A Review an important government publication
Protecting Australia Against Terrorism 2006, (PAAT 2006) updates a 2004 publication by the same name. It is an 80-page statement of the Federal Government's policy response to the threat of global terrorism. But it goes beyond policy. It tells how an extra $8.3 billion is being applied through various agencies charged with protecting Australia. These are traditional legislative, intelligence and law enforcement bodies as well as new terrorist-specific bodies, designed to respond to the new environment Australia faces. Border security, identity safeguards, movement integrity (whether by land, sea or air) and chemical biological, radiological and nuclear security are given a high priority.
Navy clearance divers at Garden Island (Sydney) during anti-terrorist exercises
The National Counter-Terrorism Committee
(NCTC) set up by the Council of Australian Governments
(COAG) is the ultimate supervisory body. The NCTC also engages the general public, commercial interests and representative Muslim groups in facing the threat of terrorism. In 2002, the National Security Hotline (1800 123 400) was set up. In August 2005, the Prime Minister and other government officials met with Muslim leaders.
Dialogue with Muslims has occurred with the awareness that "global efforts to counter terrorism, have, on occasion, created pressure for Muslims" (p.26). The Prime Minister's conference with Muslim leaders agreed on a Statement of Principles, which it is hoped will preserve harmonious relations between Muslims and Australians generally. PAAT 2006 gives the NCTC's view that "the overwhelming majority of Muslims … do not subscribe to the radical ideology and actions promoted by the likes of Al Qaida and affiliated or sympathetic groups and individuals." (p26) The Muslim leaders agreed on "a commitment to (Australia's) traditions, values and institutions" as common bonds for national unity.
Clearly, the NCTC has worked hard to establish the means for reducing the threat of terrorism in Australia through Federal, State and Local Government jurisdictions. However this publication, as good as it is, ignores some serious issues. It even suggests that its authors are in a state of denial.
First, PAAT2006 espouses a simplistic view of Islam. Clause 4 of the 2005 Agreement says (page 27) that 'violence and acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam are a perversion of the Muslim faith'. This simply contradicts centuries of history.
While no one denies that many Muslims want nothing more than peace and quietness in Australia, and detest violence and terrorism, the statement is not true of Muslims per se. Islam, historically, has resorted to violence, and continues to do in many countries.
Not to admit this denies the facts. Violence against women
, those who forsake Islam for another religion, and those who believe in freedom of speech is all too common.
Clause 4 also contradicts what the Qur'an says, justifying terrorism. In 1996, Osama bin Laden's declaration of jihad against USA, cited sixteen Qur'anic passages in support. In 2002, a "Letter to the American People" purporting to be from Osama bin Laden quoted eight more passages from the Qur'an1 . Violence against Salman Rushdie was called for as a result of his Satanic Verses. In 1989, it earned him a fatwa and a death sentence. Naturally he went into hiding. But although he is a British citizen, such a broad-minded academic as Professor Trevor-Roper denounced Rushdie and gave tacit approval for his murder. Other Westerners know of Islamic violence first hand. Think of the murdered Dutch filmmaker and the Italian female politician. The Sunday Express for 19 Dec 2004, reported that "Half a dozen Dutch politicians accused of being "enemies of Islam" have received death threats. Two are deemed to be in such danger they are living in police safe houses."
Mr & Mrs Rushdie - Forced to live in hiding
Look at France and other European states today, wrestling with social chaos as Muslims and non-Muslims clash. The Sunday Express for 19 Dec 2004, also reported Dutch immigration and integration minister Rita Verdonk, admitted: "We were naive in thinking people would exist in society together." She has also received a death threat. Is this what Australia wants to see?
Clearly, violence is integral to Muslim history and is sanctioned by the Qur'an. No wonder then, that violence is commended in many mosques in western countries. In a speech to the U.S. Department of State2 , January 7, 1999, Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a vocal, energetic enemy of radical Islam, said that eighty per cent of USA's mosques were under the control of extremists. He also has received threats against his life.
France November-December 2005
Second, PAAT2006 subscribes to a narrow definition of terrorism. Definitions vary widely. But most would agree that terrorism describes any activity which aims at the dislocation of society, and seeks to subvert the institutions of a target or host nation. But while terrorism usually means violence, terrorists may also seek to achieve their purpose by other than violent means. Those other means will include a range of psycho-political measures. The comment of one Muslim leader to Guiseppe Bernadini, archbishop of Izmir, Turkey lends credence to this. The Muslim leader said: "Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you." 3 And domination over all non-Islamic societies is what Islam seeks. The chairman of CAIR, (Council on American-Islamic Relations – a front for promoting Islam) made that quite plain. Speaking to a Muslim audience in 1998 Omar Ahmed said, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth" 4 But typically, like Sheikh al-Hilali, Ahmed claimed that his words were misrepresented by the press. The journalist says she remembers his words very well and declined to retract her report.
Third, PAAT2006 fails to address the profound theological and philosophical divide between Australian society and Islamic culture. Australia makes a radical distinction between religion and politics, and between church and state. Such a concept is anathema to the Muslim mind. While Australia is culturally and politically democratic, Islam is theocratic. Whereas Australia espouses individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality before the law, and freedom of choice in matters of faith and religion, and in a word, democracy, Islam does not. It is a totalitarian culture subjugating the whole of life to the Qur'an and its interpreters. As King Fahd of Saudi Arabia said, "The Democratic system that is predominant in the world is not a suitable system for the peoples of our region."5 Huntingdon thought it fit to speak of 'the clash of civilisations' to describe how east meets west today. This clash is now right on our doorstep.
That Islam is totally incompatible with western traditions and political systems is confirmed by Dr Anis Shorrosh, a former Muslim. In a CNN interview, Dr Shorrosh, a Palestinian who now lives in Alalbama, stated why Islam is incompatible with USA and Australia. He gave several reasons: it is incompatible theologically, because Muslims owe allegiance to Allah a moon God; geographically, because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times daily; socially, because the Koran instructs him to make no friends with Jews or Christians (Q5:55); politically, because he must submit to the mullah who teaches the annihilation of Israel and the great Satan, the USA; domestically, because he is allowed to marry four women and to beat his wife when she displeases him Q 4:34; philosophically, because Islam, Mohammed and the Koran do not allow freedom of religion or expression.
No one has spelled this out more effectively than Bosnia's Muslim leader, Alija Izetbegovic. He publicly described "the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace or coexistence between 'Islamic faith' and non-Islamic societies and political institutions … Islam clearly excludes the right and possibility of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf."6 The reason lies in Islam's division of mankind into two camps: Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War). All Muslims belong to the umma, the Islamic community. In the umma, the edicts of Islam are fully implemented, But all who are in Dar al-Harb are infidels. They are despised by the Qur'an, (Sura 3;8, 112,) and must be subjugated to Islam. At the best, three choices are offered to infidels: Conversion to Islam, submission to the indignity of dhimmitude -- or death. (Sura 9:29)
Coexistence is not an option for Dar al-Harb. Runciman's The Fall of Constantinople, 1453, graphically tells of how blood flowed, when the city fell to Sultan Mehmet's forces. Of course when Muslims constitute only a small percentage of society in its host country, it may seem contented with democratic ways. But if Muslims in Australian achieved 'critical mass' will they not demand freedom to implement sharia law in their own communities? Would this not create another law system within Australia? This is actually happening already in Britain. Its population of over 60 million, includes 1.6 million Muslims, of whom 607,000 are in London alone. The UK government therefore faces a serious issue. Such a critical mass cannot be ignored.
The Siege of Constantinople 1453
Australia’s situation is no where near the English – not yet. But it seems the government does not take seriously the self-confessed nature of Islam. Many years ago, Australian surgeon Fred Schwarz wrote, "You Can Trust the Communists". His point was clear: not to believe Communist statements as to their goals was foolishness. The same applies today. Islamic theology, history and contemporary practice seek to bring the entire world under Islamic control. That would be the end of all the freedoms the world knows. The democracies need to take this challenge seriously. It is not good enough to state that the 'overwhelming majority" of Muslims do not subscribe to a radical ideology. All devout Muslims, will adhere to the tenets of their religion. This compels them to seek the subjugation of Dar al-Harb everywhere they go. For Westerners this is hard to believe, but not to do so is hide one’s head in the sand. Noted scholar Daniel Pipes has warned the west of three dangers: pacifism, self-hatred and complacency. While at present, Islam is no match for the West militarily, the West's loss of moral fibre and respect for its own heritage and culture, threatens everything it stands for.
There is ample evidence indicating the radical divide between Muslim culture and Australian. When the United Nations released its Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, it was a milestone in international affairs. Yet when in 1981, Muslim leaders met in Paris to draft the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights7, this Declaration left out all rights which contradicted Islamic law. In the same year, under pressure from Muslim countries the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Religious Discrimination was amended. References to changing one's religion were deleted and only the right to have a religion was kept. (Art 18) This explains why in various Muslim countries changing one's religion is a death sentence. This is abhorrent to Australians.
The Government's PAAT2006 is good as far as it goes. But it must not deny the realities of the Muslim/West relationship. So when we hear that the Federal Government makes substantial grants to Muslim religious institutions we must be concerned, especially when Muslim schools and colleges are centres of indoctrination in Islamic theology, which recognise no separation between religion and society.
The protection of Australia as a freedom loving, democratic, self-respecting society requires the government to immediately consider new measures such as:
(a) putting a cap on Muslim immigration
(b) require all Muslims who apply for citizenship, to sign a statement repudiating any and all allegiance to their country of origin, its laws and culture and especially the umma.
(c) require them to repudiate those parts of the Qur'an which are inimical to the tolerance, freedom and human rights of all Australians
(d) require all Muslims who contest elections in all states and the Federal sphere, to swear allegiance to HRH Queen Elizabeth.
(e) to pledge not to work for the subversion of the institutions of Australian democracy
(f) to recognise the prior, historic Christian origins and traditions of this nation.
(g) to affirm their acceptance of the UN Conventions and Treaties relating to the Civil, Political and Religious rights of all peoples.
(h) monitor what is being preached in mosques around Australia, given the situation in USA.
1. www.terrorismfiles.org, August 23, 1996
2. Reported in Onward Muslim Soldiers, Robert Spencer, Washington DC: Regnery Books, 2003, page 267
3. Vide, Robert Spencer, page 55
4. Lisa Gardner, "American Muslim leader urges faithful to spread Islam's message," San Ramon Valley Herald, 4/7/1998, as quoted in Spencer, Onward Muslim Soldiers, Regnery 2003.
5. Why I am Not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq, Promotheus Books, 1995, page 172
6. Vide, Spencer, page 105
7. vide., Ibn Warraq, Promotheus Books, 1995, page 177.