Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims Home Links Articles Authors About Us Feedback Leaving Islam Library Contact us
19 Jan, 2007
The Egyptian-born Australian Mufti, Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali, who shot into fame by his infamous fasting-month sermon last September, 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 by claiming that the Muslim immigrants have greater rights in Australia than the white Aussies, who have descended from their criminal ancestors, referring to those who came to the country between 1788 and 1850 from England, among them 162,000 convicts.
"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, an ex-Muslim critique of Islam 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]. Furthermore, Abul Kasem, another ex-Muslim writer, conclusively demonstrated that the immodestly-dressed 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 an almost universal thinking amongst the pious Muslim community in the West, which they often dare asserting in public slogans and even on TV cameras.
Yet, the Westerners and the ignorant or deceptive few Muslims denounced the Mufti for his apparently 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 'uncovered meat' 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 emulate at all time to come, the Prophet‚™s emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE ((hijra or hijrat)) 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 Prophet's preaching contained insults to the indigenous religion, culture and to their ancestors and caused social dissensions and family disputes. Hence, the exasperated citizens of Mecca also punished the Prophet 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 yet 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 with converts in 622 CE from Mecca. 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. Such Muslims often seek asylum in the Western countries and like the Medina citizens, the Western governments quickly give refuge to such people. Consequently, many deadly criminals of the Muslim world have 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 in circumstances between Prophet Muhammad‚™s migration to Medina in 622 CE and Muslims‚™ immigration to the West in recent decades. In other words, Muslims‚™ migration to the West perfectly emulates the deeds and actions of the Prophet, which is a requirement in Islam.
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:
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, the Allah. The indigenous Jews of Medina, who had let the Prophet settle down in their locality just a few years earlier, must now 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 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. 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:
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 ‚
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 commands of Allah in toto as listed in the Koran. Else, Allah will burn them in hellfire for eternity. There is no scope for Muslims to be selective in choosing the commands of Allah. 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:
So what the Mufti said about Muslims‚™ greater rights in Australia is not only informing his Muslim community 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 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 na√Įve media of the West are eager 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 not in a position to win a confrontation. The so-called moderate Muslims in the West have taken this role in all its perfection. We also must take note that the 'Taqiyya tacticians' will get on to their acts only when the infidels start making noise about such offensive statements. [Hit Counter]