132 online
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 25 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Why Muslims have more rights in Australia?

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   No comments
Message Muhammad A Hussain
The Egyptian-born Australian Mufti Sheikh Taj El-Din Hilaly, who shot into fame by his infamous fasting month sermon in September, 2006, in which he called the unveiled Australian women 'uncovered meat'. Referring to the case of about 20 incidences of rapes by Muslim youths in a Sydney suburb in 2000, he blamed those women for being raped, suggesting that they attracted the rapists by using their uncovered meats as bait. [The Australian, 26 Oct, 2006]

The sagacious Imam once again raised a furor in Australia by claiming that the Muslim immigrants have greater rights in Australia than the white Aussies, who descended from their criminal ancestors, referring to those who came to the country between 1788 and 1850 among 162,000 convicts sent from England.

"We (Muslims) came as free people. We bought our own tickets. We are entitled to Australia more than they are," he said in Arabic in an Egyptian television interview. [Reuter, 12 Jan, 2007]

The Mufti also slammed the Australians for creating a conspiratorial uproar over his 'uncovered meat sermon' last October and claimed the controversy was a conspiracy to "bring the Islamic community to its knees" and called the Aussies the "biggest liars".

In the backdrop of the 'uncovered meat' controversy, the editor of islam-watch.org clearly showed 'how accurate the Mufti was in asserting that the liberally dressed Australian women were like uncovered meat attracting rapes', according to the divine precepts of Islam [See, Uncovered Meat and Rape: Condemning an Honest, Innocent Cleric]. Abul Kasem, another ex-Muslim, further conclusively demonstrated that the Australian women were 'nothing but whores' according to the Koran [See, The 'Meat' Imam and the Qur'an]. Indeed, the impression that 'the liberally dressed women in the West are like whores' is a universal thinking amongst the pious Muslim community in the West, which they even dare asserting in public slogans and even on TV cameras.

Yet, the ignorant Westerners and the ignorant or deceptive few Muslims denounced the Mufti for his outrageous comments at that time. But, there cannot be any doubt about the grand Mufti's depth of scholarship in theological doctrines of Islam. This was proven correct in the backdrop of the controversy, when the overwhelming majority of the Australian Muslims tendered their unstinted support to the beleaguered Mufti. Muslims sent him van-loads of flowers in congratulation and an unprecedented 5000 worshippers had rushed to his mosque in Sydney to attend the next Friday's congregational prayer, where they greeted him 'like a rock star'. This was followed by 34 major Muslim organizations' petition in the support of the honorable Mufti [Herald Sun, 03 Nov, 2006].

Despite those controversies, it is clear that the Grand Mufti of Australia is thoroughly knowledgeable in Islam and he says nothing that falls outside the scope of Islam. Hence, his latest assertion that Muslims in Australia have greater rights than their white counterparts requires a thorough examination before condemning him. Since the prophet Muhammad's deeds and actions were the most perfect and are a model for all Muslims to follow at all time to come, the Prophet's emigration (hijra or hijrat) from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE is the perfect parallel for the accurate examination of this controversy.

Prophet Muhammad, with his fledgling community of about 100 converts in Mecca, had become stagnant in his profession of preaching the religion of Islam. In Mecca, his 12-year-long mission was not heading anywhere. His religion was stubbornly rejected by Mecca citizens. The latter, exasperated by the Prophet preaching which contained insults to their religion, culture and ancestors, even punished him by social exclusion of his community for two years (617-619 CE). His community, formed of the lowest-ranked people of the city, including a few slaves, was facing financial hardships because of the sanctions and social exclusion they had faced from the annoyed but influential members of the city.

Under such distress and to avoid persecution, the prophet sought refuge in Medina which was quickly granted by the Medina citizens. They also assured the safety and security of his community and so he migrated there in 622 CE from Mecca. Another factor must be considered is that his religion was getting converts fast in Medina which had hinted towards a greater chance of success to his otherwise doomed prophetic mission in Medina. This likely 'greener pasture' in Medina was also a big reason for the prophet's migration to Medina.

Similarly, many Muslims of today are threatened or persecuted by their countrymen and governments for their incitement of hatred and violence or criminal acts. They often seek asylum in the Western countries and like the Medina citizens, the Western governments quickly give refuge to such people, who include the criminals. Consequently, many deadly criminals of the Muslim world had found refuge in cities like London and Toronto. However, the biggest reason Muslims desperately seek to migrate to the West is the greener pastures, which the kafir (infidel) Western nations offer to then.

Muslim countries are terribly corrupt and desperately poor with little hope for the citizens to make a comfortable life. So, most Muslims seek to migrate to the West at any cost. And they normally take recourse of the most corrupts, immoral and deceptive means to arrive in the West for a definite greener pasture which those countries offer.

Thus, there is a perfect similarity between Prophet Muhammad's migration to Medina in 622 CE and Muslims' immigration to the West in recent decades. Muslims' desperate effort to migrate to the West perfectly agrees with the example Prophet had set under similar circumstances. In other words, Muslims' migration to the West perfectly emulates the deeds and actions of the Prophet, which is a requirement to Muslims.

Now, we must examine, the activities of the Prophet in Medina and determine if Muslims' actions in the West conforms to those of the Prophet, which will make them live the most perfect life according to the Islam. I will examine this in relation to Mufti Hilali's apparently outrageous comment about Muslims' possessing greater rights than the white Australians.

Let us see what the Prophet of Islam had to say about the rights of his community in Medina.

Sahi Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 85, Number 77: Narrated Abu Huraira:
'While we were in the mosque, Allah's Apostle came out to us and said, "Let us proceed to the Jews." So we went along with him till we reached Bait-al-Midras (a place where the Torah used to be recited and all the Jews of the town used to gather). The Prophet stood up and addressed them, "O Assembly of Jews! Embrace Islam and you will be safe!" The Jews replied, "O Muhammad! You have conveyed Allah's message to us." The Prophet said, "That is what I want (from you)." He repeated his first statement for the second time, and they said, "You have conveyed Allah's message, O Muhammad." Then he said it for the third time and added, "You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to exile you from this land, so whoever among you owns some property, can sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."'

This hadith refers to the incidence of the Prophet's exiling the Jewish community of Banu Nadir in 626 CE. A few days after this warning, the prophet accused the Jewish community of plotting to kill him. Then he attacked the Jewish clan and after defeating, he exiled them and captured their assets, adobes and weapons. It should be mentioned here that the Prophet had attacked the Jewish clan of Banu Qainuqa in early 624, about 18 months after his arrival in Medina. After capturing the Jewish community, the Prophet wanted to slaughter them en masse. But under intense opposition of Abdullah Ibn Obayi, an influential local leader and a Muslim convert, he was forced to decide in favor of exiling them to Syria within three days. The last Jewish community of Banu Qurayza was attacked in 628 under a flimsy and unsubstantiated excuse of breaking an existing treaty. Their 700-900 grown-up males were slaughtered en masse and women and children were taken slaves and later sold to Nedj for weapons and horses.

What we must consider here is that the Prophet, like the Muslim immigrants of the West, had arrived in Medina with his Muslim converts as refugees and the land of Medina immediately became the property of him and his God, Allah. The indigenous Jews of Medina, who had let the Prophet settle down in their locality just a few years earlier, must now either convert to Islam to be able to live in their own land, which now arbitrarily had changed ownership to the prophet and his God. Else, they must have to leave. If not, they would be aggressively attacked and preferably slaughtered en masse for the refusal to submit to Islam. Under unfavorable circumstances, however, the Prophet would be satisfied by expelling them to foreign lands. And of course, all actions of the Prophet had direct sanction from Allah. Here is how the lord of the universe sanctioned the butchery of the Banu Qurayza in the Koran:

"And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some. And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is ever Able to do all things." [Quran 33:26-27]

The earth (indeed, the whole universe) belongs to Allah, Who is the creator of all things. In the 630s and 40s, the Muslim community under commandership of Allah's apostle, took the onus of restoring the earth to Allah's ways by forcing the non-Muslims to convert to Islam or by exiling or preferably slaughtering the more adamant infidels en masse. The Prophet triumphantly completed his duty to Allah by creating a purified Islamic state in the heart of Arabia by extirpating the intolerable idolatry and slaughtering or exiling the Jews and Christian from there. The Prophet also accomplished a heroic job by single-handedly transforming a fledgling Muslim community into an indomitable force, so much so that the Muslims were about the overrun the entire world within a century after the Prophet's death, if not for the Muslims' defeat at the hands of the Franks under the commandership of Charles Martel in the battle of Tours in central France in 732 CE.

Muslims have achieved the unimaginable. From one single Muhammad in 610 CE, they now command one-fifth of the world's population. However, the onus of finishing the unfinished job of restoring the rest of the world to the path of Allah and Islam fall on squarely on His current representatives on earth. Muslims must:

"Fight them (infidels/non-Muslims) until idolatry/persecution (Fitnah) is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme." [Quran 2:193]

Allah's instruction to his community of Muslims of the world is clear. The earth belongs to Him and it is the responsibility of the Muslims to keep fighting until the religion of Islam becomes the only religion on the earth. They must live by the precepts of Islam in toto. Else, Allah will burn them in hellfire for eternity. There is no scope for Muslims to be selective in choosing the command of Allah as listed in the Koran. There is no middle or partial path in Islam. For those, who attempt this, heavy punishment awaits them in next life as Allah says in the Koran:

".. (those who) desire to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and desire to take a course between (this and) that. These it is that are truly unbelievers, and We have prepared for the unbelievers a disgraceful chastisement." [Quran 4:150-51]

Allah repeats the warning:

"... Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and will be consigned to the most grievous doom in the next." [Quran 2:85]

So, was Mufti Hilali wrong? Absolutely not! Instead, he is absolutely correct according to the precepts of Islam. The earth belongs to Allah and his community. Thus, not only in Australia, Muslims have greater rights over the non-Muslims at every corners of the earth. And they must take charge of the earth through ceaseless fighting and war according to the examples set by the Prophet. Else, Allah will cast them in the fire of hell.

So what the Mufti said about Muslims' greater rights in Australia is not only informing his Muslims community there of their true rights but also making them aware of their responsibility to assert their rights according to the commands of Allah. In his position of responsibility of grand Mufti of Australia, he has only done his duty correctly and with integrity and honestly.

And as usual, some ignorant or deceptive Muslims have come out in condemnation of the Mufti for his comments [Muslim group denounces Hilali, Townsville Bulletin, 14 Jan, 2007]. This is a familiar phenomenon. Whenever the honest, steadfast and knowledgeable Islamic clerics (Imams) in the West make some correct statement about Islam, which apparently goes against the interest of infidels in those countries, there will be always be some so-called moderate, yet ignorant or charlatan Muslims with little Islamic credentials, to come out in meek voices to condemn the clerics, which the ignorant and naïve media are very willing to circulate.

But do the media and people of the Western world also know that there is a deceptive strategy in Islam which is called Taqiyya, which comes from the time of Prophet Muhammad himself? Taqiyya is a deceptive strategy for damage control. When Muslims are in trouble for the comments or actions of a member or community of theirs, the rest must take recourse of lies and deception to chide the culprits even if he/she was correct according to Islam. This is to ameliorate tensions, to divert attention, to conciliate and to persuade the offended party against harsh actions. Taqiyya would apply so long Muslims are in a disadvantage position, that is, not in a position to win a confrontation. The so-called moderate Muslims in the West have taken this role in all its perfection. However, we must take note that the 'Taqiyya tacticians' will get to their acts only when the infidels start making noise about such offensive statements.
Rate It | View Ratings

Muhammad A Hussain Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Muhammad Hussain is a researcher and freelance writer.
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Murder of Frenchmen in Holy City: Continued Legacy of 14 Centuries of Holy Terror

Religions Unite or Divide?

Would Women Prevent Bangladesh's Descent to Islamism?

Death for Refusing Burka and the Deceptive Muslim Denials

The Future of Secularism in Turkey

Osama's Tax Incentives to Americans --- Not Telling the Whole Truth

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend