God v Allah III

This article has been written as a logical sequel to my original article in Quadrant (September 2011), and also as a development of the recent contributions of the Hon. Greg Smith, Professor James Allan and Sir David Smith, in separate essays, all in Quadrant (October 2011).

The ultimate and supreme binding force of law in Australia, a democratic monarchy of federated monarchical states, is enshrined in Section 5 of the Australian Constitution of July 9, 1900. The Preamble to the Constitution, in effect the Constitution Act, invokes the Divine authority and “blessing of Almighty God” as the fons et origo of its entire power and supreme binding force. The Founding Fathers of that Constitution were persons of either practising or historical Christian origin, who acknowledged the Creator God of the Old and New Testaments. Not one of them would have had regarded that “Almighty God” as even remotely equivalent to Allah, Brahma, Ahura-Mazda, Zeus, or any other anti-Christian deity. The idea would have outraged them.

The New South Wales Attorney-General, the Hon. Greg Smith, has informed us of the following historical facts. Edmund Barton (leader of the New South Wales delegation to the Constitutional Convention of 1898) and later first Prime Minister of the new Federation, as well as one of the first Justices of the newly established High Court, spoke eloquently of the need—“Because we are a Christian community”—to base on those Christian foundations, any future Constitution, free of compulsory religious tests, for this nation. Sir John Downer, former Premier of South Australia and that state’s delegate to the Constitutional Convention, likewise declared, “The Commonwealth will be from its first stage a Christian Commonwealth.” Sir Henry Parkes, the de facto Father of Federation, declared of all members of the colonies “we are pre-eminently a Christian people—as our laws, our whole system of jurisprudence, our Constitution—are based upon and interwoven with our Christian belief”. Alfred Deakin, second Prime Minister of the new nation, hoped that the new Federation would be “a means of creating and fostering throughout all Australia a Christlike citizenship”.

The Founding Fathers of our Constitution were, unlike most of today’s politicians, to some extent all classically trained patriots, irrespective of their station in life. They would have been secure in the knowledge of where they came from, who they were, and whither they were going. Above all, they would have known that their beloved Westminster system of parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy was a successful flowering of the seed of that great and fruitful tree, Magna Carta. This greatest of constitutional documents gives the history of England and its fairest daughter, Australia, a uniquely Christian character. It is the basis of that great Australian virtue—to give somebody “a fair go”. Some great writers have referred to it as the “foundation of all our liberties”, and notwithstanding its exaggerated reputation in the hands of Edward Coke and William Blackstone, it has never been surpassed for its ability to provide the governed with the means of lawful resistance to frivolous or arbitrary rule by the governors.

In being forced to accept Magna Carta, King John had been compelled to meet “the army of God and Holy Church” at Runnymede. Thus, the opening clause of this document first establishes the security of the “freedom of the Church”. Remember, this was at the time of the Crusades, when King John, himself a Crusader, knew only too well the contradiction of the Sign of the Cross over the sign of the crescent.

Since then, the original opening ceremony, every session of Parliament in Britain and Australia, is to this day prefaced with the recitation of that most Christian of invocations, the Lord’s Prayer, given by Christ in response to His disciples’ earnest request to be taught how to pray to God. That prayer clearly is a manifestation of the ancient Christian axiom of lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief). Moreover, the Hon. Greg Smith tell us that he concurs with Premier Barry O’Farrell, who said in a recent speech, “I am pleased that in Australia we have not gone down the United States path where the strict legal separation of Church and State goes beyond common sense.” I trust both the Premier and his Attorney-General were referring to “church” in the specific Christian sense, and not in the general sense which might encompass mosques, kovils, temples and synagogues.

Out of this ancient and noble history was created the Australian Constitution, and in particular Article 116, which provides for freedom “of the exercise of any religion”, but conspicuously does not consider the possibility for the freedom of any religion to exercise itself at the expense of all others. In particular Article 116 states, “No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.” Would such a protection be available to Christians in Islamic, Buddhist or Marxist societies? But more of this later.

Therefore, on the basis of a clearly established Christian tradition, it has become the lawfully necessary custom in Britain and Australia that formal oaths in Parliament, in court or before a justice of the peace, are usually sworn on the binding authority of the Bible. Atheists and non-Christians are permitted only a single alternative, and that is that they may take an Oath of Affirmation to uphold the Constitution and the laws of our respective nations. Recently, and perilously, however, a Trojan horse has been admitted into this solemn procedure on the basis of the misguided sentiment of “multiculturalism”. We now have the tragi-comic spectacle of sworn enemies of Christianity and Christian-based societies being invited to take oaths on the basis of their own sacred texts. In the particular case of Islam, an oath taken on the Koran to uphold and defend any non-Islamic Constitution or legal system must expose such a party to charges of either perjury/apostasy (by Muslims) or dissimulation (by non-Muslims). Allah in the Koran specifically binds every Muslim, by any means available, including deceit, to an overthrow of all or any non-Islamic societies and peoples (for example 5:32–35, 9:29, 9:38–41, 14:13–14, 18:29, 22:19–21). In particular Muslims are forbidden under pain of damnation (2:86), to swear genuine allegiance on the Koran to a non-Islamic state, monarch or legal system (3:149 and 25:52). Thus, objectively, a Muslim entering a non-Muslim Parliament, having sworn his Oath of Allegiance (on the Koran) to that Parliament which the same Koran obliges him to destroy, may rightly be considered by that Parliament to be a “Stranger in the House”. And what, may I ask, of the validity of any legislation debated and passed in the “House” in the presence of such a “Stranger”?

But equally (dangerously—as the inevitable confrontation with Islam may well prove) Chief Justice Barwick said in 1981 (Attorney-General (Vic) (Ex rel Black) v Commonwealth), “there is nothing preventing the Commonwealth giving aid to or encouragement of religion”. By “religion” of course, Sir Garfield must be understood to have been referring solely to the Christian religion, upon which the Federation and its laws were founded. The danger arises out of the certain knowledge that Islamists and their supporters will at some eutectic point in the future choose to interpret Sir Garfield’s mention of “religion” to suit their own agenda. Once again we appear unwittingly to have sleepwalked into an epistemological fog, where the absence of clearly defined limits and terms of reference must provide the enemies of this great nation with immense opportunities for malicious mischief. And that is the point of this essay. 

Divide et impera? 

It’s all very well writing a Constitution which claims to offer a nation the safeguards of “Checks and Balances”, of “Responsible and Representative Government”, and most seductively of all, “the Separation of Powers into the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary”. But that entire taxonomic fabric is predicated upon an ancient and unwritten mutuality of common history, culture and mores, and social cohesion as a homogeneous and independent nation. Machiavelli’s lessons should have been well learned by now.

But the weakest chink in this grand panoply paradoxically also enjoys the greatest independence and power, and is therefore the most vulnerable means by which Islam or any other totalitarian ideology might enter, to cause the greatest destruction from within. With regret, I refer to the institution of the judiciary (the High Court), which, if we are to understand Professor Allan’s alarming claims, has in recent times manifested about itself the rancid stench of “activism” amongst some of its top judges. Professor Allan observes: 

Perhaps the worst aspect of all as regards these majority judgments is how potentially limitless and unconstrained they leave the supervisory role of the top judges. In fact, it is hard to see what constraints the majority ratios place on judges’ future gainsaying of Parliament’s powers other than ones the judges themselves feel inclined to observe. 

Next, he sounds the tocsin thus: 

Either we will be locked in by the understandings of the words and text at the time of adoption (subject to s 128 constitutional amendment) or we will be locked in by the decisions of our present-day top judges as they, from time to time, change the meanings they attribute to words that have remained the same.  

Against which Sir David Smith, a propos a separate constitutional matter, reminds us: 

The five justices who constituted the full court in 1907 had all been involved in the drafting of the Constitution so we may assume that they knew what it said and what it was meant to say.       

Or again, from Professor Allan: 

this sort of interpretive approach has the potential to politicise the judiciary (and to be seen to do so by citizens) and too often to circumvent or make redundant the s 128 amending machinery. 

Rhetorically, Professor Allan then states: 

If you doubt that, or if you think that my mooted change-of-perspective exercise is irrelevant to present-day Australians, consider the possibility that a rewritten preamble to our Constitution will soon be put to the electors, perhaps to recognise the role of indigenous Australians. 

To which I would add: “and perhaps to recognise the outrageous and potentially violent threats of an Islamic population, quickly expanding through polygamy, and through technical ‘invasion’ (see definition of ‘Jihad’ below, and also Article 119 of the Constitution), to the Koranically laid-down minimum proportions that command a gradual (4:101) and later (8:65), violent take-over of a host population in the name of Allah”.

Consider also the following comment from the Hon. Greg Smith. Here the New South Wales Attorney-General is talking about the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act of 1977. In a case brought against the Wesley Mission Council by a same-sex couple wanting to be foster carers of a child in the care of the Wesley Dalmar Child Centre, and being refused, they cited the Anti-Discrimination Act as grounds for discrimination against them. The case went all the way to the Court of Appeal: 

In considering the religious bodies exemption the Court of Appeal adopted a broad definition of religion. It stated that an act or practice will be exempt where required by a religious doctrine, even where the doctrine is held by only some elements in a particular denomination. Further, the exemption applies to the contemporary doctrines of the religious body. The doctrines are not required to be those that applied at the time of a religious body’s establishment. [my emphasis] 

All very nice on the surface, but what about the doctrines held by only some elements (such as the Taliban, Laksha e Toiba, Al Shabab) in a particular denomination (Shia, Sunni, Deobandi, Wahabi)? Their doctrines are certainly not those that applied at the time of the (alleged) establishment of Islam by Mohammed and the second and third Caliphates. How would the Court of Appeal treat a case brought (for instance) against the Ahmaddiyas or Ismailis, both of whose denominations are violently objected to by other Muslims such as the Shia or Sunni?

The way the Act now stands, and is interpreted, the Australian judiciary would be compelled to recognise the legitimate claims of the persecuted against the persecutors, with dire consequences for itself, at the hands of those who in any case regard Islamic law as being indisputably superior to that (no matter how grandly constituted) of mere “Kaffirs”. Offended Islamics would simply delate the Australian judges involved to a suitable sharia court for the imposition of a fatwa that can be executed by any Muslim appointed by the sharia court for that task, as Salman Rushdie may yet discover to his cost.

The Hon. Greg Smith goes on to say that “The Legislature recognises that it is not permitted to encroach upon the freedom of religion”. But what provision is there in either Section 116 of the Constitution or any Anti-Discrimination Act (federal or state) that forbids any particular religion in its practice and mission from “encroaching upon the freedom” of religion (or no religion) of “Infidels” and “Kaffirs”, to wit, everyone who is not a Muslim? How many Australians, exalted or humble, understand the deadly dogmatic distinction made in Islam between the two domains or “Mosques of Creation”, the one, Dar-ul-Islam, containing all those in submission to Allah at the point of the sword if necessary, and the other, Dar-ul-Harb, comprising the rest of humanity, who are doomed either to destruction by Muslims in this world, or by Allah in the next? Truth to tell, it is Islam per se, because of its open and unapologetic mission of the destruction and supersession of all other faiths and governments, that is in flagrant breach of Article 116 of the Constitution, and all of the anti-discrimination laws of every state and the Commonwealth. How is it that Islam can persuade the lawmakers that it is above the law?

In England in 2011, Catholics are still subject to various legal disabilities provided by the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, and the Emancipation Act (which in spite of its name was a disabling Act particularly aimed at Catholic religious orders, communities or societies). Further, there is the Act of 1860 and so on. There is also the onerous disability imposed on any Catholic in holy orders of being by that reason disqualified from being elected to either house of Parliament. Nor can Catholic bishops regain their traditional seats in the House of Lords, while Jewish and Muslim clerics may freely do so. Fortunately, Article 116 of the (written) Australian Constitution prevents such blatant persecution of one religion by another. But for how long will this remain once Islam achieves its avowed mission of domination through the increase in numbers of its faithful?

Apart from the alarm bells that must start ringing in the minds of those whose common sense has not been attenuated by political correctness—remember, “Muslim extremists” always quote the Koran or the Hadith in justification, but are always conveniently distinguished (by the craven commentariat) from other Muslims as being “fundamentalists”, in contrast to perfectly normal “moderate Muslims” (whose best friends some of them are!). Some of these “moderate Muslims” will, with perfectly straight faces, tell you that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that the activities of some of their fellow believers are certainly not endorsed by the Koran. These people have become adept at manipulating the liberal views and exploiting the culpable ignorance of some members of the judiciary and the “lefty luvvies” in the media and academia, particularly on the taxpayer-funded ABC and the egregious SBS.

What then is the truth about Islam obeying its Allah as regards the fate of the infidels, who acknowledge the Christian God (to a greater or lesser extent) in the way that their society has been founded and operates?

Here is Allah commanding his followers in the Koran (5:49): 

Pronounce judgment amongst them according to Allah’s revelations and do not be misled by their plans. Beware lest they lead you away from the part of that which has been revealed to you by Allah. If they refuse your judgment know that it is Allah’s wish to punish them for their sins. Most of mankind are unbelievers and doers of evil. Do they wish to be governed and judged by pagan law? Who is a greater judge than Allah for men who are firm in the faith? Believers, seek neither the Jews nor Christians to be your friends because they are friends with each other. Whosoever of you seeks their friendship will become corrupted into their society. Allah does not guide such apostates. [my emphasis] 

On April 13, 1939, a leading Indian Islamic scholar, Abu al Maududi, made a speech which was later reproduced in his book Jihad in the Cause of Allah (still available from Holy Koran Publishing House, Beirut). Here is part of what he said: 

In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology, a revolutionary programme (agenda) to alter the social order of the whole world, and rebuild it in            conformity with its own tenets and the ideals …

“Muslim” is a title of that international revolutionary party organised by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary programme. And “Jihad” refers to that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic party brings into play to achieve this objective.

Islam intends to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic state. [my emphasis]

What is jihad?  

“Jihad” is not the romantic euphemism you might read or hear about in the media. “Jihad” is a word which encompasses a single, highly-focused, destructive ideological war dressed in religious garb, driven by Allah himself against those of mankind who refuse to enter into the Islamic Mosque of Creation. It shares the plan of its agenda with Marxism and Nazism, except that it is much older and more practised than either of those later contagions, which did not affect to disguise themselves in the cloak of religion.

But now, in the twenty-first century, there is a new and desperate urgency in the Islamic world. This urgency relates to the imminent (they believe) coming of their Messiah—the Mahdi—to establish the final pan-global Caliphate in the name of Allah. Thus, all the “Western puppet” dictators who have for decades bunged up the jihadic genie in its bottle, must be overthrown in one great pan-Islamic uprising now being engineered (worryingly, with Western help) on the most trivial of pretexts.

“Jihad” takes six forms, and by way of comparison, I have placed in parenthesis the terms reputedly used by Drexler’s National Socialist Movement in its infancy between the wars. This plan of six distinct forms is taught to male children in madrassahs and to every male youth in every mosque on Fridays, which is the Muslim day of prayer and worship: 

Jihad bi al lisan (preaching, proclaiming, debating) (Vorkriegs predigen)

Jihad bi al kalam (writing, publishing, mass media) (Vorkriegs schrift)

Jihad bi al hijra (forced immigration, both internationally and from town to town, what is in fact happening now, and only males are involved, with a few token women and children as a mask) (Auswandern)

Jihad bi al mal (banking, finance, commerce) (Bankgeschaft und Handel)

Jihad bi al nafs (simply by being alive as a Muslim) (Sein und Wesen)

Jihad a’ nafas (suicide, self-sacrifice etc.) (Selbst opfern) 

The equivalent words, or words to that effect in German, appeared on very early Nazi documents, but were quickly removed in Hitler’s bid to become Chancellor. (I am quoting these from an imperfect memory of documents shown to me by an elderly Völkisch movement survivor, whom I briefly met at Oberhausen in 1965.)

The question that must be asked by Western politicians and lawyers is this. With the gift of hindsight of the Second World War, would any of them have freely invited Nazi Germans into their countries, fed them, clothed them, housed them, and protected them with human rights laws and the like, or would they have thought twice? 

The foundations of society 

It has been universally agreed, throughout recorded human history, that the foundation of any successful society must always be the family. The basis of that family must be the solid contract of marriage between a man and a woman—the joint procreators of their own children who themselves provide the continuing means of regenerating our species. To that end, in Christian societies at least, the civil law on marriage (although savaged over recent years by liberal anti-Christian elements from within) has largely reflected church law, with its primary aim the protection of children and the duties of spouses within contracts freely entered into. A strong family is the surest guarantee of a strong society.

It is only a matter of time before Islam (which is now a considerable force in Europe) begins to assert its ideology upon our own institutions. Islamists in our societies freely practise polygamy without let or hindrance from the state, which already forbids bigamous marriages for its citizens. To their credit, Islamists do not patronise the abortion clinics. Soon, by sheer force of numbers, they will out-populate non-Islamists, who resist wedlock and practise birth control by any or all possible means. The host population is being biologically replaced by the newcomers. That is not the fault of the Muslims. As the Muslim population expands, its people will begin to find their way into Parliament, the bureaucracy, the media, the institutions of learning, and most tellingly, into the judiciary. Remember, Article 116 of the Constitution imposes no prohibitive religious tests, even against any religion that openly seeks to destroy all other faiths and governments. Already Muslim judges in Europe are cleverly dispensing sharia law sentences in criminal cases, albeit to a relieved host population long since frustrated by the soft, ultra-liberal, politically correct courts of their own societies.

Imagine therefore what might happen if our High Court and courts of appeal were appointed with Muslims (or their weak-willed supporters) sworn privately to uphold the Koran at the expense of Australian laws and conventions. Let us compare just two aspects of the foundations of the family from the respective points of view of the God of the Old and New Testaments, and the Allah of the Koran. 

Marriage 

Here is Jesus, on marriage and polygamy:            

But from the beginning of Creation, God made them male and female.

For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.

And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore they are now not two, but one flesh.

What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing.

And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.       (Mark 10:2–12; see also Luke 16:18) 

Here is Allah on the same subject: 

Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status above women. Allah is mighty and wise. (Sura 2:228)

Divorce may be pronounced twice, and then a woman must be retained in honour or allowed to go with kindness. (Sura 2:229)

If a man divorces his wife, he cannot remarry her until she has wedded another man and been divorced by him, in which case it shall be no offence for either of them to return to the other, if they think that they can keep within the bounds set by Allah. (Sura 2:230). 

See also the entire chapter titled “Divorce” (Sura 65). 

The age of consent and the innocence of children 

The words of Jesus: 

And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them … and said, “Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven … And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But he that shall scandalise one of these little ones … it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depths of the sea” (Matthew 18:2, 3, 5, 6) 

The record of the will of Allah in Hadith 88, book 7, vol. 62, Title Ursa: 

the prophet [Mohammed] wrote [a contract of marriage] with Ayesha while she was [only] six years old and he consummated his marriage with her when she was [only] nine years old and she remained with him for nine years [that is, until the prophet’s death]. 

Is it theologically possible that a single deity who is the sum of all perfections could be so capriciously self-contradictory towards his creatures, and still remain perfect? 

Ultimately of course, if the Australian Constitution is to be taken seriously, it must first of all protect itself from breach or extinction. Article 116 as presently worded, gives carte blanche “for the free exercise of any religion” which, ludicrously, must include “any religion” that has destruction and replacement of all other systems as its primary and principal mission. That fatal weakness, coupled with an activist judiciary or a craven Parliament, bodes ill for the future integrity and security of this nation.

This is too vital and important a matter to be decided by politicians or the commentariat, because ultimately it concerns future generations of Australians, both privately and as members of a nation. These matters are the privilege and prerogative of the Australian people exercising their independent right as free citizens to determine their present and their future. The only recourse that the Constitution itself permits is the mechanism of the referendum process. Therefore referendums need to be offered to the people of Australia on the matter of two amendments. 

• an amendment to Article 116 of the Constitution which prevents its exploitation in favour of one religion over all others or none;

• an amendment to the Immigration Act, contingent upon the amendment to Article 116 of the Constitution, in which both refugees and immigrants whose religion or political system has as its final aim the overthrow by any means, of the Constitution and Government of Australia, be barred from permanent entry and residence anywhere in any State. 

This matter is of the utmost urgency and is of far greater importance than any other legislation now being considered by Parliament.

The words of Napoleon Bonaparte need to be asked again of all those who live under the protection of the Australian Constitution and its binding force: “Are we a nation, or are you a nation within a nation?”