Praise Allah and Pass the Cudgel

child brideWhat’s all this rubbish about Muslim men not being allowed to beat their wives? All that brouhaha about those two pleasant-looking Muslim ladies explaining sweetly that husbands indeed had a right to deal out a bit of marital biff when warranted. Hear! Hear! Or, if you like, Allahu Akbar!

I note that Muslim Labor federal member Ed Husic unaccountably eschews the beating option “It’s not acceptable in any form to strike anyone, either between husband and wife or anywhere,” he reportedly said. Bad syntax apart, the sentiment is both clear and terribly heretical in my view. Isn’t he the same chap who used the Koran when sworn in as a minister in 2013? What is he thinking about? That’s the question that springs to my mind.

Allah is clear in verse 4:34, unless Mr Husic thinks that Mohammed got that bit wrong from the Archangel Gabriel, or perhaps Gabriel misunderstood Allah, or maybe the mistake is as prosaic as the equivalent of a typing error back in the 600s. Who knows, but I can only assume that Husic takes a selective view of the Koran. Or maybe he is a ninny with no stomach for smiting necks and finger tips as Allah instructed in 8:12.

Allah forbid, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Husic also takes friends from among unbelievers, a direct violation of 4:89.

Mark Durie (The Third Choice) lists sixteen verses of the Koran which set Mohammed on a pedestal as a model to follow. Very convenient, you might think cynically, if you are a mere amanuensis to have the guy in the sky repeatedly anoint you as a positive pillar of virtue. And virtue it seems is in the eye of the holy beholder.

Among other things, the very model of a man to emulate led raids, killed, enslaved, married a six-year old, acquiesced to the killing of those who didn’t like him, and rejoiced in Allah condemning his poor old Uncle Lahab (and his wife) to grisly everlasting fates (111:1-5) for rejecting his message in Mecca. Mahatma Ghandi-like he wasn’t.

Islam is beyond parody. The likes of John Wesley, Alexis de Tocqueville, John Quincy Adams, Bertrand Russell and Winston Churchill called it out long ago. Unfortunately there are no giants these days with the gumption to tell the unvarnished truth. Or, perhaps, even more depressingly, overwhelmingly crippled and compromised by political correctness, there are now none who are able to discern the truth.

Religion, unlike race, is a choice. It is not legitimate to choose, or fail to abandon, a religion which preaches intolerance and violence. An excuse often made is that the Bible is violent too. This is sophistry. The violence is predominantly historical. Where it isn’t; it is dead language. No-one inspired by the Bible preaches stoning for adultery. Advocacy of such punishment is dead and buried.

In contrast the intolerance and violence preached in the Koran is both doctrinal (as distinct from historical) and alive and well. There are literally thousands upon thousands of Islamic clerics who are originalists, who take their riding instructions from the Koran and the Sunna (the doings and sayings of the model man Mohammed). Is there anybody out there who is even remotely unaware that it is a piece of cake to find any number of imams favouring death for apostasy or homosexuality, or who acknowledge the right of a husband to discipline his wife?

Swanning about pretending that they don’t know what’s in their scripture or that its malign parts don’t count is the playbook of ‘moderate Muslims’. This is unacceptable. Islam has form in oppressing women, girls, Christians, Jews, and anyone who doesn’t buy its supremacist bill of goods. And now we have rampant terrorism in the brew. None of this is hidden. It is transparent.

The face of Islam is two Muslim women in Australia openly excusing wife beating. It is Islamic scholar Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar openly proclaiming at an Orlando mosque, not long before Islamic terrorism took many lives at a gay night club in the same city, that “death is the sentence” for homosexuals. “There’s nothing to be embarrassed about…Out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.”

There are countless similar examples of barbaric values brushed aside as inconsequential by organized Muslim pacifiers and dismissed as aberrant by Western glitterati.  They are not inconsequential or aberrant. They form part of Islamic scripture. The two ladies and the Sheik are simply following the script. The real question is what religion apologists for Islam have in mind – because it sure ain’t written-down Islam.

35 thoughts on “Praise Allah and Pass the Cudgel

  • ian.macdougall says:

    According to a survey cited at Gatestone: “The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.”
    Which figures probably translate to Australia.
    Definitely a matter for concern.


    • Jody says:

      None of this – absolutely none of it – surprises me for a megasecond. Nor would it surprise any thinking human being with more than a scintilla of intelligence.

    • gardner.peter.d says:

      This has been well known for a long time. And suppressed by government, its agencies, community groups, academia, the mainstream media, the main political parties in UK.

  • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

    Another loud and clear cry in the wilderness by Peter Smith, to be ignored or dismissed, as usual, by those with the power to do anything about it. Sadly and alarmingly, Quadrant is probably the only medium to publish such a well-warranted, no-holds-barred article, restricting it to the attention of the precious few readers of this politically incorrect magazine, who enthusiastically respond with heartfelt “hear hear”, while others will call it another example of bigoted discrimination against the poor, much-maligned, peaceful Muslims who wouldn’t hurt a fly, as long as it wasn’t homosexual. Cultural jihad has certainly accomplished a great deal in Australia.

    • dmcneice.mel@gmail.com says:

      To Bill, be heartened that Mark Latham is well researched and unafraid to publicly label the Koran the problem. As much as Peter Smith and others do at Quadrant (which I, like you, appreciate), I suspect that old Biffo Latham has the potential to reach a wider audience. When Mark was a leading light of Labor, I was nervous. Now, I applaud him.

    • padraic says:

      Totally agree with you Bill. I was in Melbourne in January for the tennis just after that maniac mowed down those innocent pedestrians. The media all came out and inferred he was a Greek migrant and thus had nothing to do with Islamist terrorism – apparently his mother did not love him, he had substance issues – he was the classic leftist victim of having to live in a society dominated by old anglo-celtic whitemen oppressors etc. Just after it happened and the media were interviewing witnesses, one man said the maniac was shouting “Alluah Akbar” but that clip never saw the light of day thereafter. Tonight, Channel 7 showed evidence that he was actually a jihadist as he shouted Islamist slogans from his cell, much to the horror of his lawyer.

      • Warty says:

        As you imply, Padraic, the MSM are very much part of the problem. It is the sort of response one would expect of the media in Germany or Sweden, except they willingly censor the unpleasant truth here too.
        It doesn’t actually work to allay concern, but simply pushes it underground. I suspect thousands saw that Youtube clip with a witness saying he’d called out Allahu Akbar, as did I (I didn’t call out Allahu Akbar, but I did indeed see the video clip). But more particularly it was the bloke’s murderous actions that identified it as a ‘signature’ ISIS attack. That was enough. It needed no MSM verification.

      • gardner.peter.d says:

        All true, but now we have a new problem, foreseen by the Islamists who introduced the tactic of the ‘the lone wolf’ attack: the useful idiots in the West will always and even more fervently deny the attacks have anything to do with Islam and thereby ensure defences against Islamification are not introduced by democratic means. Even the less gullible will act to maintain ‘stability’ and tolerance. In the meantime, Islam can increase its influence simply by sheer numbers of votes. Easy for them, very difficult to counter. Because it means the West must reconsider Democracy itself and realise what must be preserved is not democracy but the rule of laws of the land at that make democracy possible. That means secure borders around the ‘land’ and anti-immigration policies that discriminate on grounds easily attacked as racist or Islmophobic or nationalist or xenophobic. Freedom to young people no longer means means freedom from state oppression, but freedom to cross borders, to roam the world, to be looked after by the state and join up all states so they can be looked after anywhere. They cannot see that after ten or twenty years Islam will give them the world and all the freedom they want for a while, but eventually, when secure in victory, Islam will demand their total submission. Faustian!.

  • en passant says:

    You have made the case. Islam is a dangerous psychopathic cult that indoctrinates its adherents. Just because we all know a ‘good’ muslim is irrelevant because we are now all in danger from the bad ones.

    These days, a walk along a footpath is a dice with death.
    A female night shift worker going to her car in the carpark risks both Islamic wrath and African barbarism.
    A female muslim child faces a considerable risk of mutilation and forced sex through ‘marriage’ to a cousin from ‘back home’.

    These and many more issues are the downsides as a result (by choice on their part) of a lack of integration, deliberate(?) parasitical dependency (in some cases) on welfare as a cultural norm, creation of enclaves, ‘no-go’ zones and aggression to all non-believers they meet as standard practice by their young men.

    But we have to be positive about this as it is all part and parcel of the ‘strength through diversity’ mantra both the UN and every shade of politician in Oz espouses (except ON).

    So, let’s list the ten great advantages and benefits muslim immigration has brought to our dull laid back culture. You go first:

    1. …

    • Anthony Cox says:

      “the ten great advantages and benefits muslim immigration has brought”

      Just ask those members of parliament in seats decided by the muslim vote: at the 2013 election all of them were alp except one coalition and one green; that has changed slightly but still the alp benefits greatly from the muslim vote. The stupid coalition doesn’t but hasn’t the wit or courage to attack the issue.

  • Ian Matthews says:

    Fraser sold us out, opened the gates and let the enemies of The Enlightenment in. We don’t have a government, state or federal, that is prepared to take a stand against encroaching medievalism and are unlikely to have one in my lifetime – I’m 68. My children and their contemporaries see Islam for what it is so there is some hope left.

  • Warty says:

    Perhaps Peter intentionally failed to omit the fact that Muslims are adjoined to use deception when dealing with infidels. Mr Husic can say what he wants to in parliament, but what exactly is he there for? Could he be a smiley-face Trojan Horse? As Shakespeare says: ‘one may smile and smile and be a villain’ and at this our Muslims do indeed excel.
    One other thing that Peter omits to mention is the fact that we can, as Andrew Bolt did, make reference to six different versions of the passage (4:89), all of which more or less support the same translation,but that this all amounts to a lot of baloney unless verified by at least six top Islamic scholars. So we all fall down, again and again, in not understanding the context in which each and every Qur’anic statement is made: context is crucial, and they get us every time on that one. Arguments become circular, and decidedly out of reach to the infidel. Islam in turn cannot be touched.
    Actually, I’m simply using sophistry, because I agree by the bucket load with all that Peter says. Christianity was not the only religion to undergo a transformation, Judaism did too, beginning in the second century CE becoming the great rabbinical faith it is today, and leaving behind the stoning for adultery that Christ admonished in John 8:7 ‘He that is without sin among you, let him cast first cast a stone at her’, and many of the other Middle Eastern practices that the Muslims held on to. Let’s face it, Islam is imprisoned in a 7th century that we all left, well, fourteen centuries ago.

  • Julian says:

    1st, a caveat – I agree with absurdity of Islam; and Russell, Churchill etc were brave and right for calling it out (in albeit a slightly easier context when the West had greater power and confidence, and the Islamic world hadn’t yet experienced a petrol-revenue-bought Wahabi-led resurgence, and Muslims were a demographic non-entity in Western societies – thank you immigration-led economic growth and its concomitant multiculturalism) and Quadrant (along with parts of the Oz) are one of the few places honest and brave enough to punish such stuff.

    However, what I think is missing is the importance (and this is coming from an atheist) of the SACRED / the IRRATIONAL. Islam, like Christianity, albeit much worse, granted, has a whole truckload of irrational and patently absurd and fantastical beliefs and dogmas (winged horses; revelations; water into wine; 5 x daily prayer, etc etc etc) however, to an extent, that’s missing the point.

    The point is the importance of the sacred / spiritual / profound / non-rational in our communities. Houllebecq’s Submission is very good on this point showing how Islam comes to dominate France in large part b/c French secularism provided a religious/spiritual vacuum that was filled by a fecund and more confident, non-rational Islam (in large part drawn from, if I can say it, non-rational/emotional peoples and home-lands). E.g. young and impressionable Melbourne boy Jake B had some issues and problems so he joined the Hume mosque (instead of the Catholic church, etc – which would have happened in yesteryear) and ended up being used as a suicide truck bomber by radical Islamists in Iraq. The whole issue of prison radicalization probably also is related to this.

    There’s also the tribal / ethnic connection too. E.g. Islam is traditionally an Arab (later, Sth-East Asian) religion ergo it makes sense for reasons of filial / tribal piety and loyalty to stay with “your people’s religion “- e.g. it might be a stupid and idiotic relgion, but it’s MY religion. Arab youth are no more going to give up their religion and ethno-tribal loyalty than are Chinese / Japanese / Latino youth going to severe ties with their in-group (even more so in Islam as the apostasy penalty is, at least, social exclusion and ostracism and, at most, death – see, Hirsi Ali, Rushdie, etc)

    It’s also interesting to see famous non- White/European athletes and celebrities appropriate Islam as ‘their religion’ – no doubt in large part as a reaction against the mainly European/Christian ‘other’ e.g. Muhammad Ali, Anthony Mundine, and now Sonny Bill Williams has joined the gang (his latest jumper controversy has been quite the laugh).

    Anyway, food for thought. Keep up the good work Quadrant.

  • Julian says:

    Typos abound – sorry. *publish *the absurdity etc. But, you get the drift.

  • pgang says:

    I think Peter is being a little bit too bloody minded here. Of course Muslims can ignore the parts of the koran that they don’t like, just as post modern Christians ignore those parts of the Bible that don’t fit inside their individualised comfort zone.

    Peter is one of them, from what I recall. I think there was an article of his recently in which he pronounced parts of the Old Testament unsuitable to his taste and therefore irrelevant to the modern Christian faith. It was probably something to do with God finding homosexuality abhorrent. Very politically incorrect of God, that one.

    Scholars of Hebrew are pretty much agreed that the fist chapters of Genesis are written in a narrative style, and therefore to be taken literally. But many Christians now reject a straightforward reading of the 6 days of creation, in spite of the fact that Jesus himself took it literally, and that without it the whole edifice of salvation comes crashing down. I suspect Peter is probably one of those too.

    So my point is that this seems a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black, and I would call on Peter to take a look at his own approach to his faith.

    If I am wrong in this Peter, please say so.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      The preachers and prophets of all Abrahamic religions all face the same brutally realistic enemy: the astronomical telescope.
      According to Serge Brunier of Sky and Telescope magazine:.

      “… By measuring the number and luminosity of observable galaxies, astronomers put current estimates of the total stellar population at roughly 70 billion trillion (7 x 10^22).”


      That last number, 7 x 10^22, give or take a few, can be written out in long form as:

      As our own fairly ordinary planetary system of ~10 planets is the only one we know, we have to hazard a guess here and put the number of planets one order of magnitude higher, at 7 x 10^23 ~ 10^24

      Yet the Book of Genesis asks us to believe that the Divine Engineer behind this stupendous Universe set up Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with the company of a talking snake, and although omniscient, got taken completely by surprise when they ate of ‘the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil’.

      And what do we call people who spend a lot of time on the ‘knowledge of good and evil.’ We call them philosophers, and practitioners

      • ian.macdougall says:

        (whoops) thereof.
        The disciples of science are included in philosophy. Thus the original sin was independent thought; or philosophy; or science.

        It is thus not surprising that Islamic clerics (like the clerics responsible for the Pentateuch: the Books of Moses in the OT) are down on original thought, nor that the Islamic world is a region of total scientific and intellectual stagnation.

    • prsmith14@gmail.com says:

      You are right pgang I don’t take the first five books literally. Nor, heretically, I suppose, do I believe that being inspired by God means that the flawed human writers got everything right or that those who decided what was in and what was out got everything right. Take the six days of creation – how long was a day at the beginning of time? The answer is a lot longer than it is now because matter was so dense and gravity so strong. – billions of years perhaps. Look, I believe in the creator God and in his ‘son’ Jesus. I also believe that Jesus was crucified for our sins and (unlike a few so-called Christian clerics)that He physically rose from the dead – though of course He was never dead. That’s confusing? Exactly the way I feel. But, we have revealed truth which we accept or we don’t. I do, but not necessarily a literal version of, say, Noah’s Ark. Jesus often talked in parables. Maybe that is the way we should view certain biblical events.

      • ian.macdougall says:

        The trouble with the Genesis-as-parable view is that one interpretation is as good as another. Though I have long since ceased believing in Genesis or the rest of the Bible, sin-and-redemption etc, it remains a foundation of western civilisation, and every child should have some grounding in it, and awareness of it.
        If I was a Christian today, I would be a member of some Bible-thumping fundamentalist sect. If the Bible says Eve was persuaded by a talking snake to commit the Original Sin, the inheritance of which was thereafter transmitted by some Lamarckian process to all humanity, then that’s the way it has to be.
        No ifs or buts.

    • Anthony Cox says:

      I think of all the deceit and hypocrisy and cowardice about islam the most egregious are attempts to establish equivalence: it’s just like Christianity or some other irrelevance and false comparison the apologists say. In fact islam is unique, it is by itself; to paraphrase Sam Harris, islam is like a portal in time with millions of crazed people racing through into the modern world.

      The West could have closed that time portal but I fear that moment has passed; and now there are too many apologists and quislings further undermining the resolve and capacity of the West to force this eschatological monster from the past back into the past.

  • Jody says:

    My less-than-nuanced response (it has to be said) these days is anger. I agree with Gary Johns; he writes today in “The Australian” and asks the legitimate question of why it is Australia’s responsibility to liberalise and modernise Islam. When are we going to hear the answer?

    (the sound of crickets)

    • pgang says:

      Is anybody saying it’s Australia’s responsibility though? We all know that so-called liberalising is nonsense anyway, which is a point on which I fully agree with Peter. I didn’t read Johns’ article (paywalled), but was a little nonplussed by the title.

      • Jody says:

        It BECOMES our responsibility the moment we invite an entire religious demographic into our country, tell them they have unfettered rights and then sit by and watch the consequences of their treatment of women, homosexuals and the valorization of males. In their rights space many of them now promulgate the idea of separate Sharia law. You get that, don’t you?

    • Warty says:

      I most certainly did not agree with Gary’s article, on the simple basis that Islam forms a clear and present danger, so anything they think, do or incite is our business. Should they remain reclusive and antagonistic towards our way of life, then again it’s our business.
      What we can do is up the anti with regards to Turnbull’s new immigration provisions thereby insisting that anyone that comes here needs to integrate or get out, and that this needs to be an ongoing thing, not a mere show of assimilation. It is not a right to be here, but an honour. A carrot and stick approach may help them consider liberalising themselves, so again, it is very much our business that they do.

  • Keith Kennelly says:


    Christ rejected the Hebrew bible on which most of the Old Testament is based.

    The Christian churches base their beliefs entirely on the Epistles of the apostles and the New Testament.

    They don’t put any faith in the parables of the violent and extremist Old Testament. A few of the Hebrew bible stories contained in the Old Testament have been edited and the messages given are different. Read the stories of the good samaratin for example. They have quite different conclusions and are chalk and cheese.

    If you studied ancient literature you would see the source of many of the Hebrew bible stories.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Oh I think a reading of the Hebrew bible should give sufficient credibility.
    As would the tale of Christ arguing with the Hebrew priests.
    As would the conflicts of ‘an eye for an eye’ and ‘forgive one another’ and ‘love thine enemy’.
    As would the tale of Christ stopping the stoning of the adulteress. ‘Who without sin can cast the first stone.’

    Simple truths.

    Have a read of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Which dates from Mesopotamia from 1500BC.

    Research Constantine’s Councils at Nicea.

    Then read if the Precept of Ptah Hotep and Amin Hotep’s Book of the Dead. Follow the that thread and read of the first Monotheist, Akhenatem

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Akhenatem and Nefritti and the expulsion of the monotheists from Egypt soon after his time.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    I was raised a Catholic and was taught the Old Testament was merely a series of parables and that the message of Christianity was found only in the New Testament.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Men wrote the Bibles, both Hebrew and Christian, not God.
    Just as menwrote the Egyptian books, including the legendary Book of Thoth. We know the Book of Thoth because the Greeks copied some 42 volumes (Called the famed Book of Hermes) and they were found and interpreted in about 1400AD. These books contained all the ancient knowledge of science, mathematics, astrometry, astrology, medicine, oratory etc or generally all the secrets of the universe.

    Care to check?

  • gardner.peter.d says:

    It is very tempting to argue that education is the answer. But what would the national curriculum be if set by the government or one of its agencies? The truth is that democracy is not capable of defending itself. It never has been. It has flourished only when the right conditions have been created within the territory of a coherent tolerant society. Modern society is tolerant but not coherent. Governments that reflect democratic will are therefore weaker. Islamification could proceed quite legitimately, simply by securing enough influence through numbers of votes. It need say nothing of its true purpose until the time is right. At that point the laws will change to impose Sharia by popular will. Of course, more gradual, and less linear in practice but the principle holds. It can be resisted only by a philosophical argument about the nature of Islam. All Muslim candidates for election to any influential position must be challenged on their Islamic beliefs. This can only be done if there is a law permitting discrimination on religious grounds. The law is designed for the opposite intention on the basis that the unity sought is between branches of Christianity and tolerance of minority religions that at the time were no threat. They all remain no threat to democracy except Islam. We must find a way of securing a constitutional, legal basis for the continuation of nation states defined by territory that have no place for Sharia or government by Islamic doctrine. Conversely, it must be recognised that arts of the wold may submit to Islam, and therefore, these countries are where Muslims should be at home, and just like us, when in other countries they respect and abide by the laws, practices and customs of the people whose land they are in.

    • Julian says:

      This is fantastic, and as people like Mark Steyn have pointed out the demographic advantage to fecund and assertive Muslims in ‘multi-cultural’, relativistic and ‘tolerant’ liberal Western democracies with depressed birth-rates will soon become more apparent in the years and decades to come.

      I often find it interesting to compare the Western democracies response to Islam (in a sense, the short-term security state and long-term capitulation due to excessive relativism; vs the Japanese example (democratic, and low birth rates, but essentially no mass-immigration, so not imperiled and no need for excessive and intrusive security) and the Chinese example (autocratic and therefore it can be managed via things like increased control, security and repression – e.g. passport bans in Xin-Jiang etc.) Keep up the good work.

Leave a Reply