“The PHAA urges the Committee to include a recommendation in its report that disavows the notion that there is any inherent link between Islam and terrorism….The Committee should condemn any politician who refers divisively (expressly or implied) to any religious or ethnic group for the purpose of political gain.”
Will the Committee also disavow those Muslims who believe that there is an inherent link between Islam and terrorism? Here are a few:
“Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” — Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30
“If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.” — Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd
“Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants
“Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.” — Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud
“Jihad, holy fighting in Allah’s course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam….By jihad, Islam is established….By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.” — Times Square car bomb terrorist Faisal Shahzad
“So step by step I became a religiously devout Muslim, Mujahid — meaning one who participates in jihad.” — Little Rock, Arkansas terrorist murderer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad
“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.” — Texas terrorist bomber Khalid Aldawsari
The PHAA would likely dismiss all these as “extremists” who are not really Muslim at all and have nothing to do with Islam. Yet one also might get the impression that there is an inherent link between Islam and terrorism from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib):
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:
The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.
All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam is indeed inherently violent. It would be illuminating if Obama or someone around him produced some quotations from Muslim authorities he considers “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly there are many Muslim who believe that authentic Islam is inherently violent.
One might also get the impression that there is an inherent link between Islam and terrorism from these Qur’an verses:
2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”
4:34: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; Allah is All-high, All-great.”
4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”
5:38: “And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah; Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.”
8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!”
8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”
8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror thereby into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”
9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”
9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not practice the religion of truth, even if they are of the People of the Book — until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”
9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”
47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”
There are some tolerant verses in the Qur’an as well — see, for example, sura 109. But then in Islamic tradition there are authorities who say that violent passages take precedence over these verses. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”
The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.
The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”
In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.
Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)
Here again, obviously there is a widespread understanding of the Qur’an within Islamic tradition that sees it, and Islam, as inherently violent. And we see Muslims who clearly understand their religion as being inherently violent acting upon that understanding around the world today, in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Israel, Nigeria and elsewhere. We can hope that those who embody the true, peaceful Islam that Obama assumes to exist come forward and work against the Muslims who believe in violence, instead of just issuing pro-forma condemnations. So far we have not seen that. On the contrary, we see reformers threatened and cowed into silence. The Moroccan activist Ahmed Assid condemned violence in Islam’s name and was immediately declared an apostate and threatened with death by Muslim clerics. If the Ahmed Assids of the world represent the true Islam that is not inherently violent, the message has not gotten through to all too many of their coreligionists.
We may hope it does someday. In the meantime, it is imperative to continue to speak about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, so as to alert all people of good will to the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and its motives and goals. This is not indulging in hateful generalizations; it is simply to speak honestly and realistically about a threat all free people face. If we cannot speak about it, it will nonetheless keep coming, and catch us unawares.
“‘Islam ISN’T linked to terrorism’: Chief doctors group makes controversial claims just days after ISIS-inspired fanatic killed 22 in Manchester,” by Max Margan, Daily Mail Australia, May 29, 2017:
An Australian doctors lobby group has dismissed the ‘inherent links’ between Islam and terrorism and is urging a powerful committee to follow suit.
The Public Health Association of Australia has called on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to ‘disavow’ the concept.
‘The PHAA urges the Committee to include a recommendation in its report that disavows the notion that there is any inherent link between Islam and terrorism,’ the submission reads.
‘The Committee should condemn any politician who refers divisively (expressly or implied) to any religious or ethnic group for the purpose of political gain.’
PHAA Chief Executive Michael Moore said there is no inherent link between any religion and acts of terror.
‘When you look at terrorism and the IRA, I don’t think many people blamed Christianity for terrorism when clearly there was an overlay,’ he told The Australian.
‘In fact there’s nothing inherent in Christianity that links to terrorism.
‘Intolerable behaviour is intolerable behaviour and… because individuals might frame that around Islam doesn’t mean we should accept that.’…
eur says
we`re fucked.
mortimer says
HERE IS THE LINK BETWEEN ISLAM AND TERRORISM:
“TURHIBUNNA” (terrorise them) Koran 8.60
eur says
Al-Fātiḥa ,
Could be the equivalent of “our Father”, Muslims recite it 10 times each day. In that sura of the Koran in verses 6 and 7 they remember Jews (deserving of the wrath of Allah) and the Christians (the misguided) ….
At least twenty times a day Muslims have Christians and Jews present to show their contempt for them. That’s the way they pray .. hating.
In Salafist mosques they do not disguise, they directly speak of hating and destroying Christians and Jews, without metaphors.
Guest says
But look at the Daily Mail comments section: Australians aren’t buying it.
Morton Doodslag says
So, Islam is now “Voldemort”, and cannot be named…
gravenimage says
Spot on, Morton. *Exactly* the same thing.
Rob says
It would appear so. Guess it’s those damn Eskimos blowing up everybody, cutting off heads, raping non-Eskimo girls, stoning people for defaming the Northern Lights, stabbing and bombing folks for drawing pictures of reindeer…. Yup, it’s got to be those pesky Eskimos. (Apologies to all Eskimo people.)
Jaladhi says
The basic truth is Islam is terrorism – a religion of terror and its followers worshipping the terror war lord as their god! So the white elephant of “inherent link” between Islam and terror is all over but blind men of the West can’t seen it!
simpleton1 says
Another high up guy in the Aussie system
Australian Security Intelligience Organisation,ASIO boss Duncan Lewis made a startling claim yesterday as he apparently tried to make One Nation leader Pauline Hanson look silly.
Instead, Lewis has made himself seem dangerously blind with this staggering claim:
“I have absolutely no evidence to suggest there is a connection between refugees and terrorism”.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/05/26/asio-slaps-down-hansons-claim-link-between-terrorism-and-refugees
JAR says
Virtue signalling from these imitation imams. Why can’t they lobby on medical policy instead? Just because there are “links between” this and that in the health profession, does not mean the doctors are also qualified to find links elsewhere.
Obviously in their individual practices they have not yet had to deal with so much trauma and injury from Ramadan Bombathons. One can only hope that reality will lobby their hearts and minds before it is too late Down Under. This post from Robert would be a good medical bulletin for them to start with in their continuing education. Then maybe they might be slightly more qualified to make any pronouncements.
Marko says
Well said JAR.
I believe “Dr Moore” is not a medical doctor though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore_(Australian_politician).
Our AMA (the real doctors’ group) are pathetically weak on these issues, but not quite to that level yet!
john spielman says
this twit, and his M deity co -twits should stick to Public Health issues : influenza HIV Ebola, and leave islam to the scholars like Robert Spencer!
simpleton1 says
It’s all about human rights and UN recommendations, as many islamic countries are on those committees, and so are pushing their version of Cairo Human Rights.
So it can be expressed as ‘freedom of religion’ and so islam takes shelter there.
mccode says
PHAA Chief Executive Michael Moore said there is no inherent link between any religion and acts of terror.
Actually, there seems to be no inherent link between PHAA Chief Executive Michael Moore and reality.
ByGeorge says
No “inherent link between Islam and terrorism”… Sorry you idiot’s, it’s the only link. Wake up, they will kill you because you are not one of them. Read their damn book.
mortimer says
Danish researcher Tina Magaard, Ph.D. concluded that Islam is the most warlike religion. After three years analyzing the original texts of ten different religions, Tina Magaard concluded that the Islamic texts stand out by encouraging terror and violence to a larger degree than other religions do. She stated that ‘Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions. The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.’
“What is striking is not in itself that one can find murderous passages in the Islamic texts, as such passages can also be found in other religions. But it is striking how much space these passages take up in the Islamic texts, and how much they focus on an us-and-them logic in which infidels and apostates are characterized as dirty, rotten, criminal, hypocritical and dangerous. It is also striking how much these texts demand that the reader fight the infidels, both with words and with the sword. In many passages, Muhammad plays a central role as one who encourages the use of violence, whether it comes to stonings, beheadings, acts of war or execution of critics and poets.”
Tina Magaard finds it particularly objectionable that so many Islamic scholars in her opinion knowingly fail to disclose these facts, and use their positions of power to create specific standards for what you can say. Often, they also blame Danish racism rather than objectively stating that extremists actually find justifications for using violence and threats in Islam’s holy scriptures.
Rob says
Wow…a PHD and a Dane who actually operates with mind and eyes open to reality! (I always wanted to visit Denmark but now think that I would be safer in Chicago, New York or Los Angeles.)
gravenimage says
Yes–good stuff from Tina Magaard. Thanks, Mortimer.
simpleton1 says
Not an Australian this time, that says do not point the finger at islam
Chris Patten, a minister in Margaret Thatcher’s government and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is chancellor of the University of Oxford.
As one of the comments was just how did the North Vietnamese prevail against the greatest and many of the democratic countries? Some lost cause ! ! ?
Dave says
2 + 2 = 5; Realty doesn’t matter anymore, its all about the narrative, control the narrative or even just the terms of the debate and can you often win. You can plot on a graph the percentage or Muslims in the population and the frequency of terrorist acts (2+2=4). So the debate is staged between those who are nice and warm towards Islam and those mean conservatives that call everyone names. For many people in the middle not curious enough to educated themselves its a simple choice (2+2=5).
For conservatives the debate needs to include counter narratives not just logic, facts and historical references… “for the children”,”for the kids”, “for safety” or similar needs to be part of every discussion.
It the Drs know nothing about Islam /. They are however trusted in the community, they are abusing that trust and so are putting the community at risk; just for example.
Rob says
Dave, for Western people alive today, it really is “for the kids”. The decisions we make today, the way we do or don’t accept reality, what we are willing to risk and what we are willing to defend, these things all frame the world that our children and our children’s children will have to live in. I think most of us are willing to see our children live peacefully with others but are not willing for our children to have to live in servitude and worship a satanic figure.
Halal Bacon says
Why try to prove something if it doesn’t exist?
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Hey, these guys are scientists. Medical scientists. Looks like they didn’t include an epidemiologist, which might’ve been handy.
Trofim Lysenko would be proud of this report.
gravenimage says
Brilliant reference to Trofim Lysenko, APF.
John A. Marre says
In other words, all you normal people who see the link are now going to be arrested and thrown in jail. Meanwhile, the people who know there is a link are going to continue murdering normal people.
Monty says
I live in Australia. I’ve never heard of this crowd. It’s the standard line though. Like most western style democracies, the lies and deceptions go on and on. Our leaders claim that Islam is peaceful then point to the Ahmadi as the example. Most Muslims reject the Ahmadi! For sure the Ahmadi are not aggressive but they do not represent the real Islam. I love how our politicians make “Churchillian” statements then refuse point blank to face up to the real problem. Churchill knew how to fight. Our leaders fight their own citizens and protect the invaders.
simpleton1 says
“Most Muslims reject the Ahmadi!” and you are quite right.
I am reasonably sure you will find, if you check out certain mosques websites in Australia, that they do not recognize Ahmadiyya.
Though I do consider that Ahmadiyya do dirty the waters in covering for all of islam, and often not stating what they are Ahmadiyya.
This needs to be pointed out much more too, and where Ahmadiyya mosques and congregations have been bombed and persecuted, as an example of muslim terror.
gravenimage says
Another important point–even the Ahmadi do not reject brutal Shari’ah–just waging Jihad to impose it. They would still be stoning women in the streets if they can get enough votes.
simpleton1 says
Seems like this later outburst, is another form of numbing pushback, against the feared “backlash”
The Brennan Law Center in its 2011 report, http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/rethinking-radicalization
I think that this is continuation of hiding the effects of islam, and even more islam is good for you, as there is simply not enough, so that is why we have problems.
Another way of covering this massive muslim immigration, and of course the ‘terror attacks’.
Monty says
And in response to Chris Patten, democracy is already defeated. It was not the terrorists who defeated democracy. It was the politicians who came to power on the false pretence of representing the people. It was legal systems that allowed Muslims to get away with serious crimes, police forces that refused to act against Muslims and the illiberal left who do their best to silence anyone who would contradict their extreme arrogance. Our very own Duncan Lewis, who all people should know better, obediently toes the official line. So far Australia has mostly been spared the terrible incidents that have plagued other countries. Many plots have been uncovered and thwarted. We appreciate that greatly. But we are headed for the same fate as other nations because we deal with the issues the same way – that is, we ignore the real problem.
gravenimage says
The abuse of democracy does not prove democracy to be a failure.
Pong says
“So far Australia has mostly been spared the terrible incidents that have plagued other countries”.
It isn’t because we are lucky or because our moslems are more peaceful.
In many cases it is due to the excellent work of our security forces and police, especially the state police. Most failed plots are not reported in the media and most of the terrorist activities are not known by the media.
Also, Australians are not as deeply brainwashed like the Europeans and we don’t have negro population, from which islam gets the bulk of converts in America.
gravenimage says
And there *have* been some ugly incidents of Jihad violence in Australia–just look at the siege of the Lindt Café in Sydney.
Diane Harvey says
“The Committee should condemn any politician who refers divisively (expressly or implied) to any religious or ethnic group for the purpose of political gain.’”
But, but, what if said politician made the reference (using for example Robert’s express Islamic sources) for the purpose of leading, of educating? Would that be okay for this AUS doctor group?
simpleton1 says
First it was a question of what was Mohammad’s desire for a young girl Aisha, if it was not pedophilia.
Could a charge like that be made in Australia?
It was done in Austria against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.
The prosecution won the first round by changing the original charge to “Denigrating the teachings of a legally recognized religion”. and she was fined, and despite many appeals through courts,
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Sabaditsch-Wolff
First goes the truth, then your freedom.
Jack Diamond says
Muhammad most certainly declared war on non-Muslim unbelievers. As to how Muhammad “fought” in those battles he launched, it was usually leading from the rear, wearing two coats of armor, surrounded by bodyguards. He was good at convincing others to die for him though, and likewise to assassinate his “enemies”–i.e. poets who mocked him, those who tried to defend themselves from him.
The Times Square bomber’s statement doesn’t originate with him. It comes from a footnote regarding 2:190 in the official Saudi “Noble Qur’an” Hilali-Khan tr.
“Al-Jihad (holy fighting) in Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior, . . . and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.”
Jack Diamond says
Muhammad’s own two coats of armor (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 560), as opposed to:
[Auf bin Harith asked] “O Allah’s apostle, what makes Allah laugh with joy at his servant?” He answered, “When he plunges into the midst of the enemy without mail.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 445, Ibn Kathir v.2 p.272)
Auf drew off the mail-coat that was on him and threw it away: then he seized his sword and fought the enemy till he was slain. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 445, Ibn Kathir v.2 p.272)
Norger says
Completely irresponsible to make the blanket assertion that “Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.” One wonders if this group undertook any analysis of the factual/theological view that Islam has a great deal to do with terrorism (indeed Islam causes terrorism) or if this is just wishful thinking; e.g. this group simply can’t deal with the consequences of a direct correlation between Islam and terrorism,
WPM says
Its like water has nothing to do with wet!
Tom says
These appeasers and cowards have always been in our societies. Prior to this current generation, they would have been kept in the shadows and ignored or run out of town. Unfortunately the generation of today are so brainwashed by communism and political correctness that they make heroes of the scum that appease and capitulate to an ideology that will eventually kill all of them.
As Churchill so aptly put it “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”. There in a nutshell are our politicians and the generation of snowflakes we have today.
gravenimage says
Actually, early on there were lots of people intent on appeasing Fascism. Warners like Churchill were castigated as “hysterics”–or, even more grotesquely, as “warmongers”.
Mockingjay says
“An Australian doctors lobby group has dismissed the ‘inherent links’ between Islam and terrorism…”
My God. More proof of the arrogance and ignorance of medical doctors, who so very often don’t know what they are talking about – whether it be the (true) causes of ilnesses…or those of islamic terrorism.
Pong says
PHAA has very few if any real doctors as the members. This is an union of people, who couldn’t make it in the medical profession. Those people are very hostile to doctors due to envy.
Schrödinger says
In any nation, the medical profession is amongst those rightly held in the highest esteem, one whose entry and ongoing membership requires the highest level of scholastic and tertiary educational achievement and a continuing professional application.
However Dhimmitude has spread far and wide. It even afflicts, evidently quite severely, the psychological health of many of the Australian medical profession’s elite.
A quick word search of any digital edition of the Noble Koran will, in under a second, reveal no fewer than twenty references to the word TERROR, including at least five which unequivocally command, in no uncertain terms, that the muslim get on with it and terrorise (and butcher and behead in some instances) the non muslim unbeliever.
Many Down Under doctors require urgent psychiatric assistance — however it would do them little good to see a doctor. In fact it will likely only exacerbate their preexisting condition. The remedy lies in purchasing and reading their own copy of the Glorious Koran and becoming regular readers of a counter jihad site such as Jihad Watch. Then, and not just by way of atonement, dispensing an accurate prescription as to the truth about islam.
Rasmussen says
So , by the same logic , no inherent link between alcohol and alcoholism …..?
Matthieu Baudin says
An oversupply of PC adherents who are too lazy and fixed in their attitudes to investigate the subject matter about which they are all too ready to make pronouncements and recommendations.
gravenimage says
Public Health Association of Australia: No “inherent link between Islam and terrorism”
………………………….
More willful ignorance from those who should know better. *Ugh*.
sidney penny says
Note the name!.
Michael More Lies
He has now gone to Australia to spread his lies!
PHAA Chief Executive Michael Moore said there is no inherent link between any religion and acts of terror.
Yoda Dunbar says
Not speaking for me and the missus, we know who and what they are, Islam leads to death and destruction, as they say, Not all Muslims are terrorists, BUT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS
Should send these morons to the ME for a yr or spend some time in ISrael facing what they do every day
Fools abound these days
Jake says
Public health officials have one very important currency to exchange and that is public trust. Without this trust, they are not likely to be effective with their mission. They have now violated that trust.
Pong says
In Australia, if you ask 1000 doctors about PHAA, 999 of them would have no idea about it. I think it is some sort of an union of public health employees. Most doctors in australia are conservatives in their political views.
Frank Courtney says
This idiot should realise that Islam is the greatest danger to public health in Australia.
Pong says
Unfortunately, because of shortage of doctors in Australia, especially in the rural areas, the standards for foreign educated doctors have been dropped and that allowed doctors from moslem countries to enter the workforce. They have brought into medical practice scandals we had never have before, especially fraud and sexual misconduct.
The statement from PHAA looks like a desperate attempt to recruit moslem doctors as members, as Australian and European graduates are not interested to join PHAA.
Interestingly, though on anecdotal evidence, I find professional level of christian doctors from moslem countries is much better then one of the moslems doctors. I think it parallels situation with the Jewish doctors outside Israel.
Yoda Dunbar says
Pong
Daughter had a fusion a few yrs ago in Perth, after surgery when they wheeled her back it was a damned Middle Eastern nurse, he banged the bed twice pretty hard, I told him to be careful, “scornful look” next day another damned Muslim nurse came in to put the feet wraps on and he was as rough as the other mongrel, told him to leave it and I would do it. Could see they hated a Western Woman
Son Inlaw works at a College for training nurses as a Lab tech, he comes across these blokes all the time,
He said they disrespect all the other Women trainees, refuse to do certain tasks as it is “Women only work”
Nothing good comes from these people
dumbledoresarmy says
I would NOT want a Muslim ‘nurse’. Especially, as a woman, I would not want a *male* Muslim ‘nurse’. I would be very, very worried that he would misuse his many, many opportunities to cause harm to Infidel patients – especially the females.
gravenimage says
Scary stuff. Allowing Muslims to infiltrate the medical profession is madness.
Sarah says
Could that Michael Moore character look any more like a Greenie?
Jesus, he speaks like a rabid Greenie, he behaves like a rabid Greenie – he even looks the perfect part. The coward is a pure, classic Australian Greens Party member and representative.
His words mean nothing to me. His words are worthless to me. He can stutter on all he likes about his inherent superiority – superiority that he so clearly believes in – but I don’t have to listen, nor do I have to respect it or him.
He’ll be one of the first, lined up, on his knees to have his head chopped off by the sadistic savage’s he’s so desperate to welcome into our nation. No doubt, he will be begging them to save him, at his last moment, completely incapable of comprehending that he bought this fate upon himself – and upon all of us.
Traitor.
Dave de la Rond says
Why should we be surprised with yet another group claiming that Islam has nothing to do with murder and violence.The UN+ UNESCO have become cesspools of Islamic hate and Left wing Dictators.This week a committee of the UN human rights council meets again to condemn Israel.Chairing this committee is the representative of the bloodthirsty Islamic state of Syria.
Stuart Browning says
What is the Public Health Association of Australia?
There is no such government body.
I’m now 66 yr old teacher of Politics, History and Economics, I’ve never heard of such an organisation.
If such an association exists, I suggest it is a newly formed Islamic association designed with the goal of promoting Islam by lying and misinformation.
Yoda Dunbar says
Stuart Browning says
something sure smells rotten here, too many damned Islamic groups in OZ, and they get financed by our taxes
gravenimage says
It does exist:
https://www.phaa.net.au/
I have no idea how prestigious it is, though.
Brian Ozzy says
It is almost laughably sad that this mob of morons should make statements of any sort on something they are obviously totally ignorant of but it is frightening when the head of ASIO, our National Intelligence Agency opens his dhimmi gob and makes an inane comment that there’s “no evidence” of a connection between refugees and terrorism”. Is he just totally inept, incompetent and downright stupid or is he being financed by Saudi Arabia or Yemen to spread the lie? There has been almost 31,000 muslim terrorist attacks since 9/11 now but the idiot Governments keep telling us still that “islam is a religion of peace”. For those that follow islam’s depredations around the world it is quite obvious that so called refugees are causing chaos and deaths in most countries along with their incessant whining demands and claims of eternal victimhood. God help us that we are surrounded by these treacherous and treasonous so called leaders!
Rob says
There’s none so blind as those who WILL not see.
Lydia says
No end to the “opposite-speak”!
The link is in the quran, you idiots!
I can’t take any more ignorance from these fools!!!
( ) :
Pull your heads out of the sand while it’s still attached to your bodies!