The Greener Pastures Are Mine.
By Warner MacKenzie
This piece is based on the original essay “ Do Muslims have a greater right to Australia?” By Alamgir Hussain and the elements and theme have been reworked with the kind permission and approval of the author.
The Egyptian-born Australian Mufti, Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali, who shot to notoriety with his infamous Ramadan sermon last September, in which he called unveiled Australian women ‘uncovered meat' is at it again. Previously, when referring to about 20 incidents of rape by Muslim youths in Sydney in 2000, he blamed the young women for being raped, suggesting that because they weren't fully covered they had attracted the rapists.
The Imam has once again raised a furor by claiming that Muslim immigrants have a greater right to Australia than the Aussies, who, according to the Mufti, are liars of the worst kind and the descendents of criminal convict ancestors.
Most Australians, along with ill-informed or dissembling Muslims, have denounced the Mufti for what, at first glance, might appear to be outrageous comments. But, say what you will, there can't be any doubt about the Mufti's scholarly credentials or his depth of knowledge in Islamic theology.
Despite these controversies, and many others over the years, it is clear that the Grand Mufti of Australia is thoroughly versed in Islam and he says nothing that falls outside the scope of accepted Islamic scholarship. Hence, his latest assertion that Muslims in Australia have greater rights than their white counterparts requires a thorough examination before condemning him
Just as the prophet Muhammad's words and deeds are considered the most perfect, Muhammad himself is vaunted as a model for all Muslims to emulate for all time and in all places. Therefore, the Prophet's emigration from Mecca to Medina in September 622 CE ( known as the Hijra ) is the perfect parallel for an accurate examination of this latest controversy.
The Prophet Muhammad, in Mecca, with his fledgling community of fewer than 100 converts, had come to a flat point in preaching his new religion of Islam. his 12-years of proselytising (commencing in 610 CE) was not attracting converts, and had miserably stalled. His religion was stubbornly rejected by the citizens of Mecca. The Prophet's monotheistic preaching was too confronting to the indigenous pagans, he insulted their culture and ancestors causing social dissension and family disputes. The exasperated citizens of Mecca also punished the Prophet with social exclusion of his group for two years (617-619 CE). His embryonic community was made up of the lowest-ranked people of the city, including a few slaves but no one of any social standing or note. He and his followers were facing financial hardship because of the sanctions and social exclusion they endured from the annoyed and influential members of the city.
Burdened with such a distressing sense of failure and to avoid persecution, the prophet requested refuge in Medina which was quickly granted. The citizens of Medina also assured the safety and security of Muhammad's community who came to be known as the Muhajiroun (the immigrants). After he migrated from Mecca to Medina, with his small band in 622 CE, he rapidly succeeded in making many new converts (the Ansar). Muhammad never looked back, Medina had provided a greater acceptance and an improved opportunity for future success than his previous failed mission in Mecca. Medina being considered a “greener pasture” was the principal reason for the prophet's migration. Thereafter, his mission advanced and expanded in leaps and bounds.
Similarly, millions of Muslims today, leave their homelands for many and varied reasons (political dissidents, criminals, religious extremists, the poor etc). Some flee because they are threatened or persecuted by the usually corrupt and dictatorial governments in their own countries. These Muslims often seek asylum in Western countries and, as was the case with the citizens of Medina, Western governments quickly extend refuge and succour to such people. However, the primary reason Muslims desperately seek to migrate to the West is for the “ greener pastures” , which the (infidel) Western nations offer them. (* note: nations which have a low standard of living and lack social-welfare benefits seldom hold any appeal for the modern-day Muhajiroun.)
Muslim countries are terribly corrupt and desperately poor with little hope of their citizens ever achieving a comfortable lifestyle. So, most Muslims seek to migrate to the West at any cost. And they often take recourse to illegal and deceptive means to get to the lands of opportunity in the West's “ greener pastures. “
Thus, there is a parallel in the circumstances surrounding the Prophet Muhammad's migration to Medina in 622 CE and the Muslims' emigration to the West in recent decades. In other words, Muslim migration to the West is perfectly analogous to the actions of the Prophet. It cannot be overstated how highly desirable and spiritually meritorious these acts of Prophet emulation are regarded in Islam. After all, if the Prophet acted thus “how can it be other than pious for me to act similarly”? Being able to self-identify with Muhammad's experience is very satisfying to a Muslim.
Second only to the Qur'an (the putative directly revealed, eternal and immutable word of Allah) is the more voluminous collection of sayings and deeds of Muhammad, called the Hadith. These alleged statements and acts of their model Prophet, have for 14 centuries, provided the Muslim with all the life-templates he needs for emulation. Islamic law, the Shariat, which is drawn from the Qur'an and Hadith, governs their daily lives right down to the most miniscule and seemingly insignificant detail.
We need to examine the activities of the Prophet in Medina and determine if a Muslims' conduct in the West conforms to those of the Prophet, which will give them a perfect life, in this world, and in the hereafter. We will examine this in relation to Mufti Hilali's apparently outrageous comment about Muslims' possessing a greater right to Australia than those of European ancestry.
What we must first consider here is that the Prophet, like the Muslim immigrants in the West, arrived in Medina with his down-at-heel Muslim converts as refugees, however the indigenous Jews of Medina, who had graciously allowed the Prophet to settle in their midst just a few years earlier, were now required to convert to Islam to be able to continue living in their own land ( the sovereignty of which had ,incidentally, now been arbitrarily transferred to the prophet and his God.) The only other option open to them was to go into exile. If they refused the two alternatives presented to them, they were aggressively attacked and slaughtered en masse for their refusal to submit to Islam. Under circumstances unfavourable to the Jews, the Prophet would be satisfied with appropriating their land, plundering their possessions and expelling them to foreign lands, allowing them to take with them, (with the exception of gold and other valuables) only that which they could carry. Conveniently, as was always the case, every action of the Prophet was promptly approved and sanctioned by Allah.
And He brought those of the People of the Scripture ( Ahl al Khitab, i.e. Jews and Christians) 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. [Qur'an 33:26-27]
In the 630s and 40s, the Muslim community under the command of Allah's apostle, took the onus of restoring the earth to Allah's domain by forcing the non-Muslims to convert to Islam or by exiling, or as was more frequently the case, slaughtering the more reluctant infidels.
The Prophet triumphantly completed his duty to Allah by creating a purified Islamic state in the Arabian peninsula by eliminating idolatry and slaughtering or exiling the Jews and Christians who would not accept conversion. The Prophet also accomplished a Herculean task by single-handedly creating an aggressive, formidable and determined Muslim military force, which swept all before it and was poised to overrun the entire known world within a century of the Prophet's death. Europe, in its entirety ,would have fallen to Islam but for the Muslim army's defeat at the hands of the Franks under Charles Martel in the battle of Tours in central France in 732 CE.
Islam has achieved the unimaginable. From one man, Muhammad, in 610 CE, they now constitute one-fifth of the world's population. However, the onus of completing the job of restoring the rest of the world to the path of Allah and Islam falls squarely on the shoulders of his modern-day followers .
Allah's instruction to his community of Muslims in the world is clear and unambiguous. 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 earth. They must live by the commandments of Allah in toto as revealed in the Qur'an. Or else Allah will burn them in the hellfire for eternity. There is no scope for Muslims to be selective in choosing which commandments of Allah they will comply with. There is no middle way or partial path in Islam. For those, who attempt this, heavy punishment awaits them in next life as Allah says in the Qur'an.
Islamic theology asserts that the earth, (indeed the whole universe) belongs to Allah, the creator of all things.
"Mohammad is the messenger bringing Islam's rules to all humankind, and Allah is sovereign of the heavens and the earth (7:157-158)" .
So, was Mufti Hilali wrong? Absolutely not! Quite the opposite, in fact he is absolutely correct according to the precepts of Islam. Due to the covenant between the Muslims and their God, the Earth, in its entirety, belongs to Allah, and by extension, to his faithful community the Umma. (the worldwide Muslim community) And it's not only Australia, Muslims consider they have greater rights over all non-Muslims to the four corners of the earth, even countries with no Muslim inhabitants are viewed as areas marked for future inclusion by conquest. The current inhabitants of Western nations are merely squatters, interlopers and illegal occupiers living on borrowed time. The Earth is the rightful inheritance of Muslims and they must take charge of it through ceaseless, unwavering and determined effort, using whatever means necessary according to the example set by the Prophet.
So, in effect, what the Mufti said about Muslims having a greater right to Australia is not only informing his Muslim community of their true birthright but also making them aware of their duty and obligation to vigourously assert those rights according to the commandments of Allah. In his position of responsibility as Mufti of Australia, Hilali has merely done his duty and correctly stated Islam's teachings unambiguously with integrity and honesty.
And, as is usually the case, a number of ill-informed or willfully deceptive Muslims have come out in condemnation of the Mufti's comments. This is a familiar phenomenon. Whenever the learned Islamic clerics in the West make an offensive, inflammatory, but theologically accurate statement about Islam, which happens to outrage the local infidels, there will always be some, so-called moderate, unqualified or dissembling spokesman, posing as the “voice of reason”, with few Islamic credentials, who'll come forward and condemn the clerics. The uninformed and gullible media of the West, having done little or no research into Islam, are invariably happy to swallow the falsehoods and unquestioningly accept the subterfuge at face value.
The media and people of the Western world should also be aware that there is a deceptive strategy in Islam which is called Taqiyya. It is a stratagem which, approved by Muhammad, dates from the time of the Prophet himself. Taqiyya is a deceptive tactical manoeuvre for damage control. When Muslims are in trouble, or put in an awkward position, they are permitted, even encouraged, to say whatever is deemed necessary (denying their Islamic faith included), to extricate themselves or protect the faith from ignominy, defeat, shame, dishonour etc.
In the Mufti's case or a similar instance where the comments or actions of a member of their community precipitates a verbal confrontation with the enemy, the other Muslims are obliged to close ranks and safeguard the faith by taking recourse to lies and triangulation. The taqiyya-masters criticise and chide the outspoken, offending culprit even if he/ she was entirely correct according to Islam.
This is to ameliorate tensions, to divert attention, to defuse and neutralise the situation and conciliate to persuade the offended party against a harsh reaction detrimental to Muslim interests.
The subterfuge of Taqiyya is invariably brought into play whenever Muslims are either insufficient in numbers or in a weakened state or any other situation where they are not in a position to succeed in a confrontation. The so-called moderate Muslims in the West have refined this duplicitous ploy to perfection. The alert and informed observer will note that the 'Taqiyya tacticians' swing into action only when the infidels start making a noise about such revealing offensive statements, demanding an explanation or retraction.
The diametrical opposition and obvious contradiction between the offending statement, and the taqiyya tactician's explanation leads to another well used Muslim tactic, and that is to weary, confound, vex and confuse you and me, the infidel enemy.
Hadith 4:268 Narrated Abu Huraira Allah's Apostle said: "War is deceit".
Alamgir Hussain Is a former Muslim and a contributing author at “Islam-watch –telling the truth about Islam”
Warner MacKenzie is a resident of Sydney with a long-standing interest in Islam and its impact on Western society.