“Travesty of Justice”, Part 2

Australia’s Muslim Leaders Reject the Law of the Kafir, Which They Are Obliged to Replace With the Shari’a, Allah’s Law

An Update from yesterdays article: “Travesty of Justice” Downunder

SYDNEY’S Muslim community leaders last night condemned authorities over the conviction of five men under terrorism laws, describing their sentencing as a “travesty of justice”.

Westerners are conditioned to seek conflict resolution, the Muslim instead seeks confrontation in order to take his agenda one step further. Muslims don’t invade the dar-ul-harb to become like us, they come to make us Islamic.

Islam is unique among things calling themselves religions because it allows the use of violence, coercion and deceit to spread itself and to take control over other beliefs and systems. Islam recognizes no other authority on Earth. It’s actually a supremacist system which asserts that Muslims should rule over all other peoples by force if necessary. Islam lays claim to the whole of the earth as a gift from Allah to the ummah ( the nation of Islam). Jihad [holy fighting to further Allah’s agenda on earth] is compulsory for believing Muslims. Because of this,  citizens who practice the whole of Islam are treasonous and those preaching Islam in its entirety are seditious.

Examples of Islamic supremacy:

Melbourne cleric Abdul Nacer Ben Brika: “This is a big problem. There are two laws — there is an Australian law and there is an Islamic law.”

Melbourne’s Sheik Mohammad Omran: “We believe we have more rights than you because we choose Australia to be our country and you didn’t.”

Khaled Cheikho, now on terrorism charges in Sydney: “Sharia law is gonna prevail through this land, it’s gonna be ruled by it, you tell Howard this.”

Crooks & Thugs or “Religious Leaders?”

Kafir law doesn’t apply to Muslims:


Non-Muslims have been granted the freedom to stay outside the Islamic fold and to cling to their false, man-made ways if they so wish. They have, however, absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.

(Maudidi’s commentary on Sura 9:29, in Towards understanding the Qur’an.

“Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam does not look for a nation to be in better condition than another nation. Islam does not care about the land or or who owns the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power that gets in the way of that goal, islam will fight and destroy. In order to fulfill that goal , Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is jihad.”

Muslims are the legitimate owners and rulers of all infidel lands

When the Islamists migrate to an infidel land, they do not enter a foreign land. They are actually occupying a land which Allah has reserved for them. Any Islamist will tell that the entire earth belongs to Allah. Therefore, every Muslim has the inalienable right to move to an infidel land and occupy it for the sake of Allah. Let us read these few verses from the Qur’an.

Allah grabs the land of the unbelievers…28:58

Sovereignty belongs to Allah (the basis of an Islamic state). He forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He wills…48:14
Islamic religious freedom means the right to terrorise the Kafirs, Allah has sent terror in the hearts of the unbelievers…59:13  Ibn Kathir even goes to the extent to declare that the unbelievers fear Muslims more than they fear Allah.

Andrew Bolt:

Jailing terrorists is just picking on Muslims

It’s a worry that five convicted terrorists have so many supporters and community “leaders” keen to see them as martyrs for their faith:

SYDNEY’S Muslim community leaders last night condemned authorities over the conviction of five men under terrorism laws, describing their sentencing as a “travesty of justice”.

Senior Muslim figures, including 10 imams and 20 community leaders, met privately at Lakemba Mosque before releasing a statement to The Australian late last night demanding police produce the evidence proving the criminal “intentions” of the men.

“Until we see the real evidence, we believe that the reason for the arrests and convictions is that these young men expressed or hold opinions that contradict Australia’s foreign policy towards majority Muslim countries,” the statement said….

Outside the mosque after the meeting, a group of young men pumped their fists in the air and accused ASIO of being “dogs”…

The meeting was attended by Taj Din al-Hilali, formerly Australia’s most senior cleric.

Fitzgerald’s Prayer comes to mind:

Stop, for god’s sake stop, importing trouble—and Muslim immigrants, as a whole, necessarily mean trouble, in all lands where the political and legal institutions, and social arrangements, are flatly contradicted by the Shari’a.

Muslims are obligated to change or tear down those institutions, in order to remove all “obstacles to Islam.” It is not special or individual malice that prompts that attitude. That is their duty, a central duty. Why not come to fully and soberly understand that duty, and out of a minimal sense of self-preservation, cease to import those into our lands (America, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and every other place that has so generously admitted, under a twisted definitiion of “refugees,” people who do not, and can not, wish our ways or institutions or constitutions well.

There is scarcely a single non-Muslim inhabitant of England, France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain, or any other country in Western Europe who, knowing what he now knows, or perceives, would not, if he could rewind the clock, undo the policy of permitting large-scale — or even small-scale — immigration by Muslims, and almost all, if not all, of such inhabitants would gladly, if they could, have halted all Muslim immigration altogether. It has become a permanent security nightmare, and a permanent threat to the legal and political institutions, and social arrangements, everywhere accepted in the Western world. That large-scale Muslim presence has required tens of billions of dollars to be spent, now and forevermore, on monitoring of Muslim populations and guarding airports, train stations, subway stations, bus terminals, airplanes and trains and busses, ports, government buildings, churches and synagogues, all identifiably Jewish institutions including day-schools, all the most important Christian sites (such as the Vatican), museums (whose contents offend Muslim sensibilities)and much more. Every country in the West has developed institutions, laws, has permitted the free inquiry that permits the enterprisee of science, has created conditions for the creation of works of art, none of which, and not for one minute, could have been created by Muslims or under Islamic rule.

And everywhere in the Lands of the Infidels the large-scale presence of Muslims has created a situation of much greater unpleasantness, expense, and physical insecurity than would exist without such a presence. That no one in Western Europe now denies; the quarrel is over what can or should be done about that.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2006

In light of the above, shouldn’t we, the people, ask our elected leaders to rethink the policy of Mohammedan immigration, shouldn’t we ask that the welfare, housing, childcare, medical benefits which are extended to Muslims and received without gratitude, those Muslims who believe all this and more to be their rightful due, their birthright, something the infidel ows them (Jiziyah) while they demand and demand? Do we not have a right that these benefits be withheld and the insurgency reversed?

Has any western nation ever had a survey as to the benefits of Mohammedan infiltration? If not, why not?

Why do we allow people to infiltrate our countries who are our sworn enemies, who hate us and our political system, our ‘man-made’ laws which they want to replace with the Sharia?

Why are our elected leaders so unwilling and unable to arrest and deport hate-preachers, subversives who openly preach Jihad, who openly declare that they will ‘outbreed us and will ’ship us out’ as soon as they have critical mass? People who spent all their time plotting and planning terror against us while abusing our generosity?

We have a right to ask these questions! These issues must be addressed and acted upon. Failure to act will lead to major upheavals, perversion of our judicial system, the systematic suppression of free speech and expression. It has already started and it is getting worse by the day.

Looks like we are in for another out break of Offended Muslim Syndrome, symptoms of wich are:

* Irritability, agitation, anxiety at the sight of women who are not fully covered
* Prolonged rage or unexplained killing sprees
* Significant changes in immigration patterns
* Brooding about the past glory of the Caliphate
* Decreased effectiveness and minimal work productivity
* Difficulty in understanding new information without a trial lawyer
* Feelings of despair or hopelessness about the existence of Israel
* Recurring thoughts of death to the infidels


“The chief weapon in the quiver of all Islamist expansionist movements, is the absolute necessity to keep victims largely unaware of the actual theology plotting their demise. To complete this deception, a large body of ‘moderates’ continue to spew such ridiculous claims as “Islam means Peace” thereby keeping non-Muslims from actually reading the Qur’an, the Sira, the Hadith, or actually looking into the past 1400 years of history. Islamists also deny or dismiss the concept of ‘abrogation’, which is the universal intra-Islamic method of replacing slightly more tolerable aspects of the religion in favor of more violent demands for Muslims to slay and subdue infidels”

“We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”

—Hussein Massawi, the former Hezbollah leader behind the slaughter of U.S. and French forces 20 years ago.

“Allah revealed Islam in order that humanity could be governed according to it. Unbelief is darkness and disorder. So the unbelievers, if they are not suppressed, create disorder. That is why the muslims are responsible for the implementation of allah’s Law on the planet, that humanity may be governed by it, as opposed to corrupt man-made laws. The muslims must make all efforts to establish the religion of allah on the earth”

—Muhammad ‘Abdus Salam Faraj, “Jihad: The Absent Obligation”, p43.

“Soon we will take power in this country. Those who criticize us now, will regret it. They will have to serve us. Prepare, for the hour is near.”

— Belgium-based imam in 1994. “De Morgen”, Oct. 5, 1994. Cited in Koenraad Elst, “The Rushdie Rules”, Middle East Quarterly, June 1998.

“The quran should be America’s highest authority”. islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant.”
— Omar Ahmad, CAIR’s (Council on American-Islamic Relations) chairman of the board.

“I would like to see the islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world,”

— Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, (former leader of the extremist Al-Muhajiroun movement in Britain) in an interview with Reuters.

“I want to see the U.S become an islamic nation.” —-Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR.

What is it in these clear statements of intent that Western people find so hard to comprehend and come to terms with?

Unveiling the truth behind Shariah

Ex Muslim Salim Mansur:

Let’s revise the famous opening sentence of Marx and Engel’s Communist Manifesto to state there is a real peril, instead of a spectre, haunting the West — the peril of acquiescing to the Shariah-based demands of the Islamists.

At the top of the Islamist demands is to make defamation of religion a punishable offence. Since Judaism and Christianity are open to criticism, even ridicule in free and secular societies of the West, such a demand is to make an exception for Islam.

The trial of Geert Wilders in Amsterdam for offending Muslims indicates the extent to which Holland, one of the most open European countries, has tilted in the direction of becoming a “Shariah-compliant” society.

Holland is not alone in this effort to appease the Islamists. Across the West, a chill has fallen over the fundamental right to think and speak freely about Islam like any other subject of public interest.

The not-so-curious fact that the mainstream media remains silent by not exposing the travesty in bringing Wilders to court for expressing his thoughts on Islam — it also remained silent by not publishing the Danish cartoons that incited a large number of Muslims around the world to rage and commit acts of violence — is proof of how great is the peril of western societies conceding de facto or de jure to Islamist demands for Shariahbased rulings.

There is terrible irony in this. Muslims remain the first victims of a Shariah-governed society, and the imposition of Shariah is the primary cause of the contemporary retardation of Muslim countries.

But the Islamists have succeeded in making the argument that the faith in, and the practice of, Islam is confined by the Shariah, and anything outside of it is non-Islam.

This argument deliberately obscures the fact that the Shariah is a legal system devised under Arab supremacy during the last three centuries of the first millennium and it was based on a reading of the Qur’an that reflected the prejudices of that age in history.

The Shariah is not merely outdated, it is mostly redundant for any Muslim society straining to be relevant to the demands of the modern age of science and democracy.

Muslims struggling for democracy and freedom understand best that Islam cannot be reduced to the Shariah, and their progress demands the eventual abolition of the Shariah.

Mohamed Charfi, professor emeritus in the law faculty in Tunis and a former education minister in Tunisia writing as a modern Muslim, explains how the Shariah is contextually bound to the thinking of the ancient and medieval world and, consequently, resistant to any reform.

Charfiwrites the Shariah or “Muslim law is based on three fundamental inequalities: The superiority of men over women, of Muslims over non-Muslims, and of free persons over slaves.

It recognizes the maximum advantages in the case of a free and rich Muslim male, and the fewest rights in the case of a non- Muslim female slave … Muslim law is therefore fundamentally discriminatory.”

Hence any Shariah compliance by the West undermines the struggle of Muslims for reform of their societies and defeat of the Islamists.

And placing any constraint on freedom of speech means in effect colluding with the Islamists.


3 thoughts on ““Travesty of Justice”, Part 2”

  1. >>”Crooks & Thugs or “Religious Leaders?””<<

    Worse–they're irreversibly irrational and violent because of inbreeding. Being nice won't change the genetics of a hyena.

  2. There was an interesting article in the weekend’s Australian by Sally Neighbour under the heading “Small hope of rehab for addicts to extremism” and quotes Soliman Gilany, an Imam from Bathurst mosque:

    “In sentencing the Sydney terror cell last Monday, Whealy concluded that the five terrorists had little or no prospect of rehabilitation. However Gilany is more optimistic. He says that during the three hours he spent talking to the three men, he succeeded in persuading them that the laws of Islam forbid Muslims who constitute a minority– as they do in Australia-from taking up arms or fighting against the society in which they live”.

    Say what?

Comments are closed.