Defining the Problem With Allah

slice and dice IIIn the wake of the recent and horrific Orlando massacre, political leaders, experts, commentators, and letter writers have trotted out just about every rationale they could think of to explain this dreadful incident: gay hate, ISIS, mental instability, terrorism, radical Islam, US gun culture, and loan wolves.

While some or all of the above may have played a part, they are all delusions when it comes to the real issue of resurgent Islam (see Kidding Ourselves About Islam). There was, however, one factor that is common to this and similar terrorist events: the perpetrator is reported to have shouted “Allahu Akbar”.

Yes, we need to talk about Allah.

Who is Allah? Allah is regarded as the spiritual monotheistic god who revealed himself to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel over about a 30-year period around AD 630. These revelations form the Koran, which contains the precepts that direct Muslims in their daily life. It is possible that the following precepts of the Koran may have had a bearing on Omar Mateen’s actions.

You who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies: they are allies only to each other. Anyone who takes them as an ally becomes one of them—Allah does not guide such wrongdoers. (The Feast 5:51)

The believers should not make the disbelievers their allies rather than other  believers— anyone who does such a thing will isolate himself completely from Allah—except when you need to protect yourself from them. Allah warns you to beware of Him: the Final Return is to Allah. (The Family of Imran 3:28)

With these thoughts in mind, Mateen may have been encouraged in his actions by the following or like directives.

[Prophet], tell the disbelievers that if they desist their past will be forgiven, but if they persist, they have an example in the fate of those that went before. [Believers], fight them until there is no more persecution, and all worship is devoted to Allah alone: if they desist, then Allah sees all that they do, but if they pay no heed, be sure that Allah is your protector, the best protector and the best helper. (Battle Gains 8:38- 40)

You who believe, fight the disbelievers near you and let them find you standing firm: be aware that God is with those who are mindful of Him. (Repentance 9:123)

These precepts are very challenging. How do you convince people to behave in this fashion? A good way is to give them an incentive and Allah does so by offering the joys of paradise: it is possible that these could have been attractive to Mateen.

As for those who believe and do good deeds, We shall admit them into Gardens graced with flowing streams and there they will remain forever. They will have pure spouses there, and We shall admit them into cool refreshing shade. (Women 4:57)

They will have familiar provisions—fruits— and will be honoured in gardens of delight; seated on couches, facing one another. A drink will be passed round among them from a flowing spring: white, delicious to those who taste it, causing no headiness or intoxication. With them will be spouses—modest of gaze and beautiful of eye—like protected eggs. (Ranged in Rows 37:41- 49)

However, those joys of paradise will only be available to a person worthy of them. A Muslim becomes worthy by three actions. First, they must say they are sorry for their wrongs. Secondly, they must believe in the fundamentals of Islam — Allah, his angels, the Qur’an, Muhammad, the last day, and that no good or evil comes other than from Allah. Thirdly, they must do good deeds, specifically the following: praying, almsgiving, pilgrimage, fasting, and testifying. Good deeds are crucial to being declared righteous and worthy of paradise.

On that Day the weighing of deeds will be true and just: those whose good deeds are heavy on the scales will be the ones to prosper, and those whose good deeds are light will be the ones who have lost their souls through their wrongful rejection of Our messages. (The Heights 7:8- 9)

The Crashing Blow! What is the Crashing Blow? What will explain to you what the Crashing Blow is? On a Day when people will be like scattered moths and the mountains like tufts of wool, the one whose good deeds are heavy in the scales will have a pleasant life, but the one whose good deeds are light will have the Bottomless Pit for his home—what will explain to you what that is? –a blazing fire. (The Crashing Blow 101:1- 10)

However, there is a difficulty here in that Allah never defines how many good deeds a person needs to perform, or how ‘good’ the deeds have to be to qualify them for paradise.  So Muslims may be easily convinced, either by others or by their own uncertainty, to increase the quantity and/or quality of their ‘good deeds’ in their desire to please Allah and achieve paradise. In some cases, through the actions of an astute handler, an individual may be convinced to ratchet up the level of their ‘good deeds’.

The former ‘good deeds’ could then be enhanced to include wearing a berka in public places, supporting ISIS, or recruiting people to go to Iraq, or singing protest songs, and so on. It is not hard to see that good deeds could escalate to the point where we see quite horrific ‘good deeds’ being perpetrated for Allah. This is coercive management of the highest order.

In considering all the above it is possible to envisage why Omar Mateen carried out the Orlando massacre: as his life expired did he see paradise? We can also understand why Muslims are reluctant to get involved when an incident of this type happens. In the big scheme of things, as far as Allah is concerned, couyld Mateen’s and other similar acts be considered ‘good deeds’?

It is Allah and his precepts that require Australian citizens to cope with the following.

  • Billions of dollars being spent on overseas conflicts, anti-terrorist activities, special police task forces, deradicalisation programs, border security, and programs aimed at placating Allah’s community.
  • Being directed to be on the alert for signs of terrorist activity. Clearly 9/11, London, Bali, Paris, Brussels, Ankara, Orlando, Baghdad and the like are front of mind of our security services.
  • In spite of the above, innocent Australian citizens have to accept that they are at risk from physical harm or death at the hand of resurgent Islamic fighters: hostages to terror in their own country.
  • The Australian community is being continually subject to abuse and disdain by people who will not stand up for the Crown, who preach abusive sermons in mosques that bring people to tears, and who employ mischievous language in media events.
  • Stand-alone suburbs, complete with mosques for Allah’s followers, are said to be being considered. A form of tribalism.
  • Financial institutions are said to be considering incorporating Allah’s financing strategies into the Australian financial system for the sake of petro-dollar investment.
  • The Prime Minister of the day holds a banquet on government property at taxpayer’s expense to celebrate a religious festival to curry Islamic voters’ favour. Australians are offended by such discriminatory displays.
  • The rise of a number of organizations of dubious origin who are stirring up hatred and dissention against Muslims and Islam: counterproductive but indicative of a disturbing restiveness in the community.
  • Islamic leaders question some outcomes of Australia’s recent electoral process.
  • The media continually awash with Islamic related issues.

It has been implied that Australians have to grin and bear these and like situations indefinitely: perhaps for 100 years! This is both unacceptable and utterly impractical. Australian’s have become a hostage to Allah in their own country. How has it come to this?

By way of background, it is generally accepted that Australia’s secular democracy is founded on the Judeo-Christian heritage found in the Bible. The Koran states that Allah is one and the same spiritual person as the god whose precepts are found in the Bible: God. A previous article (see Islam and the Constitution) examined how the precepts of God compare with the previous precepts of Allah we looked at in relation to Mateen’s rampage in Orlando. The referenced article demonstrates the gulf between the precepts of Allah and God. A more complete study of the theology of the Koran and the Bible shows that the respective precepts of Allah and God are diametric opposites. The idea that Allah and God can be one and the same spiritual entity, as the Koran implies, is fanciful. Consequently, by association, Islam and Australia’s secular democracy are incompatible.

Unfortunately, Australia’s leadership and the elite, either by ignorance or common accord, ignore 1,500 years of Islamic history – a blind eye compounded by a lack of understanding of the theologies and differences between Islam and Christianity. This has made it easy for Islam to claim to be a “religion of peace” and receive approbation under the sheltering arms of political correctness and multiculturalism at all levels of public life. Whatever the latest Islamic outrage, apologists and rationalisers will line up to deny any connection with Islam.

Some time ago the late Colonel Gaddafi noted that Islam would conquer Europe simply by weight of numbers and birth rates. With a significant and ever-growing Muslim population, Australia is not immune to the same outcome. Demographically, Islam’s influence on both politics and daily life – bag searches at major stadiums, for example, are now standard operating procedure – are inevitable over the years and decades to come.

There is little point in expecting politicians or the media to step up to the truth: they are the captives of their desire to please all their constituents. Allah thrives on this weakness. Last week, Premier Mike Baird, together with Laborites Foley and Burke, made the pilgrimage to Lakemba to take part in celebrations for the end of Ramadan. What message does that send, other than an acceptance and approbation of Allah’s precepts? No counter views were expressed by this gutsy trio.

The most important task of leaders is to keep their populations safe from harm. This should not only be in respect of physical harm or subjugation but also from moral and spiritual harm. I challenge Baird, Foley, Bourke and any other politician or would-be leader to outline their plans for eliminating the behaviors itemized earlier in this piece and for ensuring that their children’s grandchildren will not have to contend with an Islamic caliphate and Sharia law. Islamic leaders are also welcome to chime in.

Jim Campbell, an engineer and consultant, is the author of The Logic of the Qur’an

27 thoughts on “Defining the Problem With Allah

  • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

    The concluding three paragraphs make the rest of Jim Campbell’s article rather superfluous. Exploring the unfathomable bizarre, contradictory mysteries of the Koran – something done to death by a distinguished list of experts – gets us nowhere. Most of us have a fair idea of the evil therein. Islam must be confronted head on! Muslim leaders are to be “shirt fronted”, challenged to confirm or deny that Islam is dedicated to destroy, to eliminate everything that is not Islam. Of course, ISIS has already provided a very definitive answer to that question. But since we are told that they are not “real Muslims”, we need to hear the response of the “moderate, peaceful” Muslims in our midst.

    • Jim Campbell says:

      Bill – difficult be moderate and peaceful when your touchstone is the Koran, that was the point of the part of the article you found superflous – you say ‘most of us have a fair idea of the evil therein’ – why then are our leaders and most of the commentariat so besotted with Islam? – Christianity, the basis of our secular democracy, is rubbished – as I say, we are scoring own goals – and don’t hold your breath for a response from the ‘moderate and peaceful’.

  • Rob Ellison says:

    Despite recent media coverage about the dangers of Islamic terrorism – a clear majority of Australians support Muslim immigration (65% support cf. 28% oppose) – this is significantly higher than five years ago in July 2010 when 54% supported and 35% opposed Muslim immigration. A large majority of Australians also support Asylum seeker immigration (71% support cf. 21% oppose) compared to a closer split in July 2010 (52% support cf. 39% oppose).


    Rather than argue a theology that is so little understood. It remains a fairly minor consideration in the scheeme of things. As indeed is gay marriage or seemingly any other shibboleth of Quadrant commentators. Stay true guys – it is the quickest route to irrelevancy.

    • Rob Brighton says:

      Arguing that consensus means one’s views may be or become irrelevant is as dodgy an argument as I have heard. At one point everyone knew that the world was flat.

      “Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus and the feeling that whatever you think you are bound to be ok because you are part of the safely moral majority. My own opinion is enough for me. And I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. ” Christopher Hitchens

    • Bwana Neusi says:

      Arguing that a poll of 647 people (over the age of 14) represents a clear majority of Australians is quite a long bow. Where was the telephone poll taken? It was claimed that it was Australia wide – Lakemba perhaps.

      • Rob Ellison says:

        That’s why there are confidence limits. It’s all about stat-tis-tics. Not ad hoc, uninformed complaints about the methods of Australia’s leading polling organisation. Gee whizz – can we get get any more dumb?

  • Rob Brighton says:

    Defining issues in Islam on the basis of Judea Christian heritage is pointless and damaging. There are sufficient reasons to question the viability of Muslim immigration without resorting to comparative religious arguments that ensure reason fails to get a seat at the table.

    To do so falls into the very trap that has been laid by those who would do us harm. It is an argument that adherents to Islam are better prepared to fight.

    They do not come to the table with the civilised religious viewpoint that we are used to in the west.

    Despite my view that all religion is wrong in exactly the same way or perhaps because of it, it strikes me as strategically unsound path.

  • brian.doak@bigpond.com says:

    Thankfully Jim Campbell and most Quadrant readers recognize the problems of Mohammedanism, constant violence and turmoil in the Middle East and now here.
    Once we had a selective immigration policy, colloquially called ‘the white Australia policy’ which was designed to prevent the multicultural problems we now have. The Labor Party was once the strongest on selective immigration but now finds more benefit in reaping the welfare vote. Tony Burke would think Mohammedan immigration with its high welfare dependency is good for the Welfare Party and good for his reelection security.
    So Labor and Greens get their vote and ABC and SBS side with Labor/Greens and nearly all media people are generally that way inclined. Include the odd church people, who must mistakenly think Jesus had no objection to the Pharisees and their inclination to stone supposedly adulterous women, and it is no wonder our doors are open to what seems to an alert few to be one of mankinds most virulent and destructive ideologies. It has been said that Mohammedanism could be called International Phariseeism – ritualised public prayer, circumcision for male [and female], clean and unclean food restrictions, polygamy, stoning of women.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      Thankfully Jim Campbell and most Quadrant readers recognize the problems of Mohammedanism, constant violence and turmoil in the Middle East and now here.

      Religion, any religion or ideology you care to name, functions as a social glue. To my knowledge that thesis was first advanced by one of the classical founders of sociology, the 19thC French thinker Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). The group: congregation, tribe or whatever, worships itself. Thus the doctrine that we believe is not so important as the fact that we all believe it together. Our religion, whatever it is, precisely because it is our social glue, has to be kept intact. Hence the opposition to heresy, apostasy and irreligion, particularly on the part of religious professionals and totalitarian leaders, who add an extra dimension: because keeping the group, congregation or whatever together and preferably growing, is literally their bread and butter.
      Islam began as a warrior creed: one holy book; one author, and totalitarian virtually from Day One. Christianity began by way of contrast, among the Jews of the Roman-occupied Levant, and it has many sometimes contradictory books, collected together in the Old and New Testaments, and these have many different, sometimes contradictory, messages and authors. A major concern of Christ was devising a way for the Jews to avoid conflict with their Roman overlords: thus the Sermon on the Mount in particular.
      Both Christianity and Islam have been considerably modified by later generations of believers, particularly by the professionals: Christianity to make it compatible with projects of imperial conquest on the part of Christian nations, and Islam to make it possible for Muslims to coexist with unbelievers, infidels, or whatever the current term for them is. The zealots of Islam, the Islamists, can make life hard for the less-zealous majority of their fellow believers.

      • Jody says:

        Agree, Ian. But that last sentence also applies to non-believers and infidels. What’s so frightening to me is that the tentacles of Islamic fanaticism have now manifested themselves in second generation immigrants who are mostly the educated middle class. In that circumstance one MUST look at the new host culture, i.e. Australia. We are getting it wrong by having an increasingly sectarian society. It’s called “multiculturalism” rather than “Australianism”.

  • Solo says:

    I feel that I should point out that the research mentioned previously in the comments here had a relatively small sample size of 647 respondents, aged 14 and above which put it into the “taken with wheelbarrow of salt” category.

    I don’t believe we should be picking piecemeal at the Koran anymore. It is an easy target and the unfamiliar will simply pick similar verses out of the Old Testament regarding slaying women and children after the sack of particular cities and make a comparison.

    I like to make my argument more in terms of Islam being a way of life – a total encapsulation of a way of living that is independent from Western (or any other) lifestyle. Simply, a Muslim needs Allah, the rules in the Koran, and kinship with other Muslims. If a Muslim has all these things, what can Western society give to them? Nothing, only a soft and weak host to paralyse and consume.

    If indeed conservative thought has become irrelevant, I worry for the future.

    • Rob Ellison says:

      Plug in some numbers. What size sample do you need?


      The sample is big enough to mean well outside confidence limits. It pays to have a little statistical sophistication.

      But really? It is Australia’s most credible pollster. Failing some mathematical bent – you need to take something on trust – on the basis of credibility. Not just what you like to be the facts.

      • Rob Ellison says:

        … the sample is big enough for the results to be statistically significant…

        • Solo says:

          Yes Rob, I understand sample sizes, and yes, it would definitely appear the results were significant. I still maintain however, that you could easily skew the data in your participant recruitment. And yes, I know that is covered as well, but obviously things like phone interviews are probably going to be more successful on people who are either activists or at least politically engaged. Perhaps they feel a social pressure to respond favourably? I’m sure you know all the foibles of participant recruitment. My point is that grabbing the results of one phone interview and putting it up as representative of ALL of Australia’s view just appears a bit flimsy.

          We could easily take some more random samples of 647 people and get very different responses.

          • Rob Ellison says:

            We might easily get a result with the specified confidence within significant limits. Where respondents are not self selected – such as with newspaper polls – you’d assume an unbiased distribution of views.

            The usual way of skewing results is with the way questions are framed. By all means pick a survey – but choose one from an organisation with no agenda to push.

          • Rob Ellison says:

            71/21 in favour of refugee immigration is a large margin.

  • Solo says:

    I’m not disagreeing. The margin is definitive for that sample. Itd make a great headline for The Guardian or BuzzfeedOz. The research company might not have an agenda, but they still need to make a dollar. Imaging 647 responses from North Queensland or rural NSW?

  • iain says:

    Great piece – thanks jim – the more we read and hear of the dangers of islam, the better. Also, i thnk RE neds a hug.

    • Jim Campbell says:

      Thanks iain – yeah, I’d give him one if he got his head out of statistics – you know lies, damned lies and ……….. – he’s probably into computer models as well, global warming, etc.- funny how an article on the good for this nation could be sidetracked by such arcane stuff

  • Lacebug says:

    May I humbly suggest that perhaps Rob Ellison is a young lion of Islam himself? Rob advocates the stoning of women and homosexuals, he advocates the slaying of the infidel. In earlier times Rob might be what is known as a traitor. However, in these times of globalisation there are no longer traitors; just apologists and sympathisers. Rob sees those of us who are disturbed by the rise of Islam as irrelevant. Perhaps we are, but at least we won’t go away without defending what we know to be right.

Leave a Reply