhammed is the messenger of God and should be obeyed? Of course, he *never* has.
Rob says
jayell says: “…So ban it as the world’s longest-running scam…”
You mean, “…the world’s second-longest-running scam…”
The Christian religion was there first; and 500 years ago, was just like Islam is. becoming now, with beheadings, crucifixions, burning-alive of “unbelievers”.
There are sinister, disgusting commands from “god” in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Exodus, (which the bible claims were carried out) with genocide, rape and sex-slavery – just like ISIS today, so while we can all agree that Islam – in today’s world – is primitive, genocidal and disgusting, we must remember that much of the Quran was plagiarised from the Old- and New Testament.
Let’s not be too smug, just because we ignore the horrendous passages and injunctions in the bible; and say: “we don’t need to do that any longer…” It was disgusting then; and is disgusting today.
If we wish to civilise Islam (and Christianity), we should ban the biblical-, Quranic; and Hadith verses which advocate murder and rape; and which extoll the virtues of believing rubbish without evidence – and not just “without evidence” – AGAINST all the evidence….
Only when the sick verses are forever removed and banned, will we have a chance of restoring the world to a sensible order. Geert Wilders is correct – the Quran should be banned everywhere. Instead, the soft, idiotic Europeans who see Islam as “just another faith” or as a “religion of peace”, are dooming their societies to years of bloody civil war, fought by the citizens who can see very clearly what any sensible human can see, but what their “Leaders” refuse to recognise…
Keith Lewis says
Pleeeaase Rob. Don’t drag out another myth to try and justify your absurdity that Christianity is as bad as Islam! Let me suggest you do some reading that will help to clear this misconception. It is called the ‘NEW TESTAMENT’. When you have read it, and it is about as big as the average novel, ask yourself – does the NT call for killings, burnings or crucifixions? Unlike the Islamic writings which calls for all kinds of hateful and barbaric acts against others in order to please their god you will find nothing in Christianity that does the same.
gravenimage says
What witless false moral equivalence. Jews and Christians are not murdering people in the name of their faith.
And you may not be able to grasp this, but Jesus was himself crucified–he did not have others crucified. Where did you ever get the idea that he did?
Jeanette says
I think that removing Islam’s status as a religion and then removing all associated protections is the only way we are going to win the war with Islam and its jihadis – active and inactive.
mortimer says
The canard that the 164 jihad verses are ‘temporary’ is blasphemous, because that means Allah’s words are not eternal.
Mohammed gave his personal explanation of the 164 jihad verses: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no god but Allaah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and establish regular prayer, and pay zakaah, If they do that then their blood and wealth is safe from me, except by the laws of Islam, and their reckoning will be with Allaah.” There is no time limit on this ‘fighting’.
Nevertheless, the 164 jihad verses have been interpreted by Islamic scholars over 1400 years and there is no doubt what they mean and no doubt that most Muslims take them literally as commands to conduct ‘WARFARE AGAINST THE DISBELIEVERS’.
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is an Egyptian Islamic theologian based in Doha, Qatar, and chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars and one of the most respected Islamic scholars in the world. He endorsed aggressive jihad: “In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way.” Elsewhere, he notes: “Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the ‘homeland of Islam’ diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life.”
The Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as “A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Quran and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], “The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect.”
Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time,” tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule – bound only by the capacity for success.
Aggressive jihad is normative Islam and many top Islamic scholars of today interpret the 164 jihad verses as an aggressive mission to conquer the infidel world. How are average Muslims to disagree with Islam’s top scholars on the topic of aggressive jihad?
Wellington says
Moral here: The evil do not have to be accurate. Indeed, inaccuracy invariably aids malevolence. The good, by contrast, must always strive for complete accuracy. Indeed, accuracy invariably aids truth.
mortimer says
Agree with Wellington. However, Pauline Hanson cannot be faulted on not being prepared for a difficult and extremely complex answer in one of the most confusing of all topics: JIHAD/WARFARE against the disbelievers mandated in the Koran and Sunna and endorsed by the Islamic consensus as binding on all Muslims.
Pauline Hanson knows that this is the case, but needs the answer to this trick question ready when she is challenged. It is a question for a superb scholar like ROBERT SPENCER who could answer it handily.
She needed Robert Spencer in her entourage to step forward and answer this question for her and provide the accurate and incontrovertible evidence of Islam’s source texts and exegetes.
However, such an answer is baffling to the laity who want 5-second, simplistic answers and slogans and whose eyes glaze over when presented with a difficult argument.
Wellington says
“She needed Robert Spencer in her entourage…….”
A huge number, an almost uncountable number, of Western politicians need Robert Spencer in their entourage—–or, what is far more practical, at least being knowledgeable of what Robert Spencer has said and written. Freedom, and Western Civilization in general, would benefit greatly were this so. Sadly, it is not.
gravenimage says
All true.
John Krupa says
Mortimer, I suspect that you and I would agree on a majority of issues, but, I cannot understand your following comment [and, I cannot understand Spencer’s writings on this matter]. You write:
“She needed Robert Spencer in her entourage to step forward and answer this question for her and provide the accurate and incontrovertible evidence of Islam’s source texts and exegetes.”
Why would Spencer be of any help in this matter? I ask this because, in the original article, Spencer writes: “She might have said, more accurately and more convincingly, that “yes, of course, Islam is a ‘religion’ insofar as it concerns itself with the belief in, and worship of, a superhuman power. I don’t deny that aspect of it. But, ladies and gentlemen, I’m afraid, … blah, blah, blah …”
What kind of response, as proposed by Spencer, is that?!?!?!?!
How can muhammadism be considered ANY type of religion? Just because muhammadens say it is, DOES NOT make it so.
Why not just call muhammadism by a REALISTIC AND MEANINGFUL NAME, that is, not to apply this deceitful euphemism [religion of peace]: call it the “Torture-Enslave-Murder-Kaffir-Men-Women-Children” death-blood-conquest cult … but, oh, yeah, we believe in and worship a superhuman power?
So, yeah, you kaffirs, we muhammedans deserve ALL due consideration and respect which every and all religions are provided by your Constitution!
These muhammadism do not even need to make any great effort in order to conquer the West. Why should they?! We are doing it for them! We are surrendering; often without a fight.
Maybe, there is a more “nuanced” explanation regarding this characterization as a religion; however, it is way over my head. Perhaps you can explain … as I would look forward to that.
Wellington says
John Krupa: I’ll take a stab at your query if you don’t mind. Here it is: Where is it written that a religion must be good? You have implicitly erroneously assumed as much. Hey, as an example, what about Satanism? Care to disregard that too as a religion?
I would strongly suggest to you and anyone who travels the path of asserting that Islam is not a religion that it is a path to legal NOWHERESVILLE. Islam is mostly certain a religion but it is a malevolent, profoundly troubling and totally screwed up religion.
Go from there. For the American Constitution’s sake. For freedom’s sake. For the sake of common sense. For the sake of so much else as well.
Denying Islam’s status as a religion is ridiculous. Of course it is a religion but an evil one. What is imperative is describing it as the enemy of freedom which it surely is.
Pursuing the “Islam is not a religion” route is a fool’s errand. Accurately describing Islam as an evil religion, and adjusting Western laws and constitutions for this reality, is the far more proper path to pursue. After all, Nazism and Marxism are also inimical to freedom and democracy, but neither needs to be banned, only exposed. Ditto, I would contend, for Islam.
Your turn.
Wilfred says
Wellington:
I can’t agree with you that Islam is a religion. Allow me explain. At least as to the American Constitutional concept of religion, enshrined in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, the framers contemplated religion historically as the Judeo-Christian model (cites are many). One can well argue, as Originalist interpreters of the Constitution, Islam does not qualify as a religion.
Wellington says
Willfred: I can assure you that for First Amendment purposes Islam is a religion and arguing otherwise is a waste of time. Yes, Islam is rotten to the core but so is Satanism and it too is a protected religion. Also, and religion aside, secular belief systems are protected by the First Amendment as well, no matter how putrid they are, for instance Nazism and Marxism. Remember, that during WWII and the Cold War respectively, Nazism and Marxism were still legal here in the US.
The route to dealing with Islam is NOT arguing that it is not a religion. Total waste of time. Rather, as with Nazism and Marxism, it should be protected by the First Amendment but overwhelmingly seen as nefarious. Proper exposure of Islam, not the banning of it, is the route to dealing with it. Reconsider.
gravenimage says
John and Wilfred, Islam has been considered a religion for hundreds of years. Moreover, your idea that considering it a religion means being soft on Islam is mistaken.
It is only recently that “religion” was automatically considered benignant. After all, the Aztecs had a religion that demanded human sacrifice, and Christians at the time did not consider it a good thing.
Europeans bravely and successfully fought Islam for centuries while considering Islam a religion–an evil and false religion.
It is only quite recently that “cult” has been used to designate a false creed. This characterization only became widespread in the 1970s, as people recoiled at the prospect of having to consider, say, the Moonies a religion like Judaism or Christianity.
But traditionally, “cult” just meant a small religion, or a small sect within a larger faith.
And the idea that designating Islam as a cult would change its status under the First Amendment–as some here have posited–is also mistaken, as cults are not seen as distinct from religions in that document.
Peggy says
A good idea would be to write to her and ask her to reach out to people like Robert and Pamela in order to learn as much as she can. Perhaps she can invite them out here if they feel they would like to do that.
There are many books about this subject and she could familiarize herself with Islam more.
Also, Pauline is right to condemn Islam but she doesn’t have the gift of the gab, as they say and she doesn’t phrase her comments like a politician. I suppose we are so used to listening to career politicians that when we come across someone like her we see her as a simple person who really isn’t educated enough on the way she should present her arguments.
I find the way she is so refreshing and real but too many people don’t respect a direct approach.
She really needs good advisors for now.
Angry Aussie says
Pauline Hanson has very good advisors already. She is far from a ‘simple person’. I have had the opportunity to have several discussions with Pauline Hanson. She is very knowledgeable but perhaps doesn’t always articulate that knowledge.
I certainly would not discount her. She doesn’t only tackle Islamic issues head on. She tackles g great many issues that Australian politicians have put on the backburner.
mortimer says
I agree with Hugh Fitzgerald that Hanson was unprepared for the deviousness of Muslims in their claim that jihad verses ‘DON’T APPLY TODAY’ … when the jihad verses are actually applicable until Doom’s Day.
Pauline Hanson should get in touch with Robert Spencer and get his answer and then KEEP IT HANDY in her purse so she can read it from a card at any moment.
The Confessions says
All Aussie Jihad Watchers, please be sure to send this in an email to Ms Hanson in support of her cause. Contact details are here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=BK6
It’s important she reads this and hears support from us.
Thanks for the article, Hugh.
=========================
https://theconfessionsweb.wordpress.com
JMB says
My comments re Pauline Hanson. She has established a political party that meets a real need here in Australia. Unfortunately she is not a good public speaker and she lacks the real organisational skills to keep the party unified and to present her policies in a consistent manner. Basically she should find a new leader for the party.
no_one says
I think Australians could have educated themselves on qeeran before voting.
Terry Gain says
if America concedes that Islam is a religion, America will continue to be on the defensive against Islam and will eventually lose. The most intelligent course of action is to deny that Islam is a legitimate religion and to ask what kind of God would choose a mass murdering, slave-taking, rapist and pedophile as his Messenger.
Americans respect freedom of religion. Islam should be describes as it is, an intolerant an unenlightened, violent political ideology, which at base is anti-American. Islam is not a legitimate religion.
maghan says
If Islam is a religion then so too would be the Aztec religion. This “religion” sponsored the killing of innocents by plucking out their beating hearts with sharp knives. What about a “religion” that engages in human sacrifice? Islam advocates killing so-called “infidels”. Why? And killing apostates too. Why? A religion should be a set of beliefs and practices that enhances the human condition and attempts to come to terms with the mystery of life and the pain and suffering that encompasses it.
Ergo, Islam is not a religion. Only simple-minded fools would believe that.
Jeanette says
Islam calls to its deity to witness and approved (and probably, to reward with the allotted virgins in Paradise) while they murder innocent victims.
This is no different than a Satanist cult calling to Satan as they murder an innocent victim, but the latter is automatically labeled “human sacrifice.”
Islam also meets all of the other (aside from human sacrifice, there are about fifteen) qualifiers that are used to determine whether a group is a religion or a cult.
The problem is that most Americans have been taught since early childhood that Islam is a religion, and very few people are comfortable with changing a belief that they have held for so long.
In fact, they are SO uncomfortable that they allow genocide, crucifixion, burning people alive, rape, pedophilia, mutilation and beheading to pass with little or no comment from them, apparently hoping that the alligator will eat everyone else, but leave them alone.
davej says
Given the purposeful deception inherent in Islam one must be both careful and clear in debating the subject.
My reply would be that Islam regards itself as a religion in order to exploit that classification, but it’s condoning of the murder of unbelievers and apostates is in opposition to every established religious principle, therefore we do not accept it as a legitimate religion. Thus no tax exemptions or building of places of “worship”.
Then you only need to quote the Koranic commands to kill the unbelievers and the apostates.
simpleton1 says
It it us ! , the people ! , we the voters !, that must read and become knowledgeable about the koran, hadith, sira and sunnah.
Other wise why would we vote for Wilders, Hansen, Trump, as with that knowledge, we would then be able to ignore/overcome the msm/media, educational institutes, elites.
To then be able to discuss, debate, with each other, honing our knowledge.
This has to be spread far and wide of what islam is about.
Yes it may seem a tedious chore, time wasting; but is an essential for the future.
It is like learning another language, you actually learn more about your own language.
You will also learn more about our Western Civilization, and democracy; when you know about islam.
Then you will know what to value in your life.
So that any follower of Hansen could have stepped forward, and made some truthful quote, backing each other up, giving her a lead, making it a proper open debate.
However Hansen needs to do her home work, just a little bit every day, and a “note book”/card, of some certain points. Her party should also, even if just 5 minutes a day discussion, and now again “guest speaker” to test and widen the understanding.
And of course good sources like Hugh and Robert. 🙂 and all thanks to them, widening our understanding of future politics.
Angemon says
Why, then, change the constitution to allow banning a religion?
Jeanette says
I agree. I’m assuming that cults are at least disapproved of, if not actually banned in Australia.
Why not just relabel Islam as a cult (citing all of the accepted qualifiers that make it a cult), and then remove its protections as a religion.
There is (so far) no concern about discriminating against cults.
Arthur says
We all know situations where we wish we could’ve had a quicker come back or a detailed answer spouting the facts that we knew, but have since lost due to the myriad of other things to remember. A political leader needs, most of all, spirit and tenacity so I don’t think that Ms. Hanson need surrender her success to someone “better.” That, in a sense, buys into the ‘elitism’ which has already caused too much suffering.
Public relations and media training does exist and can help anyone deal with these sorts of questions better. An 8 hour class, for someone who has never had such training, is a huge step.
I think these Muslim questioners could have quickly been thrown off balance by responding to questions with more pointed questions:
M: “According to if you were to win the elections, what would be your reaction to people like us?”
H: “What do you mean ‘people like us’?
M: “Muslims” or “Observant Muslims” or some other such label
H: “Are all Muslims alike? Do they all hold the same views?”
M: “We all believe in the Koran and that Mohammed was his only prophet.” or some other such response
H: “Why do Sunni Muslims say that Shia Muslims are infidels? Don’t they both believe in the Koran and Mohammed?”
M: <who knows what the response is, doesn't really matter, as M will be on the defensive
H: "Can I tell by looking at you which kind of Muslim you are? Do different kinds of Muslims dress differently? Are Ahamadi Muslims in Pakistan really Muslims? Why aren't they allowed to go to Saudi Arabia for the–what is it called–Hajj?"
M:
H: “Who decides who is a real Muslim and who isn’t?”
M:
H: “I look at the Middle East and see unending violence. I look in the Koran and see it says to ‘strike the necks’ of infidels. I hear the Islamic State quote the Koran when they torture and murder people. Why is there so much violence in Muslim lands?”
M: “It’s all because of Israel.”
H: “Why did the Ottoman Caliphate murder over a million Armenian Christians?” (before Israel existed)
M:
H: “I don’t know… You haven’t convinced me at all that Islam is peaceful religion. The people who claim to follow the religion are so often violent and even quote the Koran when they do such mean, horrible things. I consider Australia my country–I’ve always lived here and have no claim to any other country. I want my country to be safe. If people want to come into my country, they should convince us Australians that they will live in peace. We don’t have to let anybody in–no one except Australians have a right to live here. But if there are peaceful people who follow Islam, just saying you follow Islam doesn’t distinguish you from the dangerous people. I think the burden of proof is on you two ladies. If you can prove to me that you are only peaceful, then fine. But when you say you believe in Islam, for me that says you might be dangerous and I don’t want to risk finding out who you really are.”
H: “You ask me what I think of people like you? I ask, ‘Who are you, really?’ Saying you are a Muslim doesn’t guarantee me you will live in peace. Look around, it’s obvious.”
No Koran quoting necessary, although certainly being able to sling out the verses accurately impresses an audience, no doubt. We should all do what we can to bring awareness to the issues and stand up for our way of life.
simpleton1 says
Arthur, Very good points.
It is practice, honing your points so that it is your own understanding, that just naturally switches on.
That is where you point out that public relations and media training come in.
Hansen has to wise up on this, and her team/staff also need to give her a daily exercise on this, in just broadening out her own understanding and thinking.
These are the points she is trying to bring up, but she has to become more polished, skilled and knowledgeable, and then her own style would be very effective, even if she has not got the answer for everything.
Jeanette says
Please alert us when this conversation takes place – I want to view THAT video and forward it to everyone I know!
Keith Lewis says
Should we not be defining what a religion is and is not so governments can more easily legislate and identify what group qualifies as a religion? It should be a persons right to discover their own ideas on belief and faith without coercion. This is not so regarding Islam under which people are given three choices. Convert to Islam, pay a jizya or lose your life. In some cases you may be offered a fourth option, leave the area and do not return. Even then many have still lost their lives even after a forced conversion.
This seems to contravene the idea of a faith because one cannot be forced to believe in something against their will or it will not be by faith.
Jeanette says
There is a list of qualifiers that is used to determine whether a group is a cult. Not all cults meet all qualifiers.
The list includes for example:
Abuse of women and children (raped, starved, and/or used as slaves).
Kidnapping of victims who are then forced into the cult.
Severe punishment of members who try to leave the cult (with Islam it is a death penalty).
Leaders allowed sexual privileges with multiple female cult members.
Severe punishment for speaking out against the cult.
And the one qualifier that most cults do not practice – human sacrifice. This is the BIGGIE. But what is calling to one’s deity – whether a moon goddess or Allah – to witness and approve the murder of an innocent victim? It’s called human sacrifice when any group other than Islam does it.
And there are another eight or ten qualifiers, all of which Islam met the last time I checked into this subject.
Jeanette says
“Leaders allowed sexual privileges with multiple female cult members.”
With Islam, these privileges are with small boys rather than with females.
Salome says
It is misleading to say they only received less than 5% of the vote. You have to understand the system. In the lower house, voting is by seats. If you don’t stand a candidate in a seat, you don’t get any votes. They didn’t stand in all seats, they still got 4 point something. In the upper house it’s either proportional or they stood in every seat (sorry, don’t know the WA system that well). They got more than 7% and in fact came second over all, behind the two major parties (Liberal and Labor). They got more than the Greens. The Australian electorate is pretty conservative (with a small c)–it tends to vote for major parties. Still, Hanson’s is not really the voice of concern I’d want raised re Islamic immigration. There are more reasonable, measured alternatives, who carry less baggage of what might be called general xenophobia (even though Hanson appears to have got beyond that) and have better policy mixes. (Hanson says she wants to mandate prenuptial agreements. Given that the same laws apply to domestic partnerships of a certain duration whether you’re married or not, one wonders why marriage (often entered into once the domestic partnership has gone on long enough to attract the same laws regarding property division) is singled out. And also, I expect that a lot would have difficulty with the idea that a planned exit vitiates intention for sacramental purposes.
Aton says
Well said.
Islam is a Protection Racket, exactly the same as al Capone’s Mob. You do its bidding, be subjugated, and pay the Jizya tax – or you are killed. That, is protection racketeering at its best.
Aton
Jeanette says
Islam is worse than Al Capone’s mob; they never (to my knowledge) crucified small children, and it is my understanding that they even had an unwritten rule that women and children were to be left out of any violence, something which cannot be said of Islam.
I think Islam is a cult very similar to Satanism (yes, I know they both claim to be religions – can we figure that out?), both complete with a massive array of atrocities, including both practicing human sacrifice.
JIMJFOX says
Discussion of religion ignores the fundamental truth that ALL religion is absurd & that privileging it is also absurd- and very offensive. “Good’ or ‘bad’ religion is an utterly spurious argument, as demonstrated by events like this–
Recently, for instance a Catholic-run home for unmarried mothers in Ireland was found to have an estimated EIGHT HUNDRED babies secretly buried on its premises. Robert is Catholic, more’s the pity.
How he accommodates the Pope’s raving lunacy re Islam is very confusing.
When religionists make excuses for the evils done in the name of their religion they are doing exactly what Islam does. Unfortunately, Islam IS a religion by global definition, in having a supernatural Creator’
/God, whatever. So the argument it’s ‘not a religion’ or a ‘bad’ religion is also spurious- they’re ALL BAD.
Jeanette says
Nothing matches Islam’s 270 million murdered and 185 million enslaved (American Thinker).
And I just saw an estimate of 600 million Indians slaughtered by Muslims, which is obviously not included in the above number. I haven’t been able to verify that yet, but if it is correct, the Muslims have murdered approaching A BILLION people since the time of Mohammed.
And no other religion has brought back crucifixion.
Point fingers anywhere you want, you won’t find anything like that anywhere but in the black abyss of Islam.
JIMJFOX says
Pauline Hanson is motivated to protect Australia from anything she sees as a threat. Once it was ‘the yellow peril’ of Asian migration; she grew up and learned a bit; but here it must be said she is not educated to any degree, yet tries hard to make an impact.
She is sincere but lacking in so many ways- being a poor public speaker not least of them. One cannot but admire her tenacity and dedication, even if bemoaning her shortcomings. Of course she is incapable of the expertise of a Spencer, Geller, Gaffney, much less an Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Brigit Gabrielle.
I will email her links to WikiIslam and koran-at-a-glance in hopes she can begin Islam 101 to be better prepared for her next encounter with the Religion of Taqiyya.
Sean says
Simple solution for Pauline Hanson is to get herself a Microsoft Surface Pro tablet with OneNote on and start building up her collection of notes. She can carry that around with her for the next time she is ambushed. Furthermore if the note collection is a comprehensive one the Muslimahs will run away because she will then end up likely knowing more than them. Actually that’s an idea perhaps Robert or Hugh would be so kind as to knock up a collection of notes and distribute it to like minded politicians around he world.
JIMJFOX says
Here’s what I sent to Pauline Hanson’s Party Office-
Comments/Enquiries
Expat retired in Thailand. I would like to help Pauline in knowledge of Islam because her recent encounter with two muslimahs in Perth left her embarrassed. She would not have time to become expert in Islamic theology or Shariah so here are two links to get her started in short order– http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com http://www.WikiIslam.com I have read the koran & some of the thousands of aHadith plus the Sunnah of the Prophet; my conclusion- Islam is many things but primarily an ideology of supremacism and world dominance. There are a great many anti-Islam sites I could quote but Pauline could not devote the thousands of hours of research to them that I can.
El Cid 2 says
To Rob:
Christianity is not an evil belief system. Simply – When Christians do wrong – it is because they go against the teachings of Christ (“Love thine enemy”).
However when Muslims do wrong it is because they follow the teachings of Mohammed (“I have been made victorious though terror”).
Profound difference.
Jeanette says
Love one another versus kill one another.
A profound difference indeed!
Kasey says
Everyone needs to realize that Islam is a deceptive, discriminatory,intolerant,possessive,violent and lethal ideology masquerading as a peacfull religion, in order to achieve World domination for its mythical god called Allah.(originally The Moon god). Until this happens, it will continue to expand its influence among naive and ignorant peoples.
Norman Moffatt says
Pauline’s heart is in the right place, unfortunately her knowledge of Islam is limited to, “It’s bad for your health” Robert Spence is right. I offered to educate her for these types of media events, her office didn’t even have the courtesy to acknowledge my letter.
dumbledoresarmy says
Send her a copy of the Barnabas Fund’s useful – and *very* soundly researched – little background-briefing booklet, “What is Sharia?”
It is SHORT, it is set out in nice simple language that busy politicians (and non-academics) can understand.
It is the sort of thing people can keep on their desk or in their handbag or back pocket, ready for reference.
Add a *brief* covering letter.
My thought is that the apostasy law needs to be foregrounded: the fact that *even in western countries* those who leave Islam *have* to look over their shoulders all the time, wondering whether the sharia assassin is coming to bump them off, as punishment for leaving the Organisation.
That’s the deal-breaker.
Any organisation that has, as part of its ‘ground rules’, the rule that people who leave it must be kiled – and that can be *shown* to be acting on those rules, in many places, *today* – is an organisation that I don’t want in my country. This or that individual Mohammedan may be – or seem to be – as nice as pie, but… they STILL belong to that Organisation, the Organisation that *kills those who leave it*.
Every Islamosavvy politician should just bone up on the apostasy law; and on the stats – and the personal testimony of *many* a brave apostate from Islam – that show just how heavily it influences contemporary mohammedan practice, both within Islamic polities and within Islamic emigre “communities” or colonies.
‘Nice’ Muslims can be asked, publicly, point blank: if your son/ daughter/ sister/ brother/ cousin *publicly* leaves Islam and declares themselves an apostate **what will you do**?? (They should be watched very closely when that question is asked; preferably, video should be taken, so it can be played back, afterwards, frame by frame, nice and slow, to look at the *body language*). Confronting them with an actual declared apostate – in certain situations – might also be … revealing.
JIMJFOX says
So I’m banned fro JW now? WTF is going on??
JIMJFOX says
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
OH, yeah!
Cuest says
Jim
You may find that if you declare a Dawkins/Hitchens/..etc. stance on this site, the reaction to some on here towards you may be similar to Muslim v Kaffir … sans beheadings and so forth. In other words you may well be treated with utter distain for your belief ….. for a site that exposes the truth, it is somewhat ironic if this is the case.
Jeanette says
I have found on a couple of other sites that there is a random checking system. Although my posts have been occasionally selected for moderation, none of them have been disallowed (even though I’m not known for being verbally delicate).
Freedom says
Hugh
You may be right to say that Senator Hanson should of done better in that instance.
But can’t we ALL do better in the things we do.
I’m sure she will try to learn more about Islam as this second phase of her career progresses.
As ill informed and ineloquent as she is Hugh, she may well have awakened a larger audience to the menace of Islam than others such as yourself who have a far more intimate knowledge of the subject.
The shortcomings you see in her that cause you to see her as ” not up to the task” —— are minor to the effect she has had on alerting people to the threat of Islam, at this stage.
SAKOVKT says
Having almost finished reading “Absolute Monarchs” a history of the Catholic Church by John Norwich, it impresses me that a lot of our ambivalence toward Islam is that we ultimately fail to realize that Catholicism, too, is political.
The legal system and the high politics of a culture fall under a higher belief in the ultimate nature of the world and life.
Even George Sorrel, a Marxist, understood the penultimate power of Mythos or a “Power Idea” that transcended politics, law and economy. Putting economy on top of the hierarchy, as progressives, liberals and Marxists do, it ultimately wrong because wherever you find people, you’ll find an economy regulated by law which is regulated by politics or policy and that operates within a transcendent faith or hope, even if its wrong. (If it is, it fails, like Communism)
Whatever Progressives, Marxists, Liberals, Nationalists, hover, think, the very politics of Western Civilization is Christian, no matter how much the Popes over the centuries may have acted. Indeed, had many of them not been the politicians that they were, the Church could easily have been extinguished. It might seem some were bigoted, superstitious or just stubborn, but in the contention of their own time, the story looks a little different. Whatever their faults, they did impose upon us, what our Culture is, today, from the days of the Roman Empire.
That is actually quite something, and something I would not be afraid of throwing back at any Progressive or Islamist.
Yeah! Christianity also has a political side to it, and it is a lot different than the political side of Islam, and the political differences extend from theological differences.
No, you can’t have two gods who are in that much disagreement!
Protestantism and Catholicism really don’t differ much in essential doctrine, so religious tolerance here, today, is fine. We’ve fought wars over that and resolved it.
We don’t need any more episodes like that and yes, it could turn into something like that.
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: One Minute and 33 Seconds, Or Pauline Hanson Ill-Prepared
…………………..
More proof that even those few of our politicians who have good instincts about the threat of Jihad–like Donald Trump and Pauline Hanson–need to know more about Islam, so that their response can be consistent.
Peggy says
Why do we even have to justify our opinions? I would much rather just have a referendum on Islam i.e should it be declassified as a religion, banned and their freeloaders deported.
Why do we have to justify ourselves to the likes of UN? As long as we are not invading anyone, how we govern ourselves is our business alone.
Look at the Islamic countries for starters. They are not justifying their actions to anyone and nobody is even questioning it. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait have no human rights for non Muslims but nobody cares and nobody is making them have it.
If we all keep separate from Muslims like they do from us would solve our problem for sure and they won’t be able to conquer us.
Havoc says
No Muslims. No Mosques. No Apologies.
.
Man up, Mr. Fitzgerald!
Scott says
Pauline Hanson’s statements and responses, are, for those who are concerned with Islam, pretty typical here in Australia.
Most on the Right, whether commentators or politicians, use the “…religion of peace hijacked by a tiny
minority who don’t understand true Islam…” line, and there are few of the stature of a Spencer, Geller or Wood to redress this.
Fifteen years and thirty thousand attacks since 9/11 and all commercial TV here do their best to not report negatively on Muslims, whilst our public-funded ABC actively suppress it. Even most talk-back radio “shock-jocks” display a disturbing ignorance.
You can count on one hand (in the media) those who are able to face reality, and most in the public are too cowed by the one-two punch of political correctness and multiculturalism.