Islamic Da’awa doctors & Social workers unite for Kumbayah-event in Victoria

Muslims challenge prejudice
Darren Parkin from the Herald Sun
February 23, 2007

SICK of negative stereotypes in the wake of September 11, the Islamic community is striking back.

* Striking back? I’m shaking in my sandals!

Muslims want to project a realistic image of their lives and distance themselves from controversial figures like Sydney sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilaly.
To do so, the Islamic Council of Victoria has joined forces with a federal agency to promote positive images of ordinary Muslims.

And a dinner will be held in Melbourne tonight to celebrate Muslims’ contribution to Australia.

* Ahhh! Another couscous event with steaming piles of taqiyyah! That could be interesting!

Islamic Council project manager Neil Aykan said yesterday the campaign would highlight Muslims in their daily work, interacting with colleagues.

“There are a lot of high-profile figures such as the Sydney sheik who tend to constantly get media attention, which is unfortunate but a fact of life,” Mr Aykan said.

“The media seems to focus on controversial and provocative figures rather than real people, and these are the real people.”

* Right. Don’t blame the sheik. Blame the media, right on!

* These ‘real people haven’t sacked the sheik. They support him.

Organised with the federal Department of Family Services and Indigenous Affairs, the program will recognise Muslims and non-Muslims who have contributed to social cohesion and integration.

More than 30 awards will be presented under the government-funded Bringing Communities Together program.

* What a waste of taxpayers money!

“It’s all about sharing our achievements, because we are all one country, and one society,” Mr Aykan said.

* Would be very interesting to know what kind of ‘achievements’ they are. Like breeding faster than the rest of Australia while on the dole? One country, one society?

* Last time I checked Islam divided the world into believers and unbelievers. * But there’s more:

“It’s about bringing communities together.”

Two examples of Muslim young achievers are Sherene Hassan and Bachar Houli. Ms Hassan is a cross-cultural trainer who has made more than 400 presentations about Islam since 2001.
The mother of four eagerly awaits the day when Muslims represent Australian sporting sides internationally.

* Because its all about Islam. Nothing but Islam, whatever it takes…

* Another da’awa doctor proselytizing for Islam. Just what we need. 400 presentations about Islam. ‘Sensitivity training’- quite an achievement.

* Concerned citizens should unite to make an end to this spook and make sure no more taxpayers money is wasted for Islamic da’wa.

4 thoughts on “Islamic Da’awa doctors & Social workers unite for Kumbayah-event in Victoria”

  1. Oh brother-these Muslims never stop trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. I also see the waste of tax money.

    No wonder I love the Internet-I see how much the US has in common with other nations regarding Islamania. Islamaniacs and cockroaches-the univesral vermin.

  2. For Hakan of Dandenong:

    Here is a rather quickly-prepared response to that apologist (below mentioned as “A”) which you quoted above:

    A:“The Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes that defensive war—fighting to protect oneself against invading enemies—is the only kind of combat sanctioned (2:190 – 191).”

    Here is a rebuttal of the general “defensive jihad” claim.

    The Quran does not say what the apologist is saying about 2:190-191. He is adding his own words. The Koran’s 9:29 refers to an aggressive raid on Tabuk. Verse 33:27 says Muslims will inherit a land upon which they had not yet trodden (and commentators say this is probably in reference to the attack on Khaybar—another aggressive raid by Muhammad to capture land and booty and women…in the raid Muhammad himself took 17-year-old Safiya for his “wife,” consumating the marriage and ordering the torture and beheading of her husband (in trying and extract the location of buried treasure). The rest of the women were distributed among the Muslims. Some of the Jews (these were farmers) were permitted to stay if they gave half of everything to Muhammad and the Muslims.

    A:“In numerous other examples, it teaches that the use of force should be a last resort (2:192, 4:90);”

    The verses do not say anything about last resort and 4:90 is regarded abrogated by 9:5 according to major tafsirs such as Ibn Kathir and al-Jalalayn.

    A:“that normal relations between peoples, nations and states, whether Muslim or not, should be peaceful (49:13);”

    A:“Peace” in Islamic terms means something entirely different than the western notion of peace. “Normal relations” in Islam means the Muslims are on top and everyone else is subjugated, enslaved, or dead (9:5, 9:29-9:33). Please see this re “peace”

    A:“that necessary wars must be limited in time and space (2:190)”

    The verse simply doesn’t say that. He is adding lots of wishful-thinking interpretation to it.

    A: “that maximum effort must be applied at all times to advance the cause of peace (10:25)”

    The verse doesn’t say that and the passage goes on to condemn disbelievers (non-Muslims) to punishment, hell-fires, etc. 10:27.

    A:“that whatever means are undertaken to work for peace during a conflict (such as mediation and arbitration) must be attempted over and over again until resolution is achieved (8:61);”

    The verse does not say anything even remotely resembling that. Verse 8:61, after 8:60 which urges Muslims on to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah, only allows for peace under Islamic terms, on the Islamic definition of peace.

    A:“that freedom of religion must be granted to every one (2:256)”

    The verse doesn’t say that. It uses the ambiguous phrase “no compulsion in religion” (2:257 then condemns the disbelievers to the hell-fires) which has been regarded as either abrogated by verses such as 9:5, 9:73, and 48:16—fight them until they submit, etc. This verse 2:256 is as useless and as meaningless as all those that say “Allah is merciful” while he is burning and torturing the non-Muslims in the hell-fires. That’s the Islamic definition of merciful: Burning and torturing people because they do not believe this mumbo jumbo.

    A:“So l ask you where do you get your info from, can you please provide a link as l have always done.”

    Ask the apologist to quote the verses and ask him where he is getting his information on the interpretations he’s giving here.

    A:“You are giving me verses of war and l am giving you verses of peace, you chose which you you want to follow.”

    He is implying that he’ll use whatever verses he wants to suit his purpose—just like Muhammad.

    A:“This verse was revealed in Medina when he was powerful, not when he was persecuted in Mecca. It was a direct answer to the thought you can force people to change their faith.”

    It is not clear here what verse is being referred to, but apologists often say this about 2:256. But there is no verse in the Koran that states specifically that a Muslim can’t force someone to change their faith to Islam. Verse 2:256 (“no compulsion in religion”) in context was in reference to a woman who wanted to raise her child Jewish, see Ibn Kathir’s tafsir. Anyways, the verse is ambiguous enough to mean what the apologist wants it to mean, but mainstream Islam has always had the penalty for apostasy and has always permitted forced conversion (9:5) while officially denying that anyone is to be forced.

    A:“- No 9:5 is directed at enemies in a full scale war. If you read on you will see if they cease hostilities, then peace is what’s ordered.”

    The passage doesn’t say that. The passage (9:6) grants refuge for people to convert to Islam or so that they may be informed about the word of Allah.

    A:“You’re right, only giving the message is allowed, you can’t force people.”

    9:5 constitutes force. 9:29 also constitutes force as far as non-Muslims are concerned; the burden of dhimmitude can be alleviated if the dhimmi converts to Islam, and that constitutes coercion and violation of informed consent (to say the least).

    A: “This is a hadith regarding an Islamic state being attacked by an aggressor. The fourth option as the Quran states is to stop hostilities and leave the land they attacked.”

    I’m not sure which hadith is being refered to here. The apologist cites no evidence here that the hadith is defensive. Regardless of whether the hadith is aggressive or defensive, the point of fighting in either case is to fight people until they accept Islam or dhimmitude or, if the muslims are weak or would benefit by some other option, then a temporary truce or alliance may be set up (key word temporary).

    A:“The fighting referred to in this hadith encompasses moral and social struggle, not military. He’s reffering to fighting disbeleif with truth. Christ said he only came to bring the sword and divide brother among brother. Of course that’s not what he “meant” but on the face of it, it would appear so to one unfamiliar with the text and the fact Christ spoke in many parables.”

    Muslims are permitted to use force in relation to moral or social struggles, e.g., if someone insults Muhammad or Islam, if someone commits adultery, etc.

    However, it is not difficult to find ahadith that do not support the “defensive” interpretation; these are all aggressive:

    Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386: Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: ‘Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, ‘Umar said to him. “I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade.” Al-Hurmuzan said, “Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau.” So, ‘Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Numan bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, “Let one of you talk to me!” Al-Mughira replied, “Ask whatever you wish.” The other asked, “Who are you?” Al-Mughira replied, “We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.” (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu’ man said to Al-Mughira, “If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah’s Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah’s Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday).”

    Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717: Narrated Ibn Aun: I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn ‘Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn ‘Umar was in that army.

    Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288:
    Narrated Said bin Jubair:
    Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Thursday! What (great thing) took place on Thursday!” Then he started weeping till his tears wetted the gravels of the ground . Then he said, “On Thursday the illness of Allah’s Apostle was aggravated and he said, “Fetch me writing materials so that I may have something written to you after which you will never go astray.” The people (present there) differed in this matter and people should not differ before a prophet. They said, “Allah’s Apostle is seriously sick.’ The Prophet said, “Let me alone, as the state in which I am now, is better than what you are calling me for.” The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, “Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them.” I forgot the third (order)” (Ya’qub bin Muhammad said, “I asked Al-Mughira bin ‘Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, ‘It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen.” Ya’qub added, “And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama.”)

    A: “The hadith about apostasy is referring to apostates who become traitors and committ acts of treason. Other statements back this up. Several people left Islam while Muhammad was alive and he didn’t kill any of them.”

    Several ahadith about apostasy make no mention whatsoever of any acts of treason. However, apostasy itself in Islam is considered an act of treason so the apologist is employing a circular argument here. All of the apologetics re apostasy have been addressed here.

    A: “Ibn Ishaaq’s testimony has been rejected by 99% of scholars. He often included known liars in a narration chain like Muhammad Al Hajjaj who made up the myth about Asma bint Marwan being killed for making fun of Muhammad.”

    The statement above about Ibn Ishaq is unfounded. Did this apologist cite a survey of thousands of Muslim scholars to support the claim that 99% reject Ishaq? Challenge him for sources. His claim about the chains of narration are as far as I can tell complete fabrication. I have Ishaq (Guillaume’s translation, Oxford Press, 2006 Nineteenth Impression) right in front of me, opening to page 675 and over to 676, which describes the assassination of Asma bint Marwan, and no narrator by the name of Muhammad al-Hajjaj is mentioned.

    Muhammad ordered the deaths of lots of people who either left Islam or insulted Islam; this is nothing unusual that he should kill some and let some people off for whimsical reasons.

  3. “Another da’awa doctor proselytizing for Islam. Just what we need. 400 presentations about Islam. ‘Sensitivity training’- quite an achievement.”

    I am posting this link. Proselytizing has reached an unheard of level in the UK. I don’t mean just in numbers either. Horrifying!

    This should be stopped and should not be allowed to happen anywhere.

    As for the article above it is another step in the “inch by inch”, “thin edge of the wedge” strategy.

    If muslims want a better image show us you are serious about disassociating with radicals. Make a combined stand. There are enough of you out there to do so. I am aware you may live in fear. But so do we.

    Stand up to the radicals and you won’t have to have a PR/taqquiya campaign as shown above.

  4. Can’t help feel another muslim atrocity is around the corner in Europe or the UK, and it will be interesting to see if this speeds the islamic advance up or stops it dead, it’ll be one or the other.

    It’s also interesting to see Essendon now has a lebenese muslim player in their team. I wonder if anyone in that organisation is aware of what the lebenese muslims have been up to in the past thirty years. Probably not.

Comments are closed.