On ABC Lateline, on October 8, the guest was Wassim Doureihi of the anti-democracy Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Wassim is a character I debated at UWS a couple of years ago. As in the debate, Wassim was vehement and articulate, and true to Islam. Despite repeated questioning, he refused to condemn anything that Islamic State has done, and instead launched into obstinate polemics about supposed Muslim victimhood. Host Emma Albirici continually talked over him in an attempt to insist that he answered the questions. This was probably the most confrontational interview that has ever been on Lateline.
Of course Doureihi would not condemn Islamic State because that is what Hizb ut-Tahrir wants. A caliphate is their objective. It is important to understand that Islamic State is simply following the aims, methods and example of the Prophet Muhammad himself. Of course Doureihi could not express his enthusiasm for IS, because he would be in danger of violating new anti-terror laws. I sympathise with him in this. These laws should not restrict freedom of speech and Hizb ut-Tahrir should not be banned. We need to hear their views openly and debate them.
What we need to do is to seek to undermine the ideology of Islam that causes otherwise reasonable people to behave in such unreasonable ways. We should not blame people for following their religion. We should instead concentrate on demythologising Islam and all religions. These people are causing mayhem on the basis of their beliefs, but these are beliefs that we actually know to be false. Reason and evidence tell us so. This should be the basis of our criticism. There is little point in debating within the context of Islam. The extremists have the Koran and the Hadith on their side and they know it.
The Islamists are at least honest about their beliefs. The apologists are not. A prime example was the next night on Lateline, when the interviewee was lawyer Haset Sali, who is a former president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. "He's also written an English translation of the Koran to help non-Muslims better understand his religion", we were told.
Sali came across as calm, peaceful and ecumenical, just the thing to quell the anxiety of the viewers after the previous night's extraordinary proceedings. However it is impossible to conceive that he was not being knowingly deceitful. He must know what is in the Koran.
The headline on the ABC website says "The Koran does not call for a caliphate". Really? It certainly calls for the world to be ruled by Allah and his followers. These semantics were just the beginning of his apologist disinformation.
Sali said "what the Koran encourages is that all religions should co-exist in harmony". Given the countless verses saying how infidels should be punished, smitten, slain and beheaded, how could he come up with this interpretation? He dug out one of the apologists' favorites, 2:256, "There is no compulsion in religion." There are only a handful of such conciliatory sounding quotes in the Koran, so they are well worn. But the context he gave to this was quite fallacious, according to Islamic doctrine.
He said it was delivered when Muhammad arrived in Mecca after his "battles". Instead, according to Islamic tradition, it was delivered in Medina much earlier, when Muhammad was fighting the Jewish tribes. As Islamic jurists well know, this verse is abrogated (superceded) by the bloodthirsty verses delivered later during his military campaign and after his victory. Although the Koran is not in chronological order, despite being an "exact transcript", Islamists know what the ordering is, so they know which earlier verses to disregard, including verse 2:256.
As Sali describes it, Muhammad prevailed "after a lot of battles, which were all focused on trying to kill him". Muhammad the victim? Again, according to Islamic history, it was Muhammad who first launched his unprovoked attacks on the Meccan caravans from his sanctuary in Medina. It was an insurgency. To claim otherwise is dishonest. Muslims find it difficult to cope with the concept that their hero was the aggressor. Doctrinally, they use the device that the whole world belongs to Allah, and they are merely trying to reclaim it, so all their wars are defensive and just. The purpose of Mr Sali, it seems, is to be a professional dissembler.
In order to get across what Sali described as the "right message", he then proceeded to another Koranic quotation, verse 5:32, or as it was in this case, a misquotation:
To take one life is as if to take the life - or the lives - of all humanity, and to save one life is as if to save all humanity.
Again, this is often quoted as it is seemingly benign. He omitted the beginning of the verse:
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
40 posts so far.