New Zealand: Muslim cleric removed from Federation of Islamic Associations for anti-Semitic remarks
“Dr Sahib was the secretary of one of the federation’s committees. He retains his role as the president of the Al-Taqwa mosque.”
Why? Either the Muslims of New Zealand approve of his anti-Semitic remarks, or they don’t. This reaction is equivocal.
Meanwhile, what will New Zealand authorities do when they discover that the Qur’an depicts the Jews as fabricating things and falsely ascribing them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181, 5:64); loving to listen to lies (5:41); disobeying Allah and never observing his commands (5:13); disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); and more?
“Controversial cleric stood down by Islamic Federation,” RNZ, November 23, 2016:
A Muslim cleric criticised for anti-Semitic speeches at an Auckland mosque has been permanently stood down from his role in the Federation of Islamic Associations (FIANZ).
The speeches made by Shaykh Dr Mohammed Anwar Sahib at the Al-Taqwa mosque, in Manukau, have been widely condemned, but the cleric said he had been misinterpreted.
More below the fold.
Dr Sahib was the secretary of one of the federation’s committees. He retains his role as the president of the Al-Taqwa mosque.
In a statement released this morning, FIANZ said it “vehemently opposed all teaching promoting intolerance, prejudice and discrimination against the followers of any faith”.
That’s a steaming pile of taqiyya.
The Human Rights Commission is investigating the comments and FIANZ said it would fully cooperate with the commission.
Of course they won’t.
“We thank New Zealanders for their feedback, solidarity and support,” its statement said.
The comments emerged in video footage published on the blog Whale Oil, which Dr Sahib said had been compiled from several different sermons and taken out of context.
“Out of context”, how original!
FIANZ president Hazim Arafeh said the organisation did not agree with any comments made by Dr Sahib.
Of course they agree. They are lying.
“We do have a consultation process that we go through, and then FIANZ decided that it has to distance itself from any anti-Semitic or hate speeches.”
That would be ‘unislamic’.
Dr Sahib has declined a request for an interview.
Ethnic Communities Minister Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga welcomed FIANZ’s move, saying he believed that was the right thing to do.
Gee, they are easily fobbed off, aren’t they?
New Zealand Jewish Council spokesperson David Cumin said, while it was glad FIANZ had stood down Dr Sahib from its organisation, it was worrying he was still able to preach.
The NZJC is gutless and toothless wherever they are.
“It’s still concerning that he might still be able to influence people at his mosque though and I hope he is watched closely,” Mr Cumin said.
You bet he will.
The Human Rights Commission said it had received 17 complaints about Dr Sahib and it was investigating….
Why would anyone complain about the religion of peace? Doesn’t truth stand out from error?
Here, from an informed commenter on JW:
“Associate Professor Jim Veitch, a specialist in religious affairs at Victoria University, said the comments by the cleric reflected a conservative Islam view.
He told Morning Report that the view Dr Sahib was expressing was “well-established” in the Koran, the holy book of Islam.”
But, big but, here:
“In a statement released this morning, FIANZ said it “vehemently opposed all teaching promoting intolerance, prejudice and discrimination against the followers of any faith”.”
I don’t think Professor Veitch is the bullshitter, here.
“The Human Rights Commission said it had received 17 complaints about Dr Sahib and it was investigating.”
Have any members of his “flock” ever challenged his statements/assertions on the spot?
A timely reminder of what we are dealing with:
“The issue of offensive jihad has for long been a subject of heated debate among Islamic scholars. Some scholars are of the view that Islam allows for just one form of jihad, in the sense of war—defensive jihad. Others disagree, and believe that Islam permits both defensive as well as offensive jihad, in the sense of fighting. Perhaps the latter opinion enjoys the support of the majority of the ulema. In contrast to defensive jihad, which is fought in response to the aggression of an enemy, offensive jihad allows for war to be waged against a non-Islamic country in the absence of that country having taken any steps to initiate fighting against Muslims. Advocates of the doctrine of offensive jihad claim that it is a necessary means to establish the supremacy of Islam and to destroy the power of infidelity.
“Proponents of offensive jihad consider it to be not just legitimate but even a farz-e kifayah or collective duty binding on the entire Muslim ummah. They go to the extent of arguing that such offensive war is binding on an Islamic state against even those non-Islamic countries that permit Muslims to freely practice and propagate Isl a non-Muslim state has only three options: to accept Islam, to accept Islamic supremacy and pay the Islamic state the jizya, or to be ready to accept death.
“The majority of Islamic jurists and Quranic commentators (mufasirin) consider war to be the real basis of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. They regard the infidelity [unbelief] of non-Muslims as the cause (‘illat) of such war. They believe that Muslims must engage in war with non-Muslims continuously till Islam establishes its supremacy over all other religions. Since, in actual fact, this, as Muslims believe, can only happen just before the Day of Judgment, they argue that Muslims must necessarily continue to wage war against non-Muslims till the Day of Judgment finally arrives. The opinion of Imam Shafi‘i and some other fuqaha is even more extreme in this regard—they argue that only Ahl-e Kitab or ‘People of the Book’ [Christians and Jews] can be permitted to stay alive in exchange for paying the jizya, and that all other non-Muslims must accept either Islam or death.”