The rationale and justification of these fatwas is based on the Islamic maxim, “necessity makes the prohibited permissible,” not unlike the more familiar adage, “the ends justify the means.”
Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Habdan: Citizenship of Infidel Countries Only in Cases of Life and Death
Saudi scholar Sheikh Muhammad Al-Habdan, a member of the Muslim Scholars Association, was asked in an Ahwaz TV fatwa show whether a Muslim is allowed to accept the citizenship of an infidel country, “like an American or European citizenship.” Sheikh Al-Habdan answered that this is haram, unless there is real necessity, “like in cases of life and death.” He added that the same held true for visiting infidel countries, which is allowed only when necessary – for trade or medical treatment, for example – but not for mere tourism. When the necessity ends, he explained, the Muslim must return to his country or any other Muslim country. The video was posted on the Internet by Ahwaz TV on April 6, 2016.
Paul Zanetti is rather optimistic about “our” mufti getting a smackdown on his defamation claims. I fear that it depends very much on our -leftist- judiciary, and for that reason it can go either way. That a judge would go into past statements of the mufti and use them against him is rather doubtful. It would require knowledge of sira & hadith, which judges don’t have.
We shall see. In any case:
Statements to the local Mid East media by the Australian Mufti included, “I am pleased to stand on the land of Jihad to learn from its sons,” and “We came here in order to learn from Gaza. We will make the stones, trees, and people of Gaza talk.”
(and they will say ‘oh Muslim there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him….)
This last statement is particularly sinister because it comes straight from the Sahi Muslim Hadith (recordings of deeds and sayings attributed to Muhammad) adopted by Hamas, calling for death to the Jews.
The Grand Mufti Dr Ibrahim is an Islamic scholar so there can be no mistaking to what he was referring. Dr Ibrahim made it very clear what he believes.
Mufti’s Past About To Return To Haunt Him
…and it’s all his own doing!
PAUL ZANETTIPaul Zanetti is a Walkley award winning syndicated cartoonist with over 30 years in the media. He blogs at www.zanettisview.com
When you choose to sue someone – or an organisation – be very sure you know what you’re doing.
Defamation law in Australia can be tricky. A false move, misjudgement, forgetful memory or sloppy lawyer could lose you your house.
Plenty have been rendered homeless through ego driven legal cases based on nothing more than bluff and wind.
An understanding of the Defamation Act (2005) is helpful.
There are a range of defences to defamation.
Just because your feelings are hurt isn’t enough to sue for defamation if what was said about you is substantially true and reported in the public interest, which can trigger the defence of ‘qualified privilege’, which simply means the publisher (defendant) has a moral, social or legal duty to alert the recipient, or the public to information they need to know.
Most defamation actions cost around a quarter of a million or so each side. Lose, and costs could be awarded against you. Legal cases can turn on a technicality you never anticipated, or via a little known quirk in common law, so you should budget to lose upward of $half a million plus reputational loss before you even start.
Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric, the Grand Mufti Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammad is suing News Corp for a story in The Daily Telegraph after the Paris Islamic terror attack last November.
Without going into the minutiae of the case, the Mufti alleges the News Corp tabloid suggested, among other things, he was “a supporter of violent Islamic holy war”.
The problem with suing a major news organisation for claiming you are a supporter of violent Islamic holy war, is you had better be very sure there is nothing in your past that might confirm that.
Dismantling and exposing the fraud of “the perfect man”
In Islamic theology, al-Insān al-Kāmil (Arabic: الإنسان الكامل) also rendered as Insān-i Kāmil (Persian/Urdu: انسان کامل) and İnsan-ı Kâmil(Turkish), is a term used as an honorific title to describe Muhammad. The phrase means “the person who has reached perfection.” It is an important concept in Islamic culture of the prototype human being, pure consciousness, one’s true identity, to be contrasted with the material human who is bound by one’s senses and materialism. The term was originally used by SunniSufis and is still used by them, however it is also used by Alawis and Alevis. This idea is based upon a hadith, which was used by Ibn Arabi, that states about Prophet Muhammad, ‘I was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay’.
German-Egyptian Scholar Hamed Abdel-Samad Analyzes the Psychology of the Prophet Muhammad – Archival
In one of a series of online lectures, German-Egyptian scholar Hamed Abdel-Samad analyzes the personality of the Prophet Muhammad, whose biography, he says, is “held captive in a prison of unwarranted over-sanctification and glorification.” Abdel-Samad, who suggests that “there can be no reform or cleansing of the [Islamic] heritage until we rid Muhammad and the Quran of this sanctity,” describes the Prophet Muhammad as a human being who was driven by human motivations and urges. “Did he have marital problems? Psychological problems? Some illness? We don’t know,” says Abdel-Samad, suggesting that Muhammad’s revelations reflect “the psychology of a sick and rejected man, an outcast.” The lecture was posted on the Internet on June 24, 2015.
Not only do we have a commie pope who kisses the feet of Muslim savages, we now have a cardinal dimbulb who disses patriots and praises Islam. We truly live in interesting times. Is it (because) these heavenly clowns on earth wish they would hold power (again) over people, because the churches are empty; is it because the church made a pact with satan to advance the NWO? Who knows. I cannot answer that. At the moment we are stuck with a church that has lost the plot, and this milquetoast is the face of the cowards who are siding with our enemies to diss patriots.
The Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne, Rainer Maria Woelki (pictured), has publicly criticized leaders of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party for their statements against Islam, insisting that “whoever says ‘yes’ to church towers must also say ‘yes’ to minarets.”
The Cardinal was reacting in particular to recent statements by AfD deputy leader Beatrix von Storch, who told the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper: “Islam is in itself a political ideology that is not compatible with the constitution.”
“We are in favor of a ban on minarets, on muezzins and a ban on full veils,” said von Storch, who is also a member of the European Parliament.
In his videotaped response, Cardinal Woelki suggested that all religions are equally well suited to German culture and law. “The religion of Islam is compatible with the German constitution just as Judaism or Christianity are,” he said.
“Anyone who denigrates Muslims as the AfD leadership does should realize that prayer rooms and mosques are equally protected by our constitution as our churches and chapels,” he said.
Muslim Migrants savages in Germany Chant “Adolf Hitler” and Allahu Akbar”
The Muslims adore Adolph Hitler because of his Jew hatred that brought about the Holocaust. Muslims would like to kill all the Jews first and then destroy the Christians.
Today we have a reminder that the Crusades were not an unprovoked example of Christian Imperialism against the Middle East. But a reaction to the spread of Islam by the Sword against Christian Europe.
They said it. They are proud of it:
Qatari Educational Software on Islamic Conquests in Europe
Animated videos posted on the Internet teach children about Islamic conquests in Europe. The videos were produced as educational software for “Boys and Girls,” the children’s section of the Qatari government-owned Internet portal Islamweb.net. A large number of the portal’s educational videos were posted on various YouTube accounts. One video discusses the conquest of Al-Andalus, which was “in order to spread the light of Islam.” “This is how Islam entered Al-Andalus, where it built a great civilization,” an animated character says. Another video describes the conquest of Belgrade, “the fortified city that was the pride of Europe.” The videos were posted on the Internet in February 2016.
Leo Hohmann wrote an excellent review of Easy Meat with interviews with Peter McLoughlin and others in WND:
In Britain, they call it “sex grooming.”
In the Netherlands, they’re called “Lover Boys.”
But the phenomenon is the same. A gang of Muslim “Asians” of mostly Pakistani descent seeks out, pursues, chats up and cultivates school girls for sex, turning them into bodies for sale.
A new book is out that the European left is trying its best to ignore. It contains research that blows away the theory, widely reported in the media, that it’s a tiny minority of Muslim men involved in the rape gangs and then only in one British town, Rotherham.
Author Peter McLaughlin argues in his exhaustive study, “Easy Meat: Inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal,” that it’s at least 300 Muslim men who were preying on girls in Rotherham over a 16-year period. And the same type of gangs have been operating in dozens of cities across the United Kingdom, as well as in Muslim areas of the Netherlands and Sweden.
“In 2008 one of the policing agencies having to do with sex trafficking commissioned a 20-minute educational video to be shown to school girls to show how the gangs operate,” McLoughlin told WND. “They hang around schools and malls and use an attractive young man to convince them he wants to be their boyfriend and he gets them to drink and do drugs and then she has sex with him and later his ‘brothers’ and his ‘uncles’ and whomever else he pimps her out to.”
That video was never actually shown to the girls, he said. And Britain’s homage to political correctness led police and child-welfare advocates to cover up what was happening for fear of being called racists.
The ABC lies when it suggests there is only one or some Muslim groups that want sharia.All Muslims are religiously obliged to replace “man made” laws with Allah’s sharia.
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 toremove 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 definition of “refugees,” people who do not, and can not, wish our ways or institutions or constitutions well.
The Arab Middle East today remains beholden to its foundational culture, Bedouin tribal culture. We see Arabs to this day cleaving to their kin groups, their tribes, their religious sects, manifesting in their actions group loyalty, support of closer over more distant, and balanced opposition, each party defined as much by whom they stand against, as what they stand for. At every level honour is at stake: tribes vs. tribes or sedentary authorities, Sunni vs. Shia, Arab vs. Kurd or Persian. Nor should we ignore the loss of Arab honour in their defeats by the Israelis, and the persistent Arab desire to regain that honour. (More)
“If you’re around these migrants you are likely to be mugged. You are quite likely to be raped. The levels of crime are amazing.”
These ‘Sunrise’ degenerates have to be held responsible for conflating Islam with race. They are deceiving the public.
Plans to build a Mosque in Melbourne have been rejected by the local council. The decision was met with outbursts from angry protestors claiming the decision was racist. What do you think? #sun7Sunrise
Standing up to Islam requires (more than) a thick skin. The City of Casey in Melbourne’s south eastern suburbs just rejected another Mohammedan land grab under its ‘controversial’ mayor Casey Mayor Sam Aziz.
City of Casey council reject mosque application
City of Casey council has told the Saarban Islamic Trust their mosque will not be built in Narre Warren. (The AGE)
A plan to build a new mosque in Melbourne’s south eastern suburbs has been unceremoniously dumped by Casey council, in an unusual meeting on Tuesday night that was more reminiscent of a staged political announcement.
Only about half of the people who turned up to watch the proceedings, many wielding banners with slogans such as “Stop Racism Now”, were able to fit into the council chambers.
About one hundred were left outside, the doors to the civic centre guarded by a line of police.
Inside, Casey Mayor Sam Aziz read out a pre-prepared speech endorsing a recommendation by council officers not to allow a permit for the mosque with a “typical Islamic dome style roof” and 25-metre minaret on a vacant rural property on Belgrave-Hallam Road in Narre Warren.
He slammed a report in The Age suggesting that pressure from far-right groups had helped kill off the mosque plan, and added an additional, hard-line, clause in the motion to be voted on by council.
People gather at Casey Council to hear the mosque decision. Photo: Aisha Dow
The clause said that council will “allocate every resource necessary and required to defend the decision at other jurisdictions should there be a challenge to the decision”. This means the council will fight the rejection if it is appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Cr Aziz said the only group of people outside the council officers who had an impact on council’s decision were Casey residents, many of whom he said expressed legitimate concerns about the application.
These concerns were backed up by council planning officers, who found the proposed “height, bulk and prominence” of the mosque and the 153 car spaces would “result in a dominant built form and excessive hard paving and is not considered to be sympathetic to the landscape and scenic qualities of the area”.
Anti racism crowds protested at the Casey Civic Centre. Photo: Wayne Taylor
Meanwhile, VicRoads also objected to the proposal, finding it was “premature” and did not “represent sufficient orderly planning in the area”.
During his speech, Cr Aziz lashed out at the mosque applicants, the Saarban Islamic Trust, because they had told the media they believed they had negotiated an agreement with the council.
“I suggest to you that you have not endeared yourself to anyone making these comments and I also respectfully suggest that in future you consider your comments in the context of the truth not just your own self interest,” Cr Aziz said.
The Saarban Islamic Trust was not given an opportunity to respond during the special council meeting, as no public submissions were allowed. Photography was also banned, preventing the media taking photos of the signs being held by the crowd.
Cr Aziz’s address was followed by another pre-prepared speech by Cr Rafal Kaplon, before councillors unanimously voted to reject the mosque plan and the public were asked to leave the gallery.
Less than a minute after the closure of the meeting, as people were still filing out, some of them chanting, the mayor asked police to “remove people from the public gallery please”. Despite the instruction, the protest appeared to remain peaceful.
Reminds me of JuLiar G-Lard talking stupidly about Aussies having to pay our “fair share” of taxes to pay for leftist scams. To squander the wealth of western nations on the import of Muslims is a crime far worse than any treason, because of the Islamic ideology of conquest and its replacement theology. The presence of large numbers of Mohammedans means death to native Brits. That needs to be understood.
David Cameron came under mounting pressure last night to give sanctuary to child refugees stranded in Europe following a humiliating rebuke from the House of Lords.
Thousands of child refugees who have made it to Europe were thrown a lifeline by the peers.
Members of the Lords voted by a majority of more than 100 – by 279 to 172 – for Britain to accept its fair share of unaccompanied child refugees.
The move comes after the Commons rejected plans to welcome 3,000 desperate youngsters into Britain. The knife edge vote was won by just 18 votes and was met with cries of ‘shame’ in the Commons chamber.
Last night, peers stripped out the specific number of refugees that Britain should take.
Members of the Lords voted by a majority of more than 100 – by 279 to 172 – for Britain to accept its fair share of unaccompanied child refugees
This will stop MPs from invoking ‘financial privilege’ – which would have allowed them to veto any amendment if there are financial consequences. Labour’s Lord Dubs originally proposed the amendment, having fled the Holocaust as a child refugee himself in the 1930s.
James Brokenshire, the Home Office minister, said the Government did not want to ‘inadvertently create a situation in which families see an advantage in sending children alone, ahead and in the hands of traffickers’.
Ministers have instead said they will take in 3,000 child refugees directly from camps in, or near, Syria and other war zones.
Last month, the Daily Mail highlighted the plight of hundreds of children living in squalor in the Calais jungle.
Originally published under the title “To Be Kind Is To Be Cruel, To Be Cruel Is To Be Kind.”
Alan Kurdi, 3, drowned last year in a failed attempt to sail from Turkey to the Greek island of Kos.
Just after the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, I warned that radical Islam would horrify the West into submission. In Europe, it has taken a giant step towards success. Europe’s horror at the prospect of human suffering has made it supine. Sadly, the more the Europeans indulge in their humanitarian impulses, the more Muslims will suffer. To be kind is to be cruel.
The Daily Mail recently described an incident off the coast of Italy:
The 240ft Monica had been spotted in international waters during the night. When Italian coastguard boats drew alongside, the crews were shocked to see men and women on board begin dangling the infants over the side. The refugees – mostly Kurds and many said to be heading for Britain – calmed down only when they were assured they would not be turned away from Italy.
What kind of people threaten to murder their own babies? The normal response would be to arrest them and put them in prison for endangering children. Instead, the British newspaper reported,
The Archbishop of Catania, Luigi Bommarito, was at the dockside to greet the Monica in what he called “a gesture of solidarity”. He said: “I’m here to appeal to people not to close their hearts and doors to people trying to survive. We mustn’t forget that in the last century many immigrants also left Italy.”
The Monica incident is multiplied ten thousand-fold at the diplomatic level. Turkey’s president and de facto dictator, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, last October threatened European officials with 10,000 to 15,000 drowned migrants, according to minutes leaked to a Greek news site and widely reported by European mainstream media–with no official denial. Erdogan demanded 6 billion Euros up front and 3 billion Euros a year to stop the refugee flow, telling European officials,
We can open the doors to Greece and Bulgaria anytime and we can put the refugees on buses, What will you do with the refugees if you don’t get a deal? Kill the refugees? the EU will be confronted with more than a dead boy on the shores of Turkey. There will be 10,000 or 15,000. How will you deal with that?
When in world history has one side in negotiations threatened to kill its own people to gain leverage?