Is Abbott a mufti? Islamic fascists unveil their hate…

It will be interesting to see whether Alison Bevege gets another chance to write about Islam or if she will go the way of Molly Norris…..

Sheik Ismail al-Wahwah outside the Hizb ut-Tahrir event in Lakemba.

Sheik Ismail al-Wahwah outside the Hizb ut-Tahrir event in Lakemba.

Alison BevegeAlison Bevege.

I WAS directed to the back of the room, far from the business of the evening. “Why must I sit at the back?” I asked, “I want to sit at the front.” I was not permitted because of a physical characteristic over which I have no control.

Like Mississippi blacks in the 1950s sent to the back of the bus for the colour of their skin, I was segregated due to my gender.

The public meeting was organised by political group Hizb ut-Tahrir to complain about Western intervention in the Middle East and ­declare a “new world order” under Islam. They forced non-Muslims into gender segregation, openly discriminating against women.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott wants to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, and has called them un-Islamic.

Sheik Ismail al-Wahwah mocked him for this.

“He’s a mufti too? He is takfir.” The word “takfir” signifies an “unbeliever” and the sheik is right — Tony Abbott is no authority on Islam.

For more than a decade governments have replaced the word “Islamist” with “terrorist” to avoid offending the religious or fuelling bigotry against innocent Muslims.

Sheik al-Wahwah said the police even asked him to wipe “blessed” from the meeting title “War to end a blessed revolution”.

Euphemisms such as “death cult”, “hate preacher” and “un-Australian” have further ­debased the dialogue.

It is contemptuous of the public to suggest they aren’t smart enough to be told the truth with accurate words — or to guess it without.

From sloppy words comes sloppy thinking. The war on “terror” is a war on Islamist fascism.

As a secular state it would not even be our business except the Islamists are here, colonising us.

Islamists want holy men to dictate what you can eat, what you can wear, and when you will be lashed or stoned to death.

They want any criticism of their political and ­religious ideology outlawed.

And they are winning.

In the 1970s, secular Muslim women in Iran could choose western clothes; in Afghanistan they attended college — freedoms now unthinkable.

In March 2007, a global group of prominent Muslims and former Muslims signed the St Petersburg ­declaration in Florida ­demanding the separation of religion from state. It called on all governments to reject Sharia law, fatwa courts and clerical rule.

Islamists Muslims want holy men to dictate what you can eat, what you can wear, and when you will be lashed or stoned to death

It was signed by people like Sharia law expert Hasan Mahmud of the Muslim Canadian Congress whose activism helped ban all faith-courts.

The St Petersburg declaration calls for Islam to be expressed as either a ­religion or a political philosophy, but not both.

By contrast Hizb ut-­Tahrir wants a caliphate with a Koranic constitution ruled by Sharia law where Muslims cannot leave.

During question time, I asked Sheik al-Wahwah what the penalty was for Muslims who no longer ­believed in Allah.

Four times I asked, but he would not answer. He did not want to publicly admit the penalty is death. People are killed for apostasy. It is a “religious crime”.

A faceless woman pressed my arm kindly with a gloved hand.

“When people join Islam, they find such peace they never want to leave,” she said.

Hizb ut-Tahrir may never openly encourage ­violence, but they are dedicated to furthering the Islamist goal. They are another political expression of the ideology that spawned IS, al-Qaeda, al-Muhajiroun and a thousand others.

When I asked the sheik why a secular country such as Australia would not want to ban his group, he brought up freedom of speech.

The point has merits; freedom is measured by views you don’t agree with. Even Hitler was in favour of views he liked.

But Hizb ut-Tahrir ­imposes a system that strips people of inalienable human rights: liberty, gender equality, freedom from religion, freedom of expression, equality for homosexuals, universal suffrage.

And Sheik al-Wahwah does not extend his concept of free speech to criticising Islam. People were murdered for “insulting Islam” over the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed and Salman Rushdie’s ­Satanic Verses.

It is not Hizb ut-Tahrir that needs banning but the ideology behind it: Islamist fascism.

The federal government should adopt the principles of the St Petersburg declaration and ban Islamist fascism without delay.

Alison Bevege is a freelance journalist who is based in Sydney.

6 thoughts on “Is Abbott a mufti? Islamic fascists unveil their hate…”

  1. For more than a decade governments have replaced the word “Islamist” with “terrorist” to avoid offending the religious or fuelling bigotry against innocent Muslims.”

    Eh! innocent Muslims ….
    – There is NO SUCH THING as an Innocent MUHAMMADAN.

    Qur’an 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 amongs th epeople of the book, until they pay the jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    ‘The Central Message of islam !’ ….
    (Ensure non-Muhammadans Either)
    – “Submit to islam, or pay the jizya with willing submission else we (Muhammadans) will kill you.”

  2. Abbott is going to shirtfront Putin but is pooping his pants over wbat to do about the Muslims imported by his political grandfather Fraser.

  3. There are a few hundred million women worldwide, especially in America, Canada, Europe and Australia, who desperately need to listen and learn from this woman.

  4. I am pleased to see that this article was published in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.

    The most important part, really, is this:

    “During question time, I asked Sheik al-Wahwah what the penalty was for Muslims who no longer ­believed in Allah.
    Four times I asked, but he would not answer. He did not want to publicly admit the penalty is death. People are killed for apostasy. It is a “religious crime”.”

    If EVERY non-Muslim got it through their heads that this really is a current and active aspect of Islam – not a dusty old fossil in books that nobody reads, not a relic of ancient history, but something that TODAY
    influences Muslim behaviour all over the world (and not only in Islamic countries, but inside EVERY Muslim colony within the non-Muslim world) toward any Muslim who decides they want to leave Islam and become an atheist or else join a different belief system, it might be game-changer. Both Samuel Zwemer’s classic “the Law of Apostasy In Islam” and ex-Muslim Patrick Sookhdeo’s update on the subject, “Freedom to Believe: Challenging Islam’s Apostasy Law” make this
    crystal clear; and the latter book needs to be read, and taken seriously, by non-Muslim law enforcement, religious leaders, and politicians – especially those responsible for making decisions about who is allowed into the country.

    After all: what sort of organisations kill you if you try to leave? Answer: organised crime syndicates, and closed death-cults. Or totalitarian states like the old Soviet union, or North Korea, that imprison their
    citizens and refuse to allow anyone to leave.

    All the puff-pieces in favour of Islam, all the nonsense and lies, all the “Open Days” with turkish coffee and baklava, cannot obscure this hard, ugly fact: Islam is the roach motel of religions, you can check in but you can’t check out…not unless you are brave enough to defy the sharia
    assassins.

    So why, why, why would we admit tens, hundreds of thousands of card-carrying proudly self-declared uniform-wearing members of *that* cult: a cult that requires the KILLING of any member who decides they want out?? That alone should be a good and sufficient reason to forbid all further entry of Muslims into Australia and to ban all further
    construction of mosques.

    And I understand that the Pew research polls show that very large numbers of Muslims, all over the world, are fully on board with the idea of “Death for Apostasy”. They may not *admit* to that, if confronted within the West; but it’s highly probable that within every mosque in
    Australia, most of the Muslims there would approve of the killing of an apostate and some would *do* it, should occasion arise. The more Muslims one has, the more “camouflage” there is for the sharia assassins who *are* there among them; and the greater will be the number of said sharia assassins.

  5. Hello there, a couple of pars got cut to fit the Telegraph as it was too long for print. They are important, here they are:

    A civil war has been raging for decades within Islam between secular Muslims and Islamist fascists.
    A Muslim adheres to the five pillars of Islam as his or her private religion.
    An Islamist uses Sharia law as a political tool to implement a supremacist theocratic state.
    So it is not “moderate” versus “extremist” – that describes degree of passion.
    It is “secular” versus “theocrat”: an important distinction.
    From sloppy words comes sloppy thinking. The war on “terror” is a war on Islamist fascism.

  6. A couple of pars were cut as it was too long for print. They are important. Here they are:

    A civil war has been raging for decades within Islam between secular Muslims and Islamist fascists.
    A Muslim adheres to the five pillars of Islam as his or her private religion.
    An Islamist uses Sharia law as a political tool to implement a supremacist theocratic state.
    So it is not “moderate” versus “extremist” – that describes degree of passion.
    It is “secular” versus “theocrat”: an important distinction.
    From sloppy words comes sloppy thinking. The war on “terror” is a war on Islamist fascism.

Comments are closed.